Close call almost had to draw

[lildave40]

You escalated it. Didn't need to speak back at him. When we are carrying we have a responsibility to use de-escalation skills.

yep

[vjallen75]

Interesting story, and good discussion all around.

I wasn't there and only know the perspective presented by the OP. I don't know that I'd do anything differently -- I wasn't in those circumstances. That said, some of the commentary posted leads me to a couple of conclusions. First, different people view certain dialog/phrases/words VERY differently -- some perceive such as benign and others as provocative (non-escalating vs. escalating). Second (and this point has been made by others), according to the OP's account the boat owner seems to have purposefully re-engaged. In some ways this could be considered an escalation in and of itself. Last, the warning given, "You won't get the chance to sit up straight", seems to have been effective in that a gun-fight did not break out. While giving the warning could be perceived as an escalation point, the warning may also be added information that may change the recipient's actions.

All in all, I am glad it worked out without extra paperwork, time and inquiries.

The best thing to take away from this is to not let your pride get in the way. Yes I'm sure there are always things we could/should have done differently, but at the end of the day we are all glad the OP made it home safely for us to discuss this.

[Abraham]

"Quit being so judgemental."

Ah, one of the left's favorite, haughty bromides.

They demand no one take them to task when they involve themselves in all sorts of despicable behavior with:

"Quit being so judgemental."

Being judgemental is an everyday requirement for those of us who take a stand in life. Morality, honesty, good character all require good judgement, but the mantra of "Quit being so judgemental" necessarily requires one to be wishy-washy about everything.

On another note: Yes, the OP requested opinions regarding his encounter and subsequent behavior. He didn't say, please don't judge me.

[twomillenium]

why do new posters ask the question?

Almost had to draw?

Have occasionally had some in class that Had the shoot scenario thrown out to class by someone.. The are usually tryng to get attention and show they are MACHO. Very similair to the guys who just have to OC so they can see the fear in someones eyes.
I let them talk and then shut them down trying not to embarise them

I do not understand the continual slamming of those who choose to OC that takes place on this forum.

I understand that OC may not be your cup of tea, but saying that people "OC so they can see the fear in someones eyes," makes you sound presumptuous and judgemental. JMHO.

That is not what was said, you edited the statement thus editing the meaning. The poster said, "guys who just have to OC so they can see the fear in someones eyes". (They are out there, you know it, I know it, We all know it) The poster did not say all OC was like that, but your editing made it seem that way.

Also, you are right, Miss Manners is not required to get LTC, but DISPUTE RESILUTION is. If someone listened to that part of the class, they would have already known that dispute resolution was not being followed. When you use offensive language not only do you show lack of intellect, but it could be considered provocation.

Noted. I may have read more into the comment than was intended, but it seems to be an ongoing issue throughout threads. Also, a short segment on dispute resolution doesn't actually teach someone how to difuse situations. It does tell us that we need to try to diffuse not provoke; however, a lawyer could easily argue the OP was attempting to do just that by telling the boater to (paraphrasing) 'shut it and leave his family alone.' I'm not insinuating it was the best handling, but I also don't believe it was escalating given the actions of the boater it was more meeting the threat at the aggressor's level.

Backing down isn't always the best option when faced with a threat either. Softness can often be taken for weakness, and weakness can signal you as prey/victim which can actually escalate a situation with meatheads like Mr.Boater appears to be in the OP's scenario. Overall the human emotional state is extremely complicated which is why police, psychologists, nurses, etc., spend so much time learning different methods for dealing with agitated individuals.

Almost always is using foul language or insults going to deescalate a serious situation. It not only shows lack of intelligence, but it more than like will escalate rather than deescalate the situation. Basic101 Psychology teaches that to those who are paying attention. If a lawyer tries to use the argument that the "OP was attempting to do just that by telling the boater to (paraphrasing) 'shut it and leave his family alone", then the defendant's case is grasping for straws or the defendant needs a different lawyer. More times than not, this will tend to playout as provocation.

[Skiprr]

Well, I don't know Wyoming's laws, but there could have been an issue in Texas. Refer to PC §9.31 item 2: "...Did not provoke the person against whom the force was used...."

