TexasCHLforum.com

terryg wrote:

JayCee wrote:Well that's too bad you feel that way, honestly. I came here with good intentions

I sincerely thought that this might have been the case - and I think that some posters were a bit short in the beginning. I was hoping this might be a case to demonstrate that de-escalation can be as helpful in this forum as it is in the wide wild world.

I understand that you feel ganged up on. But I cannot defend your replies - especially your most recent ones. You are only proving true the original remarks that your attitude is likely is what got you into the predicaments you described and yet you remain oblivious to it and attempt to maintain your perceived victim status.

And yet, if I am honest with myself, I am mostly saddened at losing the example case I attempted to make.

So, despite my description of the events you assume by my subsequent postings (in which you freely admit I was set upon) that I caused the problems I posted about? Please tell me you're not a DA or prosocution Attny!

terryg wrote:

bdickens wrote:You're planning on getting banned, aren't you?

Yeah, I feel somewhat ashamed that I stuck up for him a little in the other thread. I do think that our forum can be quick to label new people sometimes and, IMO, that helped escalate the tone in this case. But it seems that he had a date with inevitability and intends on making it - one way or the other.

Well that's too bad you feel that way, honestly. I came here with good intentions but I fell into the trap that certain instigators layed. Jokes on me. I played my part once things got bad but I didn't come here for that and I think that's exactly what the record shows.

Why hasn't this been locked yet? They locked my innocuious anecdoted in the other forum and this one is way worse.

Hoi Polloi wrote: 3b. You were a motorist who was behind the wheel of a deadly weapon and means of escape who was legally obligated to yield to those at your left and to merge behind if necessary and as able. But you revved up your little sports car and cut off a truck who was moving with the flow of traffic and had no obligation to alter his speed or course for you, thus ticking off the truck driver, then you threatened him with the use of deadly force by intentionally displaying a firearm in order to threaten and scare him. There are so many things wrong with this scenario on its own (meaning illegal acts by you creating and escalating the conflict) that comparing it to an innocent civilian wandering down the street and having a motorist try to run the person over for no reason is a disingenuous comparison at best.

Again, you have to give some benefit of doubt for the sake of discussion. This guy was straddling 2 lanes and holding up traffic in both lanes as a result, I had a car on my bumper as did the truck so there was no room to go anywhere and I was running out of lane. I wasn't the only one that honked at him either. Trust me, I'll always take the safer option and that was to go around him. He got irritated because he got honked at and decided to take it too far. Again, when he say my pistol the whole thing evaported so how exactly did I cause it to escalate?
If you can read and understand all that and STILL find me in the wrong then we're simply on different worlds.

So wait, now we're anti-honkling now? So I'm in the wrong for honking at someone to bring attention to the fact they're in 2 lanes!?!? Wow, off our meds are we? This is getting ridiculous...

VMI77 wrote:

JayCee wrote: I didn't point it, didn't fire it...just pulled it out and placed it on my seat so if I do end up in a wreck and he comes to finish the job I have a weapon ready.

And just where do you think that weapon you put on the seat was going to be after a wreck?

Oh great, more of the what-if game. It was a crappy situation and bad choices were made. Moving along...

JayCee wrote:
On one particular occasion I was leaving work and attempting to merge on the Hwy but there was an orange Avalanche that was halfway in the right lane and the merge/exit lane. I gave him a few seconds to either exit or enter the hwy but he stayed there for several seconds and was unaware or too intoxicated to tell what was going on. Well, I had to get on so he needed to move. I honked at him in case he didn't realize what he was doing at which point he swerved at me, looking me dead in the eye. I dropped a gear and sped up (sports car vs truck, duh) to get around him and he began to chase me, tailgating me even as I changed lanes and tried to evade. I could have layed on the gas and lost him eventually but that would have been dangerous for me and other drivers, so since he was so close he could probably read my radio station, I pulled my pistol from the console, cocked it and layed it on the seat in clear view. Fortunately that made him reconsider his course of action and he immediately backed off 10 car lengths.
Now I know and feel that I did the right thing since calling 911 while trying to evade some crazy redneck would have put me at greater risk (and accomplished nothing) than simply displaying the fact that I can make this altercation a lot more serious than some bumpkin with a grudge is willing to take it. The question is, was I right in the eyes of the law?

