TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

bronco78 wrote:The need to deescalate is not the same as warn.. we have no requirement to warn someone we are about to use deadly force to stop a threat.. And I think a person who does so is ill advised..

Well, I agree that I am not going to warn someone that I am going to use any means of self defense. But I will -- and have -- told someone to "STOP".

Actually I don't have an issue with "Stop" I thought that was evident in what i did state above?

I was adding to your point, not disagreeing with it. We were on the same page. Sorry I wasn't clear.

That ol flat looking text, no visual or verbal clues problem..

Got ya thanks..

Erik

But I too was not as clear as I wanted to be... I maintain, the before draw, a warning is a bad idea...
At the same time, POST draw, if the attacker has taken pause, I would LOUDLY announce my intent to stop the threat ... at this point if time allows like another said I WANT to be noticed, I want folks to hear I warned the attacker....at this point Im not longer concerned with giving the attacker an advantage before I present my weapon. At this point I have drawn my weapon, moved to a better position if possible, scanned the area for another attacker and NOW will loudly have a chatty session about me being concerned for my safety, I will defend myself, and give the attacker an out...."Walk away and this ends"

Personally Im not playing deputy dog and detaining a violator.... catching criminals AFTER the crime is what LEOS do best,, that’s there job.. not ours, ours is to go home alive. And if I can desolate by way of providing an out... then later a full accounting and description of the event, plus offer to bear witness for the prosecution... it's a win win win.. I go home alive, bad guy gets caught, I do not have to retain a very expensive lawyer and defend my shooting.

Jumping Frog wrote:

bronco78 wrote:The need to deescalate is not the same as warn.. we have no requirement to warn someone we are about to use deadly force to stop a threat.. And I think a person who does so is ill advised..

Well, I agree that I am not going to warn someone that I am going to use any means of self defense. But I will -- and have -- told someone to "STOP".

Actually I don't have an issue with "Stop" I thought that was evident in what i did state above?

Sorry if that was not clear..

To me, "STOP" does not imply intent to do anything if they don't... So it's a way to tell the person your concerned, ..and if they truly have no bad intentions they will heed your request.
..

I do agree saying a short something to gain the attention of the person, in hopes they just don't realize they are making you feel uncomfortable..is a good plan.. Holding a conversation in a high stress situation and speaking several key scripted phrases, that WILL come back on you later is not likely to turn out well... if it comes out as more then gibberish at all.... People forget how to speak in situations like these.

Thomas wrote:"STOP."

After all, you only allowed to shoot to stop, not shoot to make that person have a bad day, or shoot to make that person go away. I'm not saying you have to shoot, only if that person doesn't stop. You can only legally draw if you have legal justification for shooting.

Now after the person stops, if the person doesn't run away, I might tell him/her to drop any weapons and lay down on the floor. I'll also tell the person that any other movements will be perceived as trying to harm me in which case I WILL shoot. I'll also let the person know that Texas has no law against shooting someone in the back. (I don't want to have to shoot someone, especially in the back, but they won't know that by the demeanor I present.)

Im just guessing.... but..
You have never faced and or engaged a person needing deadly force? (THIS IS NOT A POKE OR A FLAME, but an observation based on what was written)

Oh and... your cite is a bit off....

"you only allowed to shoot to stop"

is not what the law states,, I'm sure you know that and were just taking the very specific verbiage of the law and personalizing it to say and mean what supported your opinion... but for the rest of us... That's not what it says.

The need to deescalate is not the same as warn.. we have no requirement to warn someone we are about to use deadly force to stop a threat.. And I think a person who does so is ill advised..
By all means attempt if possible to deescalate the situation, from handing over the decoy wallet, to a “hey I don’t want trouble, just walk away”
But if you have decided deadly force is what you need to stop a threat, the LAST thing you want to do is warn that person threatening you, those are your intentions.
Opinions vary, some here will disagree,,,and say, .. Well I will show them my weapon.. or I’ll put my hand on my weapon to scare them,, or make comments like you have suggested above..

If that’s what works for them ,, ok.. but I strongly disagree..

May just be my upbringing, education, training and personal experience, but for me, and those I train, bottom line… my attacker will get zero warning I am about to draw an edged weapon or firearm and defend myself.


I’ve never faced a trial for using deadly force.. If I do I may find the Jury disagrees with me and convicts me for having not warned my attacker first... I hope to never find out... But If I do stand trail someday for defending myself.... The state will likely not have my attacker available as a witness.