finally had to draw

[handog]

1. Hold out your off hand, palm toward the men in the classic "stop" motion and say very loudly and assertively "STOP! Do not come any closer." If the men continue walking toward you at this point, then I believe you've exhausted all possible de-escalation possibilities and pulling your weapon is justified, IMHO.

This is reminiscent of the Walmart parking lot incident.
Can a CHL legally shoot someone for walking towards them after a warning I realize that AR stopped short of shooting but I would not pull my weapon out unless I intended to shoot.

[gigag04]

Yeah I'm not sure where the line of thought that "I'm not pulling it without using it" came from.

I think there are many instances where I would draw and move to low ready as an intermediate escalation between "stop" and "bang"

I think if I decide that I need to shoot someone right NOW and my weapon is still concealed I might end up behind the 8 ball. Hopefully I have developed the situational awareness to see a potential threat and respond accordingly on the use of force continuum.

Like this:
---> ---> (here is where gun may be drawn ---> or

And then, or

[handog]

Yeah I'm not sure where the line of thought that "I'm not pulling it without using it" came from.

That came from my CHl class. Should I try to get my money back

It seems to me that a hand on the holstered gun would be just as ready as having it un- holstered at your side without the possible AA violation.

[A-R]

Like this:
---> ---> (here is where gun may be drawn ---> or

And then, or

Wow!!! It all makes such perfect sense now ... but then again, I am one of those "visual learners"

I agree that the presence of a gun (drawn/shown or merely "implied" with a hand motion toward the holster as handog suggests) is a strong deterrent to impending attack. On the other hand, it can also be the spark that starts a shootout when only some nasty words would've been exchanged otherwise.

Others have posted and I agree that much of this boils down to "reasonable belief" that you are in danger. And that reasonable belief is different for everyone. Two men walking toward me at night in and of itself is not enough "reasonable belief" for me. Their failure to respond to direct question "what do you want" gets into a grey area. Their failure to heed to a loud oral warning of "STOP! Don't come any closer" likely qualifies as "reasonable belief" that either their intentions are not good or they are deaf or drunk.

Do like handog's hand-on-gun idea, but for most of us who carry on the belt this is going to requires at least some "unconcealing" of our firearm to do so. This is one of the nice things about pocket carry - hand on grip and ready to draw and no one knows a thing.

[Dragonfighter]

Like this:
---> ---> (here is where gun may be drawn ---> or

And then, or

Ahhhhh, now I get it. Very succinct AND hilarious...well done sir.

Now let's look at this from the vantage point of the guy with the red dot on his chest.

Police report filed to HPD from guy w/red dot on chest.
My friend and I were on our way to the Fish to meet some friends and hang out. We had to park just up the street here because we couldn't find a closer place. When we got out of the car we saw a sign on the wall of that building and thought it may be a no parking sign. Since it was in the shadows we had to walk over for a closer look. When we started walking down the street towards the Fish we see this guy and he's yelling "WHAT DO YOU WANT" "WHAT DO YOU WANT" and he has this girl by the arm. The next thing I know I've got a red laser dot on my chest and he has a gun in his hand. I react as quick as I can duck behind this mail box draw and shoot him twice in the chest.

This story also posted on this forum after Grand Jury clears guy with red dot on chest. OP not able to post due to sudden death.

Haven't we already explored this? When you have to insert assumption not in evidence it becomes a "red herring" detracting from the discussion at hand. The mean part of this thread as I understand it was whether the OP acted properly and reasonably, not what could of happened or what we may assume we know may have been the thought processes of those encroaching.

We DO know:

• 1) The OP was parked remotely and it was late.
  2) He was isolated away from the crowd.
  3) There were two men under cover of shadow (for whatever reason) and chose at that moment to come out and head straight for the OP and his GF.
  4) They did not acknowledge the OP in anyway that I saw.
  5) He issues a verbal challenge, the specifics of which have been dissected ad nauseum.
  6) The team of two do not acknowledge, curse back, alter course or anything but continuing on a determined course toward the OP.
  7) The rest we know.

The reasonableness of his belief has been discussed without the benefit of empathy. The law of his actions have been discussed. The assumed or hypothetical mindset of the BGs does not matter one wit. Could they have been innocent and stupid (intoxicated)? Yeah. Are there myriad optional mindsets or motives for these other guys? Sure. Could they have been legally armed and responded with gun fire? Yeah, it matters not.

When faced with an escalating situation, do we need to run through these optional motives and mindsets before reacting? IMHO, such a delay would pose a very real hazard and could likely be fatal.

Also, since we are playing hypothetical chess, if the other guys were legally armed as LEO or CHL wouldn't a return of verbal warning from cover be as likely?

[Cosmo 9]

Haven't we already explored this? When you have to insert assumption not in evidence it becomes a "red herring" detracting from the discussion at hand.

His assumption of their intent is the discussion. We'll never know what their intent was. We'll also never know if his actions saved them or if the outcome would have been the same if he'd have done nothing.

I thought I should add a disclaimer since some people read emotion into things on the net. I'm enjoying the discussion and all my statements are based on the original post before he pointed out that they started out on the other side of the street.

[gigag04]

Another thought, can deaf people get issued CHL's?

[The Annoyed Man]

Another thought, can deaf people get issued CHL's?

What?