Another time I was driving with my fiancee and out of nowhere a car passes me on the shoulder doing at least 90 (I drive around 10 over and don't loiter in the left lane, FYI), cuts me off and brake checks me. The car is driven by a big black man and has TVs in the visors; so not to stereotype, but this guy was either gang affiliated or wants people to think he is. I try to avoid him, change lanes and sure enough as soon as he gets a chance he's in front of me again, stomping on his brakes. It's night time but traffic is moving at decent speed but is so thick that theres not a lot of room to manuver so basically we're stuck with a guy in close proximity that apparently wants to cause an accident or worse. At several points the other car was beside us and I had no way of knowing if I or my fiancee were going to be shot in the face. I wasn't carrying my pistol that night (and regretted it ever since). My question is: if I was carrying and those events transpired, would I be justified in shooting the other driver car-to-car? Let me reiterate: there was no backing down or running away given the traffic.
Is it justifable to use a weapon to preempt assault?

...and for all those that might be led to believe that I somehow caused these events with either bad or aggressive driving, just let it go. I'm a very safe and considerate, mature driver and have the record to show for it![/quote]

There, I bolded the parts that people seem to be struggling with.

esxmarkc wrote:you were flipping out driving like a maniac and brandishing a gun.

See, this is what gets me and I think is a huge source of what caused this to get so out of control. No where did I allude to driving like a maniac and waving a gun. It sounds like you and many others simply grazed over my OP, formed your own conclusions and then got them reinforced by the responding commenters. I didnt even have a gun and all I did was try to evade. BTW I'm not sure how many of you have been in heavy traffic at night but in the few seconds it took for this thing to transpire I had no where to pull over and who's to say that would have been the safest thing anyway? I was having a hard enough time dodging a psycho and trying to keep him from pulling beside me. Sometimes it's just not that easy guys, try and understand that. I'd love to put some of you guys in the same boat and see how well you respond.

In the second scenario I was being chased from one side of the hwy to another with a 4000# truck inches from my bumper. That stretch of hwy has a barricade on one side and a HOV lane on the other and the next exit was a couple miles down. I did my best to avoid getting hit from behind and in an instant I chose poorly and pulled a gun. I didn't point it, didn't fire it...just pulled it out and placed it on my seat so if I do end up in a wreck and he comes to finish the job I have a weapon ready. Was it legal? No, and all I was looking for was that answer. Personally I take issue with the letter of the law as it pertains to situations like that and hopefully I'll never have to even deal with it.
Do not project your biases and experiences on me and post about what you 'think' happened. You're wrong, plain and simple and if I'm the only one that ever knows that; I'm OK with that.

I'm over this. I found out what I wanted to know, agree with it or not. Here's a big thank you to the ones that took the time to give an honest and reasonable response. To the rest: meh...I should probably know better by now how these places work.

A mod should come in and clean up all this back forth bull and just keep the pertinant info.

Wow well this got out of hand didn't it.

Look I got the answers I came for but I'm not going to sit here and have people pass judgement on me for doing what I did in a bad situation while unaware for the law or paint me in a bad light because they read others comments and jumped on the bandwagon of bashing me. It seems that most of seem to think that I just got cut off or flipped the bird, if so you need to go and re-read what I wrote. I assure you that this was much worse. My fiancee was terrified and for a good 45 seconds I was doing everything I could to dodge drunk drivers and another car intent on harming us. I'm GLAD that most of you have never been in my place, I'm GLAD the worst thing you've seen is a middle finger. Most of the time, that's as bad as it gets. I experience minor incidents weekly in my 400 mile per week drive but these were above and beyond what would be the 'new normal' for roadway behavior. End of story.