I'm still not seeing provocation.

1. Appologizes
2. Moves vehicle
3. Tells the aggressor to (paraphrasing again) 'mind their own business'

What in that suggests the OP was pressing for a fight?

[Edited to add: I was typing while many others posted, but I'm gonna delete the time spent even if I'm repeating stuff. ]

Well, first up, you're bringing your own psychological set into perception of the situation (as we all do) as well as doing a bit of paraphrasing. And provocation doesn't necessarily infer the extreme of "pressing for a fight."

There's a reason that few of us here respond in any detail to what-would-you-do scenario questions like this unless they're presented in such a facts-only manner that even Sgt. Friday from Dragnet would consider them dry, and unless there is a pretty clear interpretation of the law that applies.

After a bunch of years formally dealing with dispute resolution in one form or another, I can say unequivocally that a first-person description by an actor involved in the encounter is going to contain inaccuracies and/or omissions--whether unintentional or not--upwards of 99% of the time.

There are a couple of elements of the OP's description that don't pass the smell test for me. But let's leave those to the side.

Seems highly likely to me, since another moderator had to delete abbreviated profanity from the OP's post, that the OP's response to the first words of the second encounter were not simply, "Leave us alone," or "Mind your own business." Spicier phrasing was probably used.

We don't see PC §42.01(a)(1) enforced often (though I think it was at an Astros game vs. the Rangers just this week) because it has a qualifier about breach of the peace: "A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace...."

There is no definition in the Texas statues of "provoke," but Mr. Oxford says it is to: "Stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, especially by arousing anger in them; deliberately make (someone) annoyed or angry." If you're the first to hurl profanity in a verbal encounter, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider that as provocation...especially if the one doing the hurling subsequently attempts the higher standard of use-of-force justification under PC §9. And, interestingly, there was nothing in the description that indicated the boater responded in kind with profanity or invectives of his own.

The OP stated that the boater pursued him and his wife. But that looks like first-person conjecture to me. There is zero evidence in the description of the event that would substantiate that. I can more easily envision a lake ringed by a narrow, two lane road that is the only means of ingress/egress; and a local boater who probably frequents the spot on a regular basis; and who is prepping his early-morning boat launch for a day on the lake; and, after putting the boat in the water and anchoring it, is driving back to pick up family members, supplies, etc.

Likewise, we don't know where the OP chose to park the second time. Did the boater purposely pull off the road and into a designated parking lot to confront the OP, or did the OP park on the grass right by the road and in a manner that wouldn't endear him to locals who prefer their grassy lakeshore undamaged by tire tracks, who prefer that people stick to designated parking areas? We don't know.

After the verbal exchange probably punctuated with profanity by the OP, the boater moves as if reaching for something. He may be reaching for a cell phone to take a photo of the illegally parked car; he may be reaching to turn off the radio; he may be reaching to calm the Chihuahua on the floormat; he may be reaching for a pamphlet describing the proper use of the lake recreational area because he's a volunteer community park board member. We don't know.

But after the probable use of personally-directed profanity (which, in Texas, and if there were a witness after the shooting who came forward and described it--presumably not the OP's wife--would very likely become a factor in determining provocation under PC §§9.31 and .32), the OP now implies, arguably threatens, his intent to use deadly force: "You won't get the chance to sit up straight." I somewhat doubt a statement like that didn't also come with some shift in body position, however subtle, conscious or not.

In fact, I've been trained for a long time to make that shift early in a possible use-of-force encounter: you never say anything threatening that could escalate the situation; you have an ingrained verbal loop like, "I'm sorry. I can't help you. Keep your distance"; you hold up your off-hand palm-out, not far from your chest in a "stay back" gesture that would also allow you to bring it into defensive use if necessary; you put your head on a swivel looking for possible additional threats, available cover, and bystanders; and you blade the dominant side of your body away, hand down for the shortest path to your gun. You never verbally threaten or imply use of force.

PC §9.04: "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."

In the OP's description, there was nothing that indicated use of force was justified under Texas law, the primary qualifier being that "...a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force."

Playing devil's advocate in a hypothetical, let's say you live by a lovely lake in Texas and volunteer on the park's community board. We don't know what was said in the initial encounter, but let's pretend it wasn't all lovey-dovey and apologetic. Let's assume the new visitors, when informed they were parked against the rules, offered no comment but a neutral, "We'll move."

It's just after sunrise, and you finish the job of anchoring your boat while the family has been getting ready and packing lunch for a day on the water. You get in your pickup to go get them, and find the new visitors now parked, again against the rules, off on the grassy bank of the lake.

You stop to let them know that that, too, was a no-parking zone. You see the out-of-state license plate. Maybe you make a snarky remark; maybe you don't. If you do, maybe you intend it to be a joke since you'd just had to shoo them off minutes before from also parking against the rules.

The out-of-towner tells you that you can go do something improprietous to yourself. You reach over to get one of the park rules pamphlets you keep in your truck. The out-of-towner, likely accompanied by some change in body position, says, "You try it, and you won't get the chance to sit up straight."

Of course you do exactly what the boater was described as doing: without another word, you drive out of there, now worrying about bringing your family back to the boat, deciding you'll come back using the long way around the lake...and maybe deciding to call the sheriff's department about the threatening visitors.

But if, at that point, things had escalated to shots fired, who do you think the DA would prosecute, and who would likely be no-billed?

Of course, IANAL.

[G26ster]

I believe that one should do the same thing "armed" as they would if they were "not armed." That is, de-escalate the situation.

[bblhd672]

I believe that one should do the same thing "armed" as they would if they were "not armed." That is, de-escalate the situation.

[TreyHouston]

The boater clearly escalated the situation by droving over again and stopping. So what is someone had a dirty mouth? THE OP HAD A GREAT EYE to notice what the driver was possibly doing. What if the boater was a bully and no one had ever stoop up to him before?

Everyone walked away, no firearms were drawn, no one was hurt. Sounds like a good day to me!

[TreyHouston]

And that you OP for sharing your story!

[LucasMcCain]

I realize that it is easy to make judgments about the actions of others after the fact and say that we would have acted differently. However, I had an encounter recently while carrying on my motorcycle where someone was extremely inflammatory and insulting to me despite my having done nothing wrong. He yelled at me, cussed me out, flipped me off, and claimed to have called the cops on me. Before I got my LTC, I would have responded in kind. Because I had an openly carried Glock on my hip, I was polite and simply stated that I had done nothing illegal. I then watched him until he drove away and I could be sure that he was not a threat to my well-being. As someone else suggested, I smiled and waved and made sure that the multitude of witnesses present would be able to say that I didn't do anything insulting or threatening in any way, should the jerk decide to escalate the situation. I then altered my route to try to make sure I didn't encounter him again at a light further down the road. When carrying, I always want to make sure that I am viewed as the "good guy" in any confrontation. The idea that "I shouldn't have to take any flak from people because I have a gun" is the wrong mindset. My attitude is "I don't need to have the last word or respond to insults with insults, because I have a gun."

[mr1337]

I don't think what OP said would be construed as provocation under TX law (no clue about WY law). I don't know if provoke is defined in statue, but Merriam Webster defines it as "to call forth (as a feeling or action)" or "to stir up purposely <provoke a fight>"

Provoking would have been egging the guy on or asking if he wants to fight. Being a little rude is not provocation. Yes, we must strive to be model citizens and never offend anyone ever, but we are human and it's sometimes hard to turn the other cheek.

[oljames3]

I realize that it is easy to make judgments about the actions of others after the fact and say that we would have acted differently. However, I had an encounter recently while carrying on my motorcycle where someone was extremely inflammatory and insulting to me despite my having done nothing wrong. He yelled at me, cussed me out, flipped me off, and claimed to have called the cops on me. Before I got my LTC, I would have responded in kind. Because I had an openly carried Glock on my hip, I was polite and simply stated that I had done nothing illegal. I then watched him until he drove away and I could be sure that he was not a threat to my well-being. As someone else suggested, I smiled and waved and made sure that the multitude of witnesses present would be able to say that I didn't do anything insulting or threatening in any way, should the jerk decide to escalate the situation. I then altered my route to try to make sure I didn't encounter him again at a light further down the road. When carrying, I always want to make sure that I am viewed as the "good guy" in any confrontation. The idea that "I shouldn't have to take any flak from people because I have a gun" is the wrong mindset. My attitude is "I don't need to have the last word or respond to insults with insults, because I have a gun."

[Soccerdad1995]

I realize that it is easy to make judgments about the actions of others after the fact and say that we would have acted differently. However, I had an encounter recently while carrying on my motorcycle where someone was extremely inflammatory and insulting to me despite my having done nothing wrong. He yelled at me, cussed me out, flipped me off, and claimed to have called the cops on me. Before I got my LTC, I would have responded in kind. Because I had an openly carried Glock on my hip, I was polite and simply stated that I had done nothing illegal. I then watched him until he drove away and I could be sure that he was not a threat to my well-being. As someone else suggested, I smiled and waved and made sure that the multitude of witnesses present would be able to say that I didn't do anything insulting or threatening in any way, should the jerk decide to escalate the situation. I then altered my route to try to make sure I didn't encounter him again at a light further down the road. When carrying, I always want to make sure that I am viewed as the "good guy" in any confrontation. The idea that "I shouldn't have to take any flak from people because I have a gun" is the wrong mindset. My attitude is "I don't need to have the last word or respond to insults with insults, because I have a gun."

I had a similar situation a few weeks ago while I was driving to an IDPA match. A guy trying to merge into my lane almost hit my car. I was in his blind spot so I gave a quick tap on my horn. He ended up getting behind me, tailgating, then sped up, jumped in front of me and hit his brakes hard, all while flipping me off. I did what I always do in these situations. I got out of there.

I slowed down to create space, then took the next exit and sat in a parking lot for 5 minutes. When I got back on the freeway, the guy was long gone. Should I have had to delay my trip to evade this jerk? No. Did I have every right to get mad and flip him off as well? I guess so. But here's the thing. My primary objective at that moment was to end that encounter with no one hurt (including the other guy). I accomplished that objective. So I'll call that a win.

In the OP's case, a simple smile and a "thanks, have a nice day", may have lessened the possible likelihood that he would have to draw. Versions of this scenario will play out many, many times over the course of our lifetimes. Doing everything we possibly can do to de-escalate things from the get go may not matter all that much in most encounters, but it could make all the difference in the world in that one case where the other guy has severe anger issues, is armed, and just caught his wife with his best friend.

I once heard a line in a movie (I think) that sums it up pretty well. "The only way to win a fight is to not be there when it happens."

[Oldgringo]

My opinion: One doesn't need to have the last word when carrying. If you need to defend yourself, do so without escalating the situation by using insulting/threatening words as seen below:

You said: "I look him straight in the eye and tell him he can [Abbreviated profanity deleted. Don't do it again.]

The above utterance is insulting and completely unnecessary and which could easily create escalation.

He pauses a few seconds considering his options and as he starts to lean to grab something from under the seat, I say "You won't get the chance to sit up straight"

The second sentence sounds like a western movie/braggadocio type threat. Probably pleasing to the ego, but makes you the aggressor.

Keeping insults and threats to yourself is the wisest choice of action. Such behavior won't get in the way of defending yourself.

, plus you are a visitor in his land AND in his survivors/relatives' courthouse.

[EdnaBambrick]

and as he starts to lean to grab something from under the seat, I say "You won't get the chance to sit up straight"

The second sentence sounds like a western movie/braggadocio type threat. Probably pleasing to the ego, but makes you the aggressor.

Keeping insults and threats to yourself is the wisest choice of action. Such behavior won't get in the way of defending yourself.

This is the first comment I disagree with. I think he would have come up with a gun. The fact that he stopped shows we were on the same page.

Yeah, I could have handled it better and that's why I asked for some opinions. Probably could have done without the profanity at the lake and here in the forum. Apologies to all.