[dicion]

Figured I'd throw my 2c in before this thread ends.

Working downtown and midtown a lot, especially at night, I know the... kinds of people that 'hang out in the shadows' there.
The fact that 2 guys bee-lined for him and his GF _across a road_ (That's a big part to me, in my experience, people don't silently jaywalk across a road directly at someone normally. Big Alarm bell in my head.), AND did not respond at all to his verbal challenge... Also, the fact that they SAID NOTHING even when he drew on them... they knew they were made. MOST people would be like 'WOAH! Buddy! I didn't want nothin!!" Or yell something to try and get the gun off of them. That 100% Confirms it for me.

I Verbally challenge people all the time doing my job in midtown and downtown Houston. It's mostly bums thinking they're sneaking up on me, and trying to hit me up for money. (Apparently, if you're working on traffic signals downtown, you apparently carry lots of change?)
My Verbal challenge is normally a stern "How can I help you?", which usually stops them in their tracks, and elicits an immediate verbal reply (their sob story). I normally cut in with "Stop. This is my job. You're not the first today, nor will you be the last. Leave." Or some variation, and they usually do leave, occasionally throwing an obscenity my way.

I'm with the OP. He did right by my book.

I agree that as soon as they started their beeline, he should have changed heading, and if they modified theirs to match, it's an even further indicator.

If he HAD drawn to low ready, as suggested by some, IMO, he loses the element of surprise on the BG's that he has a gun. While this may cause them to turn and run, it may also cause them to think they can outdraw him, since he's now at low ready, and action is always faster than reaction. By having the solution on the BG, even if they were armed, most would probably not try and draw.

I recommend everyone practice their "Challenge Voice" if you do not have a lot of practice doing so. (If you have or have ever had kids, you know exactly what I mean )The proper tone SHOULD stop most people in their tracks, at least for a second. If you need somewhere to practice.... just go downtown and hang out near Main @ Pierce, between the Greyhound station and the Metro Bus Station at 1900 main Stand on the train platform, and look well-to-do. You'll get accosted for money in no time flat

And that, is my 2c

[surprise_i'm_armed]

gigag04:
If you had been on duty and this call was given to you,
would you have given the OP a pass like HIS responding
LEO's did?

As an active member on this board, would you be inclined
to give a CHL the benefit of the doubt? I'm assuming that
you would not actually be able to ID any particular CHL by name,
even if they are an active foum member, since most of us use
screen names which aren't our real names.

Or would you have been bound to confer with the commanding
officer on duty before taking any action?

I realize that you are supposed to enforce the law, but it seems
that the OP was in fear for his and his gf's safety, and no shots
ended up being fired, so why cost him a bunch of lawyer money?

SIA

[gigag04]

I'd write it up as incident - and let someone else deal with it if they wanted to prosecute.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

gigag04:

Well, that sounds pretty good.
Hopefully the incident report would keep getting older
and older, newer evildoing events would need attention,
and the DA or whoever would never get around
to pestering our OP.

SIA

[srothstein]

Let me ask this. An aggravated assault (threat of harm while producing a deadly weapon) occurred but the criminality is nullified by justification? IOW the laws concerning assault were violated but the justification outweighs that? Is this possibly like the illegal carry violation being outweighed by justification under deadly force laws?

You have it. What many people forget is that Chapter 9 presents defenses for use during a trial, not a nullification of the law.

[boomerang]

Police report filed to HPD from guy w/red dot on chest.

Did he actually file a police report? Or does he have priors, and maybe active warrants, and wants nothing to do with the po-po?

[Dragonfighter]

Haven't we already explored this? When you have to insert assumption not in evidence it becomes a "red herring" detracting from the discussion at hand.

His assumption of their intent is the discussion. We'll never know what their intent was. We'll also never know if his actions saved them or if the outcome would have been the same if he'd have done nothing.

I thought I should add a disclaimer since some people read emotion into things on the net. I'm enjoying the discussion and all my statements are based on the original post before he pointed out that they started out on the other side of the street.

Please don't misunderstand, I do not read emotion into anything you've written nor do I hold any animosity toward you. I also know I can be abrupt and have to deal with the fact I'm kind of a jerk. Buuut, though I can see your point about "the assumption of their intent" I must disagree.

It boils down to rehashing his actions as they were presented (I assumed they were on the other side of the street but am glad that it was reiterated) and discussing the legality and reasonableness of his actions. We are all aware there are a million possible combinations of circumstance for the BG's presence and actions but I still assert that it is completely irrelevant. Injecting the hypothetical POV of the BGs clouds the issue, after all if we are confronted with a similar circumstance we must decide our course of action in (was the figure like 3 seconds?) a very narrow window based on what we see and perceive. We do not have the luxury to ponder what possible motives, circumstance or POV of the other guy is.

Further, something I mentioned earlier, SA and instinct paint the picture...do NOT ignore your instinct. If you've ever watched interviews of victims of brutal attacks that for the grace of God should have left them dead, the one common thread was their denial that the attack was actually happening until it was too late.

All that aside, I did learn quite a bit about the machinations of the law from Gigag04 and Steve. I now know that Gigag was correct in saying an aggravated assault occurred; but now I understand that the justification statutes supersede the criminality. I was under the impression, and now believe I was wrong, that if justification exists the crime did not occur. Thanks guys.