Whats the answer........

[flintknapper]

Scenario:

You foolishly go to town without your weapon. You have reasoned that a quick "jaunt" to the grocery store and back home... should be safe enough.

You approach your vehicle, groceries in hand. As you unlock your vehicle, a BG gets out of the car parked next to you....and is on you before you can react. He points a pistol at your upper chest, nearly touching you with the weapon. A woman nearby notices what is going on and screams. You take advantage of the distraction, move off line, grasp the weapon, and manage to disarm the perp.

You immediately rack the slide (not knowing the condition of the weapon) and cover the perp. while gaining distance.

Question: You are now armed, the perp. is unarmed. Are you "legally" justified to "threaten deadly force" by holding him at gunpoint. Think about it.

[txinvestigator]

Scenario:

You foolishly go to town without your weapon. You have reasoned that a quick "jaunt" to the grocery store and back home... should be safe enough.

You approach your vehicle, groceries in hand. As you unlock your vehicle, a BG gets out of the car parked next to you....and is on you before you can react. He points a pistol at your upper chest, nearly touching you with the weapon. A woman nearby notices what is going on and screams. You take advantage of the distraction, move off line, grasp the weapon, and manage to disarm the perp.

You immediately rack the slide (not knowing the condition of the weapon) and cover the perp. while gaining distance.

Question: You are now armed, the perp. is unarmed. Are you "legally" justified to "threaten deadly force" by holding him at gunpoint. Think about it.

May not be fair for me to answer, as I teach this stuff. I'll pipe in after some conversation..............

[Charles L. Cotton]

That's a good one. I'll hold my comments as well.

Chas.

[HighVelocity]

Well, I don't know what the correct answer is but....

My gut reaction upon capturing the BG's weapon would be to disable it. I have no idea of the said weapons condition, nor time to inspect it. For all I know it could be more dangerous for the person holding it then the one staring down the muzzle. I would not "threaten deadly force" unless it was at the instant before I pulled the trigger.

I'm very curious to hear what the "right" answer is.


edited to add: over 30 views of this thread and I'm the only one willing to throw himself to the wolves?

[dws1117]

I'll subject myself to the wolves. I don't get into these types of discussions very often. Guess it's my turn to be eaten.

Ok, I've somehow managed to disarm the BG while he was distracted by the woman screaming. I now have him covered by his own gun.

There are a lot of unknowns. I don't know if he has another weapon. I don't know if he has a pertner in crime. My guess would be that given the initial threat of bodily injury or death and the unknowns that I would still be justified in using deadly force.

I could see a lawyer turning this around in court. Once you had control of the BG's weapon that the threat was over.

IF I were able to obtain said BG's gun then I would probably keep him covered until LE arrives. One would assume that after the woman screams that someone would call the police.

[jbirds1210]

I have no idea what the legal ramifications would be to hold someone at gunpoint with their own weapon.....but you can bet I would do it in order to get the heck out of the situation!! I can't imagine that it would be illegal to hold the gun on the person that just threatened your life.

[Geopagus]

I'll take a shot at it (no pun intended )

I would say that you are legally justified in threatening deadly force in this particular scenario on the premise that the BG could very well have another gun or weapon on his person and if given the opportunity, use it on you or another innocent bystander. The threat of deadly force, in my humble opinion, would cease only when the threat ceased (i.e. BG runs away, does not attempt to rush me, etc.)

Great post flintknapper

I'm anxious to hear what the experts have to say on this one.

[Kalrog]

First point: I had to mess up a ton to get into this situation. Not only was my stupid meter pegged by leaving my piece at home, but my situational awareness was in white. Nither of those are good.

Second point: Heck yeah I will hold him at gun point. Scan for partners. Take appropriate action as needed. The "deadly force" I am now applying was to stop a felony where deadly force was used (or at least the threat of). Agreed - I don't know the condition of the pistol, but I would rather be the one holding it than the goblin that just assaulted me with a deadly weapon. In addition, out comes the cell phone to dial 911 - and don't tell me I forgot that at home as well...

[dws1117]

Good response Kalrog.

I'm anxiously awaiting the experts opinions as well.

[jimlongley]

I am thinking that the situation was not truly resolved until you had FULL control of his weapon. He had just threatened your life, and there is no reason to expect that he will not continue to do so unless and until you hold him at gunpoint - he may have a knife, or another gun, or one or more accomplices.

Keep the gun on him until the police arrive.

OTOH, knowing that, like car wrecks, most of these situations are likely to happen close to home, I am less likely to go unarmed "on a short jaunt."

[txinvestigator]

Texas law does not give a justification to use force or deadly force based on what someone else might or might not do. The comments about him possibly having a second weapon are really not applicable.

Use of deadly force laws all include this phrase; "when and to the degree you reasonably believe the deadly force is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force."


Once you have his gun and he is compliant, there is no immediate necessity. He is no longer using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force against you.

I discourage students from thinking in terms or "the threat." I teach to think instead of the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.

If the other is compliant, I don't believe deadly force is justified. However, the original question was

Are you "legally" justified to "threaten deadly force" by holding him at gunpoint.

I'll shut up for a while.

[CaptDave]

"Forget double-tap, I'm going to slide-lock"

Seriously, as he was in commission of a felony - against me - I would suggest that he not move very much until the boys in blue got there. I would be looking for -and expecting compliance. Just because I have his gun doesn't mean - to me anyway- that the threat is gone.

And FWIW: I'm legally justified to threaten with deadly force as follows:

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.

[txinvestigator]

"Forget double-tap, I'm going to slide-lock"

Seriously, as he was in commission of a felony - against me - I would suggest that he not move very much until the boys in blue got there. I would be looking for -and expecting compliance. Just because I have his gun doesn't mean - to me anyway- that the threat is gone.

And FWIW: I'm legally justified to threaten with deadly force as follows:

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.

You quoted the right section, but let me ask; what does he being in commission of a felony relate to?

[gigag04]

If the other is compliant, I don't believe deadly force is justified. However, the original question was

Are you "legally" justified to "threaten deadly force" by holding him at gunpoint.

I'll shut up for a while.

My turn!

In Texas law one is not really "legally" justified for using deadly force. I believe the term the law uses is that an actor can have a "defense to prosecution." As far as "threatening deadly force"...

§ 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.

EDIT: I started this post right after the investigators....y'all beat me to it

[gigag04]

As far as what I would do, once I had the gun I would run as fast as I possibly could. By the time he pulls out another gun, if he has one, I will far enough to make an accurate shot on a moving target difficult for even the best IDPA contender.

If you get shot...oh well...you should've carried. Now you get to be a sheep.

If I survive, which I plan on, because I can actually run fast (I imagine) when threatened with deadly force - I will be glad that I saved the hassle and expense of court costs. I will take these percieved savings and get a class III, and find a way to carry an MP-5 on each side of my body.

-nick