Stupid question: Justification against unarmed

[Elotemuygrande]

The CHL class that I took was VERY weak on legal issues(IMHO) and the actual laws are a bit unclear to me.

Assuming that someone larger than yourself charges you with only fists and feet. Legally speaking only, would one be in trouble if the gun came out as a threat only? if it were used? If a person is larger than yourself and in better apparent condition then if you waited until you were losing the fight an in serious danger of harm you might be in no condition to pull a gun without it being taken.

I'm trying to figure out how best to carry OC where it can be quickly deployed in situations like this but I would also like to know the legality of the use of the pistol. I notice a large number of very large guys who seem to have a very healthy dislike for those not of their kind when I'm walking through the Walmart parking lot a few blocks away so I got to wondering about options if I were threatened by one of them... I also like going on long walks for exercise occasionally so I run into more of a mix of people.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The CHL class that I took was VERY weak on legal issues(IMHO) and the actual laws are a bit unclear to me.

Assuming that someone larger than yourself charges you with only fists and feet. Legally speaking only, would one be in trouble if the gun came out as a threat only? if it were used?

Maybe. It depends on a lot of details. Your CHL course should have spent a good bit of time discussing various situations.

I'd suggest taking one of Chas' seminars on self defense.

[Lykoi]

The CHL class that I took was VERY weak on legal issues(IMHO) and the actual laws are a bit unclear to me.

Assuming that someone larger than yourself charges you with only fists and feet. Legally speaking only, would one be in trouble if the gun came out as a threat only? if it were used? If a person is larger than yourself and in better apparent condition then if you waited until you were losing the fight an in serious danger of harm you might be in no condition to pull a gun without it being taken.

I'm trying to figure out how best to carry OC where it can be quickly deployed in situations like this but I would also like to know the legality of the use of the pistol. I notice a large number of very large guys who seem to have a very healthy dislike for those not of their kind when I'm walking through the Walmart parking lot a few blocks away so I got to wondering about options if I were threatened by one of them... I also like going on long walks for exercise occasionally so I run into more of a mix of people.

What was your instructor's name??? b/c this is flat out a blatant disregard for the job he took and is "qualified" to teach... he's liable to a point if he's misinformed or failed to inform you of this... I've got a really easy to read short synopsis on TX carry... it's not here though, but i'll try and PM it to you later...

Instructors who fail to do their jobs are subject to loss of instructor license, fine, and even prison time... it's no joke to slack when your job is to teach others about the legal ramifications of CHL

[Dragonfighter]

Your justification comes in the vagueries of the law. Terms like "reasonable" are key. Do you "reasonably" fear for your life or seriously bodily harm.

Disparity of force is another concept. A little old lady wanting to kick your tail is one thing, the same little old lady wielding a baseball bat is another.

I believe the first CHL shooting in Texas was the one that occured on the Mockingbird bridge in Dallas. A 370# Samoan got bent at a light and came back yelling at a 150-160# CHLr. The BG (unarmed) reached into the car and started to pound our intrepid test case who then dropped him with one shot center mass.

Typical press demonization occured, but the articles were pushed further back the more facts that were known. The BG was dead on the spot, and the Good Guy was no billed. I was sold on the .40 S&W.

[Lykoi]

okay if he's bigger than you, you're in a disadvantaged situation... but unless he's coming after you with a weapon the OC would be my recommendation...

If he's WAY bigger than you and you truly feel he means to KILL you and not simply "teach you a lesson" SHOOT HIM... SHOOT HIM TIL HE STOPS!

There's no "clear line" when the attacker is unarmed... it's about your assessment of the situation.. shooting someone should always be the last resort, but if you wait until you're already losing the battle... i.e. down on the ground, in a hold, down to one hand. If this happens you stand less chance to defend yourself without the danger of losing your life.

If the attacker has a knife, SHOOT IMMEDIATELY... there's been more than one study on knives within 20ft... they can attack and do serious injury before you even get your weapon out.