I never disrespected anyone who intended to inform me but I damn sure will have words with someone who tries to paint me as some crazy road warrior waving a gun whenever possible.That's simply not the case. BTW My best friend just got back from serving 6 years in combat in Iraq and I have many other military and LEO as friends and am the son of a disbled vet so DON'T EVER tell me that I don't respect those that serve. I'm just seeing about a 60/40 split here in that some of you are wise and knowledgeable and the others have seen too many episodes of Walker: Texas Ranger and think they can pass judgement on others based on their limited life experience.

Sure, I do enjoy debating issues but that doesn't mean I'm discounting the information or the sources. Aren't public forums for debating?

So let me propose this question: what would a cop do if someone did to them what was done to me? Why is the protocol different just because I'm a civilian? What if you were walking down the street and someone tried to run you over could you draw on them? Why or why not?

austinrealtor wrote:

JayCee wrote:Also FWIW the word should be defuse, not diffuse. You're removing the fuse fro ma bomb, not misting a plant.

You're absolutely correct here. I went back and realized I used the wrong word in one of my previous posts and changed it.

Of course,you started this thread with the incorrect word "diffuse" in your title .... just sayin'

Hey I'm a terrible speller and I'm winging it without my trusty firefox spellchecl so I take my small victories when I can.
;)

jimlongley wrote:

JayCee wrote:1st off, I'm not a troll.

But you kind of act like one.

That said, consider this: You do not seem to have a CHL, or at least I have not seen any indication that you do. If this is the case, the mere act of placing your firearm in plain view, in order to intimdate or defuse, was a violation of the law far above your admitted predeliction for breaking traffic laws.

Here's something to consider: What if the Avalanche driver only backed off because HE was dialling 911? I can hear his side now "Officer, this nut in a sports car just came up along side me, and instead of just merging with traffic, and there was plenty of room behind me, tried to push in where I was, and then he waved a gun at me. His license plate is XXX-XXX."

Are you sure there isn't a report out there with your name on it right now?

I do not readily accept the old "everbody speeds" or "we all roll stop signs now and then" stuff, because not everybody does, I certainly don't and I AM a subset of everybody.

OK 'Subset' I guess you're another one on his high moral horse here. I've mentioned several timss that I don't have a CHL. That's why I'm getting the dumb questions out of the way here, before they get me black flagged from class ;)

Look, bottom line, legal or not if I feel threatened and fear for my life and feel that I have no other recourse (despite that some of you seem to have flying cars or can teleport out of harms way) then I'm going to threaten force. I can only assume by the responses here that most of you have NEVER experienced anything like the incidents I described so it's arrogant to armchair quaterback me when you weren't there.

And for extra irony, here's some comments from the mopac shooting story Excal posted:

Do you know what the usual cop response is when a fleeing suspect repeatedly swerves at a cop's car? The cop almost always opens up on the fleeing subject's car's windows, most of the time the back window because the car has already gone by and is no longer an immanet threat. The reason, the the car was considered a deadly weapon and 'the officer was in fear for his life.'



I'm not down on the police by any means but I also don't believe in double standards. If some lunatic going sixty mph. intentionally and repeatedly swerves at someone in a four ton machine the victim should be allowed the same percieved fears as LE.
If it means I spend the afternoon in jail then so be it. I'd rather not be a hit n run fatality.

For the record, I don't advocate shooting at people in traffic, the debate here is whether or not you're allowed to threaten force to dissuade an attacker in the highway.

LJM wrote:This is the part that hangs me up.
pulling a gun for .500 of a second and defusing the whole situation
What are the odds of defusing versus escallating the situation. If the OP has done nothing Wrong and the aggresive drivers are intent on harm or the "Gangbanger has just been Challenged!
RETREAT is the safest option.

Statments like this make me think many of you haven't even been in so much as a schoolyard brawl much less an actual self defense scenario. I have, on both counts, several times. Gang members are like cockroaches, they scatter when threatened and are not in greater numbers. Besides that isn't there the chance for escalation in any 'threat of force' scenario?

Also FWIW the word should be defuse, not diffuse. You're removing the fuse fro ma bomb, not misting a plant.

I would agree that there is no "shared basic for effective communication" but not for the same reasons that you think...

as far as CHAP 9, I'm starting to like this bit, it sounds as if it would apply:

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

So by my interpretation let's say you have a worst case scenario on the highway and the other driver has made it clear he attempts to cause a collision, you've made every prudent attempt to evade and he still persists. It seems the law would agree that pulling a gun in an attempt to dissuade the attacker is justified and legal. I'm pretty sure that reasonalbe people would agree that pulling a gun for .500 of a second and defusing the whole situation is a safer alternative than swerving thru traffic and playing cat and mouse while trying to dial a phone. What if there was an accident as a result of evading?

Apart from the fact it involves cars, I don't see how this is any different than some random instigator on two feet trying to beat your head in and you draw your weapon and scream 'stop or I'll shoot'. Why are the protocols for defending yourself different because you're in a car?

Excaliber wrote:
While your point about displaying a gun is not the same as using one is technically correct, I don't see an application to either of the OP's situations. Where was the imminent threat to his life?

Creative imagination doesn't hold up in court, and to the extent that he felt endangered by another driver, he could have easily evaded that threat with better driving choices - like slowing down and letting the other driver speed on.

Setting aside the OP's astonishing logical leap from TV's in the sun visors to a conclusion that the other driver was a gangbanger who posed an imminent danger of shooting at the OP, I don't buy the innocent posturing in the second instance the OP cited. While anything is possible, when someone passes a vehicle on the shoulder at very high speed, cuts into another operator's lane, and slams on the brakes, an examination of what happened between those vehicles in the 60 seconds prior to those moves will usually (as in just about always) provide insight into why that vehicle was selected for this treatment.

Plain and simple, from the information provided in the original post, there was no threat that would justify displaying or using a firearm to resolve the situations described in either instance. There are numerous far more reasonable alternatives available.

KD5NRH's suggestion to buy a bluetooth headset to make calling 911 easier would be a good start.

OK, since you appear to be hung up on this let me help you out.
I'm not talking about a simple honk/flip the bird scenario. I'm talking about a car swerving at me at 75-80 mph, cutting off other vehicles in an attempt to block me and tailgaiting me with brights on. We were in heavy traffic which is dangerous enough on a good day and I had to pay my full attention to the cars around me in addition to the individual causing all the trouble. It was also night time on a weekend where a good 25% of drivers are intoxicated. We're not talking some jerk on an empty farm road harrasing someone. I did everything I could to get away, when I moved to the right so did he, when I passed a car and changed lanes, he followed. Basicaly he looked as if he was trying to get beside me and I'm pretty sure it wasn't to exchange pleasantries. This incident was completely unwarranted (and I know I'm talking to strangers here) but I assure you I have an above avarage sense of awareness especially when driving. The car in question was harassing other vehicles before he set his sights on me. Traffic was moving at 70-75 and this guy wanted to do 90 and anyone that got in his way got swerved at or brake checked.

...and, Excaliber, since you feel that I made a "logical leap" in my assumption that this person was a gangbanger, you seem to think that saw just a TV in the visor and that's it? C'mon...how about you give me the benefit of the doubt? I've lived in this city for 15 years, worked in some rough spots with and around some rough people so let me tell you I'm not speaking out of turn when I labeled this guy a gangbanger.

As far as the other guy in the Avalance, it dosent take much to make a little car like mine spin out from a tap to the rear or side and that's exactly what he was about to do. Why should I speed or swerve to a shoulder or exit which could potentially result in a wreck when all I had to do was say "back off" by putting my gun on the seat? If he had hit me, I'd have wrecked and if I lived I'd have no one to press charges on. Last january I got hit by a hit-n-run and almost got into a serious head-on as a result so if you don't believe that stuff like this happens then you're either naive or blind.

