Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee - Page 2

Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee

This is a discussion on Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by linuss In Texas, per the CHL statutes, threatening with a deadly weapon is not considered using deadly force. It's considered verbal force. ...

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 147
Like Tree192Likes

Thread: Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by linuss View Post
    In Texas, per the CHL statutes, threatening with a deadly weapon is not considered using deadly force. It's considered verbal force.

    And per the law, the threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified, meaning if someone hits you, you can either hit them back or say "Ill hit you back" since physical force is allowed, so is threatening the force.



    Therefore going off the article, the CHL guy was 100% legally right.
    I think this is pretty thin ice because the next thing you know an unarmed individual gets shot (lethal force)
    and the whole question of whether or not the use of lethal force was justified by the threat comes into play.

    Also risk of bystanders in the crowd getting shot too were exceedingly high. IMO sufficiently high
    to constitute criminal negligence if it happened.

    The use of force was appropriate in this case, but force considerably less than drawing the gun was
    probably in order. e.g., pepper, a kick, or how about less ego and just walk away.


    I do agree with the earlier poster who said an LEO made a call at the scene so there probably
    are lots of pieces of info we don't have.
    goldshellback and d2jlking like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array deadguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,805
    Quote Originally Posted by linuss View Post
    In Texas, per the CHL statutes, threatening with a deadly weapon is not considered using deadly force. It's considered verbal force.

    And per the law, the threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified, meaning if someone hits you, you can either hit them back or say "Ill hit you back" since physical force is allowed, so is threatening the force.



    Therefore going off the article, the CHL guy was 100% legally right.
    There ya go.

    I guess it's also possible the aggressor made a verbal threat at the time that justified no arrest of the CHP holder. We just don;t know
    Tayopo likes this.
    There's nothing like a funeral to make you feel alive

  3. #18
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by deadguy View Post
    There ya go.

    I guess it's also possible the aggressor made a verbal threat at the time that justified no arrest of the CHP holder. We just don;t know
    Not so fast:

    PC §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:
    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    1A Is irrelevant to the situation
    1B Is also irrelevant to the situation
    1C Says nothing about simple assault, and is irrelevant.

    Per this section (which deals with use of force in general, not lethal force specifically) there
    does not appear to be a presumption that force can be used in response to what occurred.
    Simply being punched doesn't create the presumptions which are defined; at least
    that is my reading of this. Put another way, you can't just engage in a fight if you can walk away.
    You can't just retaliate.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array ntkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I think this is pretty thin ice because the next thing you know an unarmed individual gets shot (lethal force)
    and the whole question of whether or not the use of lethal force was justified by the threat comes into play.

    Also risk of bystanders in the crowd getting shot too were exceedingly high. IMO sufficiently high
    to constitute criminal negligence if it happened.

    The use of force was appropriate in this case, but force considerably less than drawing the gun was
    probably in order. e.g., pepper, a kick, or how about less ego and just walk away.


    I do agree with the earlier poster who said an LEO made a call at the scene so there probably
    are lots of pieces of info we don't have.
    He pulls the gun after he is attacked, not before, if he was to use mace or pepper spray and it got other people a law suit may have been pending. I disagree with you completely, several people have been killed with just one punch and also others have had severe damage done to their person, losing an eye and what not.
    It’s high time people learned to be polite in public, my guess is the next time he thinks of smacking someone he will think twice.
    Tayopo, oneshot and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.
    1911 when a follow up shot just isn't an option

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,891
    Quote Originally Posted by ntkb View Post
    He pulls the gun after he is attacked, not before, if he was to use mace or pepper spray and it got other people a law suit may have been pending. I disagree with you completely, several people have been killed with just one punch and also others have had severe damage done to their person, losing an eye and what not.
    It’s high time people learned to be polite in public, my guess is the next time he thinks of smacking someone he will think twice.
    Yes, we all know someone can be killed with one punch. Evidently HE was not killed and apparently not even injured (enough) for someone to be arrested. EDIT: Just noticed the guy fled.......oops
    Sorry, I know "I wasn't there" line but I don't see myself drawing my firearm in this circumstance. I have had guys 6 inches taller than me threaten me and I never felt he need to pull my weapon.

    Folks seriously need to learn less than lethal means of handling encounters (H2H or pepper spray or whatever.).
    mprp and Hopyard like this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array ntkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Yes, we all know someone can be killed with one punch. Evidently HE was not killed and apparently not even injured (enough) for someone to be arrested. EDIT: Just noticed the guy fled.......oops
    Sorry, I know "I wasn't there" line but I don't see myself drawing my firearm in this circumstance. I have had guys 6 inches taller than me threaten me and I never felt he need to pull my weapon.

    Folks seriously need to learn less than lethal means of handling encounters (H2H or pepper spray or whatever.).
    As I read it the other guy fled the scene after hiding behind a refrigerator, seems he wasn’t there for LE to ask his opinion of what happened. I am guessing that others in the store had some things to say.
    tcox4freedom likes this.
    1911 when a follow up shot just isn't an option

  7. #22
    Member Array d2jlking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by goldshellback View Post
    Very stupid. Not sure of the brandishing laws in Texas and the article dosn't give any real details...... I'm assuming the police did not arrest the 'gun-puller' because there was 'other' information excluded from the press.... i.e., witness statements, threats made by the roudy shopper, etc.

    I agree with the "stay home OR show extreem self-control and back out of a bad situation". Leave the gun holstered.
    Don't want to stare down a gun barrel? Don't punch people in the face. This isn't grade school. You don't get to bully people. Im glad he didn't get arrested for pulling his gun. A punch in the face is a clear signal that you are a violent criminal. The damage from a punch to the head can be severe. Even deadly.
    Tayopo, ep1953, wmhawth and 3 others like this.

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array onacoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,329


    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams

    If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

  9. #24
    Member Array d2jlking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    I'm not going to comment other than to say that I see countless people here in this forum post that they would shoot before they let anyone punch them even once in the face. Usually expressing the analogy "but I could have been killed if he hit me."

    Personally, I don't believe a jury would buy that excuse, but a lot of folks seem to stick with that being enough to keep them out of jail.

    We all know there are anecdotal cases of someone dying from being punched one time in the head. Most people can cite at least one case they know about. Although frequently the actual facts can be mischaracterized because the story is second, third, or fourth hand passed down over generations by the great grandchildren of weird uncle Fudd who once served time in prison with the offender.

    But what the jury quickly finds out in reality that for every one person who tragically gets killed from one punch hits, there are literally hundreds of thousands of other people who get the crap stomped out of them without getting killed or having any serious lasting effects. And that changes how things get viewed when using the "reasonable man standard." The reasonable standard basis of weighing innocence or guilt does not consider a "freak occurrence" to be the norm. And they are presented with statistics which shows the guy who dies from a single punch to the head, falls more in the category of "freak occurrences."

    All I can say is for me, the incident in this post probably wouldn't cross the threshold of drawing a gun... yet. But I'd be ready to if the aggressor thought he was going to continue the assault.
    Very good post. Well stated and thought out. I have a serious question though: You say in this case you wouldn't have drawn a gun. Fair enough. My question is....would you hit him back? Because if you do, you are now probably going to be involved in some mutual combat. He could maybe wrestle your gun free. He may get the upper hand in the fight and begin pummeