Do you believe in....

[LkWinnipesaukee]

I know in Texas you can draw your gun if you dont intend to immediately fire, to stop a situation that is escalating.

What do you guys think of this? Good rule, bad rule? Should other states allow the same? Thoughts, comments, questions, concerns?


edit: this may be better suited in the Legal section, admins, please feel free to move, and I apologize.

 

[LeonCarr]

In Texas, displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm falls under Disorderly Conduct, PC 42.01(a)(10), a Class B Misdemeanor (i.e. you can be arrested and taken to jail).

What type of escalating situation are you describing? You could run away, take cover and call 911, or if no resonable alternative exists, use lawful deadly force.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Low-Sci]

Legal or not, I think that's a good rule and it should be legal to put your firearm in low ready instead of firing immediately. It gives you just one more chance to save yourself a whole crapload of money in court and one more chance at not having to kill someone.

 

[AirForceShooter]

I don't believe in warnings. waving a gun around saying "please stop doing that or I may have to hurt you" is nutty.
I am a firm believer in "you pull it you shoot it". Surprise Bad Guy. I win you lose.
That assumes you have no other choice. I'm in Florida and even thought it's not required I'll try to withdraw if I can.

Just my .02.

AFS

 

[XavierBreath]

The introduction of a gun, in the hands of someone unwilling to immediately use it, will usually only escalate a confrontation.

As shown by LeonCarr, you are mistaken about the law in Texas.

Occasionally, the introduction of a firearm into a conflict will cause the other party to disengage from the conflict. To expect that to happen though, is wishfull thinking. The other party may just as quickly ramp up the confrontation to assault.

Thus, I will not introduce a gun unless I have already decided to use it. If the other party disengages at the presentation of the gun, well and good. I do not introduce the gun believing they will, however.

 

[LkWinnipesaukee]

I stand corrected. However read a post a few weeks ago where someone in (Dallas?) Texas unholstered his gun when someone confronted him.

If I find the thread I'll post it here.



Bingo.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=222733&highlight=dallas+acura+nsx
Post 24.

Someone asked
Quote:
What happened there?

Well it was 2am and I had been at a concert in downtown Dallas. I was alone in my car, had nothing to drink but water, and I had run low on fuel. Pure forgetfulness on my part. Fuel light comes on and I see from the computer that I just can't make it home. Distance to empty means stop NOW.

So, I pull off the road in the absolute worst part of Dallas, but I didn't have a choice.

2am in an Acura NSX with the roof off so I clearly have no retreat option.. I'm filling my car and 2 guys come from around the back of the gas station. I see them and give a yell, "Stay Back" and they keep coming. I yell again "Stay Back" and they keep coming.

I'm in the light, they are in the darkness, hands hidden. I pull the SigP239, hold it in front of me where they can see it and ask nicely again "Stay Back". By now they are less than 15 feet away and headed towards me. There will be no more warnings. As I raise the gun to aim (Tueller, and the fact that I've seen no weapon bothers me not in the least after 3 warnings) they decide maybe I'm serious, raise their hands and walk away.

I stop the pump and get in the car, haul a** away.

I call 9-1-1 to report and the dispatcher takes some info then tells me no problem, since in Texas you may show a firearm as a deterrent.

 

[scottgun]

People who are not educated in self-defense and CCW have the mistaken notion that if you wave your gun, the attacker will comply and stop the attack. This is a deadly and mistaken notion. Thats where the idea of 'if you pull your gun you use it', comes from. Shooting someone is a terrible thing to do, even if it is to save your life. I don't know this from experience, but I will take others word for it. So the mantra is instilled that if you pull a gun for self defense, you better be ready to use it. Its not for show and tell, its not to reason with the attacker or to see who can call the other's bluff. Pulling a gun is to stop an immediate and deadly attack. But since shooting someone is a major, horrific event, if I am being attacked I will draw my gun and if the attacker immediately ceases the attack then I will not shoot. The idea of self defense is to immediately stop the attack, so as soon as the attack ceases, so will my response.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I stand corrected. However read a post a few weeks ago where someone in (Dallas?) Texas unholstered his gun when someone confronted him.

Yep. That was me.

In Texas, displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm falls under Disorderly Conduct, PC 42.01(a)(10), a Class B Misdemeanor (i.e. you can be arrested and taken to jail).

Maybe so, but the relevant portion of the Penal Code is found in PC9.04. In my case I called 9-1-1 and I was NOT arrested, NOT taken to jail, barely even asked my name.

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.

Having my firearm readily available stopped the situation from escalating, I didn't have to shoot anyone, and the cops didn't care.

My justification comes from PC 9.31:

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.

2 guys heading towards me, one with hands hidden, and both non responsive to verbal demands to stop.
Disparity of force and a reasonable belief that at least one had a weapon and wrongful intent as their plan proven, in my mind at least, by the calm manner in which these 2 broke off the encounter. No freaking out at the sight of my weapon, just a calm decision to turn away.

So, tell me again how it was a bad move?

 

[geekWithA.45]

The decision to draw IS SEPARATE FROM the decision to shoot. One may follow the other swiftly, slowly, or not at all, depending on what happens.

The law does not require that we lag in our OODA loops.

It does require that it be a reasonable response to a dangerous situation.

You can, and arguably should draw when the situation is such that shooting would be justified. In other words, a reasonable person could articulate the likelyhood of means, proximity and jeapardy of recieving death or serious bodily harm was in the process of manifesting itself.

The decision to _actually_ shoot, of course, depends on which way that manifestation actually goes.

Criminals are street smart, they work ambiguities to their advantage, but that does not mean that we have to make ourselves vulnerable until the danger to be clearly spelled out in 12 foot tall neon letters.

It is during this phase of ambiguity that we should be rapidly evaluating our options, ranking presentation of a sidearm down towards the bottom of the list.

 

[XavierBreath]

This thread was apparently begun on the mistaken impression that it is legal to brandish a gun in Texas, with the idea that such brandishment will de-escalate a confrontation.

It has been shown that this action violates the law in Texas.
It has been shown that this action may not produce the desired result.

Another poster, who successfully ended a confrontation by brandishing, was not charged by the police.
That does not make the action legal.
That does not make the action wise.
That does not make the action one to recommend.
It did make his actions successful in that instance.

I, myself, have had a similar experience, where the sight of my gun, which I had drawn and held at low ready, changed the course of events.
I was fortunate that the other two guys decided to turn.
So were they.
So was TexasSIGman.

So, tell me why this thread should remain open?

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) 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;
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public
place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate
breach of the peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and
unreasonable odor in a public place;
(4) abuses or threatens[0] a person in a public place in
an obviously offensive manner;
(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other
than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local
Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no
right to occupy;
(6) fights with another in a public place;
(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a
public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section
250.001, Local Government Code;
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon[0] in a
public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;
(10) exposes his **** or genitals in a public place and
is reckless about whether another may be present who will be
offended or alarmed by his act; or
(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:
(A) enters on the property of another and looks
into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening
in the dwelling;
(B) while on the premises of a hotel or
comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's
own through a window or other opening in the room; or
(C) while on the premises of a public place,
looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or
dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using
the area.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4)
that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or
threatening conduct.
(c) For purposes of this section:
(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near
a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed
consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and
(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise
exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise
receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is
a public nuisance.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor
unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event
it is a Class B misdemeanor.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under
Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm
had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another
by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and
Safety Code.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 181, ch. 89, § 1, 2, eff. Aug.
29, 1977; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4641, ch. 800, § 1, eff. Sept.
1, 1983; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 145, § 2, eff. Aug. 26, 1991;
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts
1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2001,
77th Leg., ch. 54, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg.,
ch. 389, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense
if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent
danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a
firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless
as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor
knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another
whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation,"
and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section
30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A
misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the
third degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 22.06. CONSENT AS DEFENSE TO ASSAULTIVE CONDUCT. The
victim's effective consent or the actor's reasonable belief that
the victim consented to the actor's conduct is a defense to
prosecution under Section 22.01 (Assault), 22.02 (Aggravated
Assault), or 22.05 (Deadly Conduct) if:
(1) the conduct did not threaten or inflict serious
bodily injury; or
(2) the victim knew the conduct was a risk of:
(A) his occupation;
(B) recognized medical treatment; or
(C) a scientific experiment conducted by
recognized methods.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

In fairness............

§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So, tell me why this thread should remain open?

Because I think you've made a hell of a leap to pronounce that the action I took was illegal, even when shown the Texas Penal Code where it is specifically allowed.

ETA: Notice you added the other piece of the Penal Code, thanks.

You quote the brandishing laws, which have nothing to do with a self defense situation. When using a gun as a deterrent, it is not brandishing; in fact it is SPECIFICALLY SHOWN TO BE LEGAL (in Texas at least).

Your 3 stances:

That does not make the action legal. (not true)
That does not make the action wise. (possibly true, possibly not, the actual point of debate I think)
That does not make the action one to recommend. (why not?)

It would seem to still have room for some other posters to share their opinions and perhaps some other real life stories.

I don't think it's so open and shut, I think maybe there is something to be learned by debating it.

 

[XavierBreath]

Because I think you've made a hell of a leap to pronounce that the action I took was illegal, even when shown the Texas Penal Code where it is specifically allowed.

I did not say your actions were illegal.
I said not being charged by the police does not make them legal.

There is a difference, and that difference needs to be understood.
That difference is where many people find themselves in these situations.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Agreed, which is why I thought maybe there was something to be learned by the discussion. But you're the boss

Was I lucky? Absolutely.

So to sort of keep the topic going if you are going to leave it open let me ask this.

Is Texas the only place with a statute such as this?
I know that the folks teaching the state approved CCW classes specifically mention this statute in class.

One reason I ask is there is a thread in GD now talking about defensive gun use, and some statistics are being bantered around that the mere presence of a firearm is shown to be a deterrent 60 times as often as a gun that is actually fired in defense.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=227046

 

[XavierBreath]

Is Texas the only place with a statute such as this?

Not at all. Most states that allow concealed carry have similar legislation.

My state, Louisiana does as well. As I stated, I had a very similar situation. Two potential attackers were successfully deterred by the sight of my drawn pistol. I am not saying what you, or I did was wrong, or unsound. The success is evident.

I am saying that neither we, nor anyone else should expect the same good fortune of a potential attacker turning away at the sight of a gun the next time.
Because pulling a gun, and only pulling a gun, cannot be counted on to stop an impending attack, it cannot be recommended. (note I say impending attack, not attack in progress. IOW, I do not fault your timing.)

If I pulled a Tickle Me Elmo out and frightened away a mugger with it, should I then assume every mugger will be repelled by a Tickle Me Elmo? Should I recommend people carry Tickle Me Elmos? No.

A firearm is recommended because it has the capability to forcibly end an attack. To be successful in using the firearm to end the attack, the weilder must either actually use it, or be percieved by the attacker as having the will to do so. Otherwise the gun becomes little more than a Tickle Me Elmo.

It is the will to kill within a chosen victim that stops a violent attacker, not a gun.

 

[expvideo]

In Washington state (which is much more liberal) I have encountered a similar situation. A few of them actually. I worked at a night club, so I saw fights on a regular basis, and rather frequently guns were displayed.

On one occassion, a man was beaten nearly to death by a mob of nearly 50. When I finally got to him he was unconscious and bleeding profusely from the face, still being stomped on by several men. I ran to the man and shone a surefire light at the crowd while reaching for my weapon. The crowd immendately dispursed. This was not only legal, it saved the life of that young man, the paramedics would later tell me.

On another occasion, a young man had walked across the parking lot with a machinepistol, and pointed it at a frightened crowd of nearly 30. I had taken cover behind a van 20 yards to the assailant's 10 o'clock, but was unsure of the shot (he had an automatic weapon and I had a 7+1 shot .45, not to mention the SUV full of people behind me that would likely have been killed if he shot in my direction). The man fled before I had an opportune moment to take the shot. I told this all to the police when they did their report, and I wasn't asked for a permit or even for ID.

My point is, there is no law that a pistol must be fired if it is drawn. Often the situation de-escalates as the weapon is being drawn and by the time it is in play, there are no longer all three elements of a lawful self defense shooting.



I would however caution against using a gun to gain leverage in an arguement. It is unwise to draw without the intention of firing. Still, you can have the intention at the beginning of the draw, and no longer have the need afterwards.

 

[XavierBreath]

It is the will to kill within a chosen victim that stops a violent attacker, not a gun.

I will go a bit farther if TexasSIGman will humor me.

The will to kill another human being is not an attractive thing to a rational, law abiding person, especially when they discover it within themselves. It is an unfamiliar, frightening part of our psyche that we often do not want to examine. Thus, we rationalize that it was the gun, the talisman against evil, that deterred an attacker.

The attacker knows better. The attacker did not fear the gun. The deterred attacker knows he feared his victim would kill him with the gun. He suddenly found himself in fear of his chosen victim. The gun provides the victim with the means to kill, but the attacker does not fear the means. He fears the will to kill.

After the encounter, the victim, now no longer under attack, wants to lock away that primal part of himself that was ready to kill. He wants to forget that it was there, deny it's existence. Thus he credits the gun with the deterrence of an attack.

Thoughts?

 

[MachIVshooter]

I don't believe in warnings. waving a gun around saying "please stop doing that or I may have to hurt you" is nutty.
I am a firm believer in "you pull it you shoot it". Surprise Bad Guy. I win you lose.

Counting on the presence of your firearm without the will to use it is nutty. But the introduction of a weapon by the intended victim can certainly be effective in diffusing the attack without a loss of life.

I believe that if it is possible to end the confrontation without loss of life, that is definitely preferable for innumerable reasons.

The situation must be eveluated. Big difference between some punk kid looking to score a buck by threatening you with a small knife he obviously does not know how to use, and an escaped convict holding you hostage with a dead cop's service pistol.

The former could end with the kid wetting himself while running off, while the latter instance will almost certainly end up in loss of life.

If I think I can end the situation without anyone being hurt, I will-even if it means drawing and holding a bead on BG's forehead. OTOH, if I reasonably believe that BG will seriously hurt or kill me or someone else if allowed to live, I'll draw to shoot and shoot to kill.

The laws governing the use of deadly force are guidelines; in the moment of truth it will be your judement that makes or breaks you.

On that note, if I wake to find a figure in my doorway at 3am, the intent is clear, the situation is desperate and I'm unloading.

 

[strambo]

Drawn firearms result in the criminals running away more often than not. Shots fired from citizens are rare in comparison to the # of times firearms are drawn or displayed. To say that thinking a criminal will run away is mistaken...is not bared out by the facts. The reasonable course of action for their survival is to run away, hence the statistics backing this up. As a poster above said, the decision to draw is separate from the decision to shoot. You must believe you are in imminent threat of serious bodily harm to draw. You must continue to believe you are in fear of serious bodily harm to shoot. That can occur immediately, or something can change (the criminals leave) that alters the decision to shoot.

Waiting till the last moment, to draw and shoot can be as detrimental to your health as the opposite notion that the mere prescence of the gun will solve everything. If I draw a gun, I am prepared to use it, but I do not feel required to use it if the situation changes course. This change of course will happen in many cases, but I do not allow that to cloud my judgement. I draw because I figure I'll have to use deadly force if something doesn't change.

He wasn't brandishing at all, his actions did not meet the motive for disorderly conduct or deadly conduct as defined by those laws. He drew to protect himself, not "cause alarm". The fact that he didn't have to shoot means those guys were smart. He drew his weapon to use it to protect himself, not change the behavior of others. The "others" changed their behavior of their own accord.

 

[DRMMR02]

Xavier said: The gun provides the victim with the means to kill, but the attacker does not fear the means. He fears the will to kill.

The drawing of a gun and the will to use it go hand in hand. Just as if one robs a store at gunpoint, the threat to life is just assumed. If they have a gun drawn at all, it is a given that they are willing to use it. No one is going to draw a gun on someone but use a "but I wasn't really going to fire" argument. The presence of a drawn gun=the imminent threat of death. Always. That goes for police, criminals, and regular citizens. If a gun is drawn, you had better believe they are willing to use it.

But that doesn't mean you have to. Just be willing to if the need arises. If I ever am confronted in a situation, I will have the desire to end it with as little force as possible. But I will also have the ability and peace of mind to end it with as much force as needed without hesitation. I'm able to go as far as needed, but that doesn't mean I will end up doing that every time.

When it comes down to it, I place the consequence of doing the right or wrong thing above the consequences of the law. Luckily, they go hand in hand almost all of the time. But if I drew on someone, and did not shoot them, and later got charged with brandishing, I will not wish I had done anything different, even if it would have meant I got off. I'll take the brandishing charge if it means not killing someone if I didn't have to.

 

[TexasRifleman]

After the encounter, the victim, now no longer under attack, wants to lock away that primal part of himself that was ready to kill. He wants to forget that it was there, deny it's existence. Thus he credits the gun with the deterrence of an attack.

Thoughts?

A good deal of that is likely true, I just feel the differentiator of the presence of the gun shows this "bad guy" that you have the MEANS.

In my situation for example I was outnumbered 2 to 1 and both bigger than me. What if their will to kill was as strong as mine?

What the gun brings in situations like that is a display of the MEANS to win a fight even if outumbered.

So yes the "don't act like a victim" mentality is important, but the presentation of the EXACT MANNER in which you will stop your attacker shows that not only do you have the will to defend yourself but that you have indeed thought about it beforehand and come prepared with the tools.

So I think XB is right on with the psychoanalysis portion, but the criminal mind is more simple I think.

"Guy got gun, guy gonna shoot me, me no wanna get shot, me outta here"

 

[XavierBreath]

The drawing of a gun and the will to use it go hand in hand.

To the rational law abiding citizen, this is the case. To the criminal, it may well not be the case. The criminal understands that there are many people who will pull a gun, but who lack the resolve to use it. Many criminals have had guns pointed at them in the past without the trigger ever being pulled. Many have been shot at and missed by a trembling victim. The fact is, many life time criminals do not fear guns. Many do, however, fear losing their life.

This is why I say the criminal fears the will to kill, regardless of the weapon shown. Few criminals who value their own life will attack police officers or gang members. They are careful not to make these mistakes because they believe they will be killed or incarcerated.

All bets are off on the criminal who does not fear death.

 

[strambo]

"Guy got gun, guy gonna shoot me, me no wanna get shot, me outta here"

Exactly, criminals aren't worried about what you can do to them, just what they want from you. A gun, gives an immediate negative consequence to their actions that is obvious. I train an awful lot of HtoH combat to include multiple opponents. If I had no choice and 2 guys bigger than me attacked, I would do everything I could to injure them until they are in a non-functional state. That may mean strikes to lethal targets to ensure one doesn't get up and shoot me in the back while I'm dealing with his friend. For their sake, it might be better if I had a gun.

5'10" mild-mannered me isn't gonna disuade 2 big guys from having a go. They'll find out what I know if they regain consciousness. If it doesn't go that way, then it's me in the hospital or the morgue. If I draw a gun, they now can visually see I have the means to kill them. I had it all along, but you can't "see" someone's skill and training. Now they can make a choice in light of the visual evidence of my ability to kill. Again, I wouldn't draw if I didn't think I'd have to use it, the ball is in their court.

If unarmed, well if they attack, my back's up against the (proverbial) wall. They won't get a chance, however fleeting to change their mind, my safety won't allow it. If I give them a couple good stikes and then a chance to bail, they might use that chance to draw a gun or knife. Once it is "ON" it continues until they are no longer a threat, or I can safely escape.

The firearm lets you confront a deadly threat at a distance. That distance gives them a chance to reconsider. This is a good thing, I too would rather risk a "brandishing" misdemeanor than have to kill someone or get killed because I waited too long to act.

 

[Riz58]

Get a Degree First!

It is interesting reading the legal advice offered here. I would suggest most of you go get the degree before offering legal advice or making absolute statments.

Just as was experienced at the Dallas gas station, the brandishing of a firearm in the face of growing threat is not illegal. It is a justifiable threat under the statute in my opinion. They were warned to stay away, and continued the approach (3 men), brandishing the weapon was a reasonable warning - yet they continued creating concern they did intend great bodily harm, pointing the weapon diffused the situation.

You may argue about the tactics, but do not argue it was illegal. In fact, if the commentator had shot at the gas station, the fact that he took the previous steps would greatly enhance his defense of the shooting.

My 2 cents.

 

[XavierBreath]

Riz, if you read over the thread, you will see that it has morphed from a very general circumstance in the original post, to a very specific circumstance in TexasSIGman's post.

Some of the follow-up posts address the original post, others address TexasSIGman's experience specifically. Nobody has said TexasSIGman did anything illegal. I have said that declaring his actions legal because he was not charged by the policeman at the scene is flawed reasoning. That does not mean his actions are illegal, it just means that one cannot judge the legality of an action based on whether a person is arrested or cited by the police. Had another officer responded, or had the same act occured in another area, the outcome could have been different. Even then, the charges could be contested. Many times actions fall within the grey area between legal and illegal. That is why police officers can charge a person, but it takes a judge or jury to convict and prosecute them.

This is not legal advice, nor opinion. The relevant statutes from Texas law have been posted so anyone who cares to read them can draw their own conclusions based on the statutes. They have not been cherrypicked to present one position over the other, but rather to show both sides.

 

[Eyesac]

I think in the situation of slowly approaching BGs, I need some: OC in the left hand + gun in the right + ample warnings. Just my luck, I'd flatten the two approaching me, come to find out they were unusually large 14yr old kids trying to sell me girl scout cookies at an inappropriate hour...