What do you do if you draw your weapon w/o having to shoot?

[gigag04]

Those that feel they have to automatically shoot someone because they cleared leather frighten me.

Please don't stop using your brain just because you draw a gun.

[Beiruty]

Those that feel they have to automatically shoot someone because they cleared leather frighten me.

Please don't stop using your brain just because you draw a gun.

Cops do not shoot someone each time they draw. Cops shouts orders, to control their subjects. I guess CHLs are taught to only deploy deadly force to counter an imminent threat of death by a deadly force. If the threat is terminated ( bad guy flee the scene) then no need to wast ammo. Secure the area and rehoster and dial 911.

[gigag04]

Those that feel they have to automatically shoot someone because they cleared leather frighten me.

Please don't stop using your brain just because you draw a gun.

Cops do not shoot someone each time they draw. Cops shouts orders, to control their subjects. I guess CHLs are taught to only deploy deadly force to counter an imminent threat of death by a deadly force. If the threat is terminated ( bad guy flee the scene) then no need to wast ammo. Secure the area and rehoster and dial 911.

Disagree. CHLs are taught much more (in a good class anyway). When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events. If the threat of deadly force stops the threat, better not squeeze one off. This is how good people get hemmed up for shooting some bad person in the back.

[speedsix]

...read PC9:31(a) and PC9:32(a) and (b)...



...they describe the situations where deadly force is JUSTIFIED BY LAW (PC9:31 being the first qualification to employ PC9:32)...they are very carefully written...

...neither says that deadly force may not be used once the BG turns his back to run or stops being a threat...I'd go with the law instead of opinion...if the situation satisfies 9:31 and 9:32...then I have a choice to make...but it won't be based on fear of getting into trouble...it will be based on all the facts as they occur in a situation where I know I'm justified if my choice is to use deadly force...

[apostate]

When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events.

I agree. However, I cannot deny there are many people, including some instructors, who say a CH licensee should not present their sidearm unless they intend to shoot and are legally justified in shooting.

[Beiruty]

When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events.

I agree. However, I cannot deny there are many people, including some instructors, who say a CH licensee should not present their sidearm unless they intend to shoot and are legally justified in shooting.

As I understand the law, one may be able draw on someone who is simply assulting the CHLer as threat of use of deadly force. (no deadly wepon presented by the agressor). Hower, if the threat of use of deadly force failed to deter the aggressor, shooting the agressor would be dicy at best, and would place the CHLer in big legal trouble. It is the case, since simple assult does not justify the use of deadly force ( shooting the bad guy). However, Robbery and Aggrevate Robbery do justify the use of deadly force.

The Annoyed man, disagree with my analysis, since he consdiers fist-fight a potentionaly deadly threat.

[speedsix]

When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events.

I agree. However, I cannot deny there are many people, including some instructors, who say a CH licensee should not present their sidearm unless they intend to shoot and are legally justified in shooting.

As I understand the law, one may be able draw on someone who is simply assulting the CHLer as threat of use of deadly force. (no deadly wepon presented by the agressor). Hower, if the threat of use of deadly force failed to deter the aggressor, shooting the agressor would be dicy at best, and would place the CHLer in big legal trouble. It is the case, since simple assult does not justify the use of deadly force ( shooting the bad guy). However, Robbery and Aggrevate Robbery do justify the use of deadly force.

The Annoyed man, disagree with my analysis, since he consdiers fist-fight a potentionaly deadly threat.

...there are several crimes against which deadly force is justified that do not even require a deadly weapon being used by the aggressor...

[Beiruty]

...there are several crimes against which deadly force is justified that do not even require a deadly weapon being used by the agressor...

Like simple robbery, kidnapping, etc.... as in the law.

[speedsix]

...there are several crimes against which deadly force is justified that do not even require a deadly weapon being used by the agressor...

Like simple robbery, kidnapping, etc.... as in the law.

...that'd be "aggravated kidnapping" and "robbery"...they're listed in 9:32(a)(2)(B)

[gigag04]

I've read the code....really? We're going here?

Sec. 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 the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.  The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
{Burglary or Kidnapping in progress} or...
(C)  was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

The same verb tense study can be applied to 9.32 as well. If the actor abandons the encounter, you will have some 'spraining to do. This is not "my opinion" it's how the text reads. FWIW, I feel I am more than qualified to opine on how the penal code gets applied by Texas LEOs.

[apostate]

Apropos, I heard John Farnam and Claude Werner (among others) speak this past weekend and both discussed drawing without shooting. It's a personal decision and I can't say what's right for someone else in their situation, but I do think it behooves us to consider the possibility that shooting may not always be in our best interest.

[speedsix]

...I don't know how to hilight but 9:31(a) says in part: "...The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this sub section is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:..." so if you're justified under the rest of 9:31, and follow through to 9:32, where you read (b), which re-states it...then follow through 9:32...that explains the first part you printed in bold...so that's not a question...


...the second part you put in bold "...committing or attempting to commit..." includes any and all parts of the offense...including escape...I'm not talking about 3 hours later...immediately means immediately...the law doesn't require that we let them escape when they've committed the crimes in 9:32(a)(2)(B)...nothing in either place suggests the justified force ceased to be justified if they tried to escape...

...how the penal code "gets applied" by Texas LEOs isn't where trouble comes...it's the prosecutors, Grand Juries, judges and juries who decide if we followed the letter of the law...

...your use of the term "abandons the encounter" would be appropriate in an assault situation...but how does one abandon an aggravated kidnapping, a murder, a sexual assault, an aggravated sexual assault a robbery, or an aggravated robbery...the deed is done once the elements of those crimes have been met...you're not talking about changing his mind and abandoning an encounter...you're talking about escaping after committing a crime...

[apostate]

...the deed is done once the elements of those crimes have been met...you're not talking about changing his mind and abandoning an encounter...you're talking about escaping after committing a crime...

If "the deed is done" then you're talking about arrest, not preventing the crime. Obviously, it's different with kidnapping if they still have the victim, but in that situation the crime is in progress which is different than escaping afterward.

[Dave2]

When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events.

I agree. However, I cannot deny there are many people, including some instructors, who say a CH licensee should not present their sidearm unless they intend to shoot and are legally justified in shooting.

Yeah, but there's plenty of time between when you begin drawing your gun and when you have it on-target. In this intervening period, new information may cause you to change your mind. It's not like the law says "if your hand touches your gun you are REQUIRED to shoot at least three people" or anything...

[speedsix]

If "the deed is done" then you're talking about arrest, not preventing the crime. I don't believe the fleeing felon rule is in effect these days.

...PC9:31 and 9:32 don't mention any fleeing felon rule...nor arrest...but since you bring that up...do you really believe we're justified in using deadly force to recover property involved in two of the crimes mentioned, robbery or aggravated robbery...and yet not justified in using deadly force in preventing the escape of someone who has just committed or was in commission of the crimes listed in 9:32(a)(2)(B)?

...edited to change 9:32(a)(1)(B) to 9:32(a)(2)(B), which is where the crimes are listed