At what point do you use a Gun?
This is a discussion on At what point do you use a Gun? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; At what point do you use a Gun?
I am a new Glock 23 owner, just completed the CHL. Of course what i learned was ...
May 4th, 2012 06:45 PM
At what point do you use a Gun?
At what point do you use a Gun?
I am a new Glock 23 owner, just completed the CHL. Of course what i learned was you can use "deadly force" to "stop" someone if your life is threatened or life of another you come across is threatened. If you use deadly force where a jury decides otherwise - you are in deep trouble. Except in your home of course with a break in (Castle law Texas).
There are a lot of scenarios that cause me to think about this. That is what if, i was walking down the street and some gang thug decided to attack me to score points with his gang. You do not know where he is going with the beat down. Will he smash your head on concrete - to score bigger points for a kill? Or will he just place you in the hospital for a week or so, maybe with permanent paralysis to your left hand or something. Yet he is just a 6"6" Big hulk and carries no weapon. Interesting question: At what point during his joy "beat down" - if you are still conscious can you "stop" him? I.e. Shoot the bugger.
May 4th, 2012 07:00 PM
Welcome to the forum "Backfire"!
When you are afraid for your life, then you can shoot. You are the only one who can decide that.
May 4th, 2012 07:11 PM
Buy some new tennis shoes...the kind that make you run faster.
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
May 4th, 2012 07:14 PM
OP, I encourage you to run some forum and Internet searches on Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy.
May 4th, 2012 07:17 PM
Deadly Force Triangle
Also, here is Mi. law pertaining to this topic.
Texas law may differ.
It is up to YOU, to find if it exists, and know it..
I am merely showing you Michigan law as an example.
MCL 600.2922b, MCL 600.2922c, &
The Self-Defense Act
Effective October 1, 2006
Public Acts 309 – 314 of 2006 comprise the “Self-Defense Act.” The Act affects criminal and civil liability for those who use force to defend themselves or others. Prior to this Act, the law of self-defense was gleaned primarily from the common law (judge-made law).
General Provisions of the Act
A person may use deadly force with no duty to retreat if (PA 309):
1. They are not engaged in a crime
2. They are in a place they have a legal right to be
3. They honestly and reasonably believe deadly force is necessary
4. The deadly force is used to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of the person or another
A person may use force other than deadly force if (PA 309):
1. They are not engaged in a crime
2. They are in a place they have a legal right to be
3. They honestly and reasonably believe force is necessary
4. The force is used to prevent imminent unlawful force against the person or another
Honest and Reasonable Belief
The Act (PA 311) creates a rebuttable presumption that a person using force has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault will occur if the person using force honestly and reasonably believes the person against whom force is used is any of the following:
1. In the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business
2. In the process of committing a home invasion
3. Has committed a breaking and entering or home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business
4. Is attempting to unlawfully remove a person from a dwelling, business, or vehicle against his or her will
The presumption created by the Act does not apply in the following circumstances:
1. The person against whom force was used has a legal right to be in the dwelling, business, or vehicle
2. The person being removed from a dwelling, business, or vehicle is a child in the lawful custody of the person removing the child
3. The person using force is engaged in a crime or using the business, dwelling, or vehicle to further a crime
4. The person against whom force is used is a police officer attempting to enter a dwelling, business, or vehicle in the performance of his or her duties
5. The person against whom force was used has a domestic relationship with the person using force and the person using force
Effect on the Common Law
In circumstances not addressed in the Act, the common law of self-defense still applies with one exception: There is no longer a duty to retreat when a person is “in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling.” This exception applies even in cases where the rest of the Act doesn’t apply (PA 313).
A person who uses force in accordance with the Act is immune from civil liability for damages caused by the use of such force (PA 314). Additionally, courts must award attorney fees and costs to an individual who has been sued for using force and the court finds that the force was in accordance with the Act (PA 312).
Under the Act (PA 310), no crime has been committed when a person uses force as authorized. If a prosecutor believes that the force is not justified, he or she must provide evidence that the force used was not in accordance with the Act. Such evidence must be presented at the time of warrant issuance, preliminary examination, and trial.
Effect on Law Enforcement
The overall effect of the Act on police practice is minimal. Officers should still process suspected crime scenes as in the past. However, because of the duty imposed upon prosecutors by PA 310, officers should immediately consult with their prosecutor when investigating a case where self-defense has been claimed by the suspect or where the circumstances indicate that such a defense might be used at trial.
In the absence of guidance from a prosecutor, officers should attempt to gather circumstantial or direct evidence that might show that use of force was unjustified, i.e., the circumstances listed in PA 309 did not exist.
Public Act 309 of 2006 Public Act 310 of 2006
Public Act 311 of 2006 Public Act 312 of 2006
Public Act 313 of 2006 Public Act 314 of 2006
I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro .357sig
May 4th, 2012 07:21 PM
What Blades said. If you wait until he beats you to death, you have waited too late. That is a decision only you alone can make.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. Because it's in English, thank a vet
May 4th, 2012 07:33 PM
My I suggest training training, training, training. Not only in firearms but hand to hand, employment of less lethal means, and physical conditioning. All of these can possibly give you that extra second or more confidence in yourself handling a situation before resorting to lethal means. But in the end the decision is up to you. I not only shoot regularly but do combatives once a week or so. Tai chi, weightlifting, running, are part of my week.
Welcome to the forum. Pay attentions and I pray you never have to make a fateful decision.
BTW: I am moving to TX in July!
May 4th, 2012 07:39 PM
Circumstances dictate the action, and they may be different for each person. Too many variables to say for sure.
Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.
May 4th, 2012 07:49 PM
I use my gun when there is no other choice. That point in time will vary from situation to situation. There's really no concrete way to say "this is when you should shoot". I'm not a large guy by any means - 5'7" and 140lbs - If I've got a 6'6" football player looking guy bearing down on me, I'd likely draw and shoot as quickly and accurately as possible.
May 4th, 2012 08:50 PM
You use your lethal weapon In the Gravest Extreme
In fact, that happens to be the title of a book. Arguably THE Bible of concealed carry.
This is your first task grasshopper, find a copy of this book, borrow it from the library, or purchase it. And, read it two or three times. If it is your own copy underline the parts that "speak" to you.
It is old. Not as old as The Bible, but its information as regards when to use your gun are still quite useful, and timeless.
The author is Massad Ayoob.
Do it soonest.
It could be worse!
May 4th, 2012 08:56 PM
This is a must read for everyone with a CCW.
Originally Posted by oakchas
May 4th, 2012 09:00 PM
when all else has failed to prevent another from causing me and mine harm
shooting another, no matter how rightious, is the very last thing you ever want to do...
though we train cause it may happen that it is the very first thing we may have to do.
that shot will change your life as it saves it. there is the potential for court costs,
which may drag on for years. stressing yourself and family to the point of divorce;
and bankruptcy and some states still allow for civil action even if found not guilty.
carry throw down money, even a wallet and try not to let a line you draw be
dictated by ego.
Arthritis sucks big-big
Why do those elected to positions of power than work so hard
to deny those same opportunities to the same people who empowered them
May 4th, 2012 09:02 PM
First off, welcome to the forum.
As to your question, basic rule of thumb is that if you fear for your life and or grave physical injuries, you are justified to use deadly force. You must also be able to convince the police and DA that those fears were warranted. Of course that will vary from state to state, as well as community to community.
Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.
NRA Life Member
May 4th, 2012 09:05 PM
Below is TX law pertaining to when and when not deadly force is authorized
Self Defense Statutes
(Texas Penal Code)
(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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Deadly Force in Defense of Person
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."
Defense of Another Person
"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."
Deadly Force to Protect Property
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
Protection of the Property of Others
"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."
"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."
"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."
"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."
Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost
"Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."
"A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."
Self Defense Definitions
"Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."
"Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon."
"Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft."
"Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person."
Doug Briggs, "A Matter of Personal Protection: The Weapons Laws of Texas", 2nd ed., 1992. ISBN 1-881287-01-7.
This page provided by AIMNET Corporation, Houston, TX.
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
May 4th, 2012 09:13 PM
Speed of assessment is the key. Usually, by the time you know for sure you're in trouble, it could very well be too late. A gun is a last resort.
Search tags for this page
can you use a shotgun in texas
deadly force triangle
defensive use of force arizona
when can i use my gun
when can i use my gun for self defense
when can i use my gun in pa
when can i use my gun in texas
when can you point a gun at someone
when can you use a gun
when can you use your gun
when can you use your gun in texas
when to use your gun
Click on a term to search for related topics.