I come here looking for experts and I'm assuming that there are some here so lets show some mutual respect. I know plenty of lefties that think people like Texans or CHL holders are nothing more than mouth-breathing redneck tea-baggers but I'm giving you guys the benefit of the doubt so show me the same courtesy... Also, both of these events happend months ago so surely there's some details I'm forgetting or misremembering, I posted them as a kind of hypothetical situation, only on that was based on something that actually happened to me. It's asanine to try and pick apart details and then ignore the main question. Forest for the Trees???

Bottom Line is that I got my answer (mostly) so let's keep the assumptions of character and ability to ourselves. Thanks.

1st off, I'm not a troll.

Secondly, I appreciate the responses and the wealth of information here and I don't mean to disrespect those sources of info in any way.
I simply personally feel that using a vehicle as a weapon could/should be seen as a threat just as a thug with a bat and is grounds for a "threat of force" scenario. There are always "what-ifs" and variables we can't control but for the sake of discussion let's assume that events are as I described in that I had no way to evade someone intent on causing an accident.

I've heard all the stories about muggings at the ATM, home invasions or gang violence etc. in other words situations where drawing a weapon would be justified, so why would someone using their car as a weapon any different?

Let me also add I've been around long enough to understand the social structure of internet forums in that faceless screen names can't exactly tell the story of a person so I'm not going to debate with you guys about my driving ability, temperament or how good of a shot I am or whether I have the critical thinking ability to analyze a dangerous situation appropriately. People are predisposed to project their own inadequacies and biases on people they don't know, so keep that in mind when you make statements like "you say you drive fast, that must mean you're a jerk." or "how do you know he was a gangbanger?" etc.

[quote="Excaliber
Have you answered your own question?[/quote]

Good info. Yes there's really no "good" ending to a story like this but I'd rather be the one breathing at the end of it.
Besides, isn't "brandishing" only a misdemenor? So worst case scenario, I diffuse the altercation but he calls 911 and I pay a fine. I'm OK with that outcome. No one got in a wreck and no one got shot.

In the 2nd scenario when I thought the driver was about to shoot me and there was no where to swerve; If I went thru it again only armed I would still be inclined to at least shoot a tire out, anything to make him miss or not be able to chase us anymore. People survive car accidents all the time but not so much the gunshot to the face... I'll gladly go to court against a ganbanger, I look like the guy that does your taxes and have a great attny.

The short version is that you can't lawfully use deadly force every time someone around you does something stupid, even if was dangerous and they did it willfully. You certainly can't lawfully do things that recklessly endanger innocent parties.

Couldn't we apply that logic to any self-defence scenario? Anytime we fire a weapon there's a risk of injury or death to bystanders. I've heard from a cop that training at the range only is a joke, he said "try running 100 yards in 110 deg heat while on adrenalin and then trying to draw and shoot, that's what it's like when you're ina life/death scenario." How many CHL holders are still a decent shot when scared s#itless? There's a scene in Boogie Nights that plays out that scenario perfectly.

See, here's where it's nice to get the benefit of the doubt.

Both of these situations were so fast-paced that pulling over or taking an exit simply weren't possible. On top of that driving (a manual transmission) in traffic at high speed while trying to call 911 (only to be transferred 3-4 times until the appropriate dispatch is reached) seemed more dangerous than simply placing a piece of metal on the seat next to me.

It's very easy to say "pull over call 911" after the fact when you're removed from the situation, but when in the heat of the moment and you're afraid for your and your loved one's lives I'm going to make the deciscion that has the best outcome for me and my family, regardless of the law.
I'd like to know that I wouldn't spend the rest of my life in jail for shooting someone while protecting my family. For the record I would shoot to disable the vehicle if this ever happened again. Obviously killing the driver can cause a bigger problem.

Full Disclosure for those that didn't read my "intro" post: I don't currently have a CHL so I'm not familiar with the law 100%. I'm just trying to get as much info from the experts here as I can.