OC to me is a tool much like my handgun... if you only carry a hammer every problem looks like a nail, they say... The OC is great for dogs, drunks, etc... If your intention is to threaten me i'll probably spray you for soing so... if you touch me, you're getting it for sure... but if i think this is a situation where you want more than to take a swing, it's not the OC you'll be seeing...

This again should have been covered in detail in your class... and despite the "blurred lines" it's not all that hard to make a plan of action and have that be a legal/justified action that ensures you protect your life...


read this http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf, print it, study it... it's not a coaster it's the difference between going home after surviving an attack and going to jail.

[Elotemuygrande]

The CHL class that I took was VERY weak on legal issues(IMHO) and the actual laws are a bit unclear to me.

Assuming that someone larger than yourself charges you with only fists and feet. Legally speaking only, would one be in trouble if the gun came out as a threat only? if it were used? If a person is larger than yourself and in better apparent condition then if you waited until you were losing the fight an in serious danger of harm you might be in no condition to pull a gun without it being taken.

I'm trying to figure out how best to carry OC where it can be quickly deployed in situations like this but I would also like to know the legality of the use of the pistol. I notice a large number of very large guys who seem to have a very healthy dislike for those not of their kind when I'm walking through the Walmart parking lot a few blocks away so I got to wondering about options if I were threatened by one of them... I also like going on long walks for exercise occasionally so I run into more of a mix of people.

What was your instructor's name??? b/c this is flat out a blatant disregard for the job he took and is "qualified" to teach... he's liable to a point if he's misinformed or failed to inform you of this... I've got a really easy to read short synopsis on TX carry... it's not here though, but i'll try and PM it to you later...

Instructors who fail to do their jobs are subject to loss of instructor license, fine, and even prison time... it's no joke to slack when your job is to teach others about the legal ramifications of CHL

I would not say that it was not covered, technically. But the details of the force laws were gone over quickly. He focussed very much on "common sense" and his war stories and de-emphasized fine legal situational details(again IMHO). It was very informal. Our targets were not scored, he just glanced at them. Our written tests were graded by our neighbor and not taken up by the instructor or grades asked for. I would have preferred the class be more formal but most people in the class thought it was a good class so I did not complain.

[Elotemuygrande]

Your justification comes in the vagueries of the law. Terms like "reasonable" are key. Do you "reasonably" fear for your life or seriously bodily harm.

Disparity of force is another concept. A little old lady wanting to kick your tail is one thing, the same little old lady wielding a baseball bat is another.

I believe the first CHL shooting in Texas was the one that occured on the Mockingbird bridge in Dallas. A 370# Samoan got bent at a light and came back yelling at a 150-160# CHLr. The BG (unarmed) reached into the car and started to pound our intrepid test case who then dropped him with one shot center mass.

Typical press demonization occured, but the articles were pushed further back the more facts that were known. The BG was dead on the spot, and the Good Guy was no billed. I was sold on the .40 S&W.

Those vague statements are precisely what worries me when I try to read the law :) My sense of "reasonable" and degree of "imminent harm" that I would wish to avoid might differ from that of a jury or responding police.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Your justification comes in the vagueries of the law. Terms like "reasonable" are key. Do you "reasonably" fear for your life or seriously bodily harm.

Disparity of force is another concept. A little old lady wanting to kick your tail is one thing, the same little old lady wielding a baseball bat is another.

I believe the first CHL shooting in Texas was the one that occured on the Mockingbird bridge in Dallas. A 370# Samoan got bent at a light and came back yelling at a 150-160# CHLr. The BG (unarmed) reached into the car and started to pound our intrepid test case who then dropped him with one shot center mass.

Typical press demonization occured, but the articles were pushed further back the more facts that were known. The BG was dead on the spot, and the Good Guy was no billed. I was sold on the .40 S&W.

Those vague statements are precisely what worries me when I try to read the law :) My sense of "reasonable" and degree of "imminent harm" that I would wish to avoid might differ from that of a jury or responding police.

That depends on whether you consider yourself to be a reasonable person or not.

[Elotemuygrande]

Your justification comes in the vagueries of the law. Terms like "reasonable" are key. Do you "reasonably" fear for your life or seriously bodily harm.

Disparity of force is another concept. A little old lady wanting to kick your tail is one thing, the same little old lady wielding a baseball bat is another.

I believe the first CHL shooting in Texas was the one that occured on the Mockingbird bridge in Dallas. A 370# Samoan got bent at a light and came back yelling at a 150-160# CHLr. The BG (unarmed) reached into the car and started to pound our intrepid test case who then dropped him with one shot center mass.

Typical press demonization occured, but the articles were pushed further back the more facts that were known. The BG was dead on the spot, and the Good Guy was no billed. I was sold on the .40 S&W.

Those vague statements are precisely what worries me when I try to read the law :) My sense of "reasonable" and degree of "imminent harm" that I would wish to avoid might differ from that of a jury or responding police.

That depends on whether you consider yourself to be a reasonable person or not.

Well my perspective is usually different than mainstream but I would say reasonable.

It's extremely hard to be reasonable in a panic situation though, so I'm just trying to think through appropriate responses to scenarios now while I'm not pressured. I have a tendency to spook like a horse when surprised so I want to be sure that I've got things planned and conditioned so that fear does not ever control the situation.

[Lykoi]

seriously.. this is a gross oversight of your instructor to not truly define these issues...


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf


please read and reread this... there are a few more sections you need to understand... but these cover your specific question... try and work through the legaleese... but if you need clearer definitions, feel free to ask.

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

[Odin]

To comment on the subjec tof OC, which was brought up related to this topic...

I don't agree that a CHL holder (or any other citizen) has any real need to carry OC, but that's just my opinion based on my life experience. Other people may feel that it's necessary but I do not.

When I'm walking around in my everyday street clothes I'm already carrying on my belt or in my pockets my car keys (required), a folding knife (used almost daily), sometimes a cell phone (used daily, carried sometimes), a holstered firearm and sometimes a spare magazine in a belt pouch.

The only item there that won't be used daily is the handgun, and the handgun is the only item I know of that in a worst case scenario if the a problem arises can be used to stop an immediate threat on and save my life or the life of a person with me.

Intermediate weapons (batons, OC, Taser, etc.) are commonly used by police to take subjects into custody, but the police routinely go headfirst into trouble and confront combative people by nature of their job.

I find that it's better to avoid those situations, and I am minding my own business and approached by someone who suddenly threatens me with violence (never happened) my personal approach is to ignore the threat and leave the area while remaining alert, if possible. If that isn't possible and I feel threatened with imminent serious bodily injury or death then my handgun is coming out.

I can't imagine a situation where I would take out OC and spray someone. What sort of scenarios are people getting in to where they are being threatened enough to use force, but not threatened seriously enough to warrant defending themselves by producing their handgun?

I'm not saying that OC isn't a useful item, but how much stuff should I be reasonably expected to carry around on my person on a daily basis? I'm not discounting OC or other items as useful, but compromises must be made in the name of practicality (otherwise we'd all be carrying shotguns).

[Lykoi]

When I'm walking around in my everyday street clothes I'm already carrying on my belt or in my pockets my car keys (required), a folding knife (used almost daily), sometimes a cell phone (used daily, carried sometimes), a holstered firearm and sometimes a spare magazine in a belt pouch.

the fact that you will ALWAYS carry a hangun and not always have your cell phone means you aren't carrying proper tools all the time.

The only item there that won't be used daily is the handgun, and the handgun is the only item I know of that in a worst case scenario if the a problem arises can be used to stop an immediate threat on and save my life or the life of a person with me.

If all you have is a hammer, then EVERY problem begins to look like a nail

I'm not saying that OC isn't a useful item, but how much stuff should I be reasonably expected to carry around on my person on a daily basis? I'm not discounting OC or other items as useful, but compromises must be made in the name of practicality (otherwise we'd all be carrying shotguns).

you not expected to carry ANYTHING... you choose to carry what you want... you don't seem to mind having a handgun, but no way to call for LE if the situation demands it... OC is simply ANOTHER tool... it's a way to deal with some situations where you can't legally justify shooting someone... I once had a drunk person use my front tire as a toilet.. he refused to move despite my being in the vehicle, and he began yelling profanity at me through the headlights... i'm not about to shoot some moron for urinating on my truck, but i'm not going to let him block my exit, abuse my property and yell threats (however idle) at me while i'm trying to leave... he got the spray, and he deserved it...

OC is a two edged sword, no you don't "need" it... but it can be useful when you feel the situation does not call for you to shoot the person. It's also dangerous as if used ineffectively it can incapacitate you and leave you open to an escalated attack in which you now have less ability to control your firearm or see your target.. it's not for everyone, but it's simply another tool...

however your cell phone should be on you at all times when you think carrying is necessary. It's the only method you might have to prevent greater injury to others etc...

[Elotemuygrande]

I can't imagine a situation where I would take out OC and spray someone. What sort of scenarios are people getting in to where they are being threatened enough to use force, but not threatened seriously enough to warrant defending themselves by producing their handgun?

As an adult, I haven't had anyone physically attack me, but on a number of occasions it has been close. On a couple of occasions I've had people follow me to a parking lot after inadvertently cutting them off in traffic or similar and begin screaming at me. These situations were diffused when I stepped out of the car, towered over them(I'm tall) and mumbled an apology. Most road rage situations would end like this but who knows if the next one will calm down when I start talking or start breaking through my windshield. In a situation like that(senseless conflict, with it unlikely that they are armed) I would prefer to spray them(if they were larger than I) or knock them down(if they were smaller) if they became threatening rather than threatening them with a firearm.

I've also run into a couple of situations where I was walking through a dark area and I heard something similar to "I hate white boys" along with a threatening look which thankfully did not escalate because my brother and I suppressed our reactions. Those kinds of people might not want to rob or kill you(you presume, but do not know) but might be looking for someone to beat up on. OC would be a nice option there too if you could not walk away from them as I have been able to before.

[Lykoi]

As an adult, I haven't had anyone physically attack me, but on a number of occasions it has been close. On a couple of occasions I've had people follow me to a parking lot after inadvertently cutting them off in traffic or similar and begin screaming at me. These situations were diffused when I stepped out of the car, towered over them(I'm tall) and mumbled an apology. Most road rage situations would end like this but who knows if the next one will calm down when I start talking or start breaking through my windshield. In a situation like that(senseless conflict, with it unlikely that they are armed) I would prefer to spray them(if they were larger than I) or knock them down(if they were smaller) if they became threatening rather than threatening them with a firearm.

I've also run into a couple of situations where I was walking through a dark area and I heard something similar to "I hate white boys" along with a threatening look which thankfully did not escalate because my brother and I suppressed our reactions. Those kinds of people might not want to rob or kill you(you presume, but do not know) but might be looking for someone to beat up on. OC would be a nice option there too if you could not walk away from them as I have been able to before.

several more examples of situations where more tools = more options.

[Elotemuygrande]

Thanks for posting this. Hopefully the laws will become clear after reading them a few times. Making sense of vague legal text makes me crazy since I'm used to Mathematics(beginning Master's in it this Spring) where everything is rigorously defined and pinned down. You would never hear x is an integer if a reasonable person believes it to be an integer :)

seriously.. this is a gross oversight of your instructor to not truly define these issues...


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf


please read and reread this... there are a few more sections you need to understand... but these cover your specific question... try and work through the legaleese... but if you need clearer definitions, feel free to ask.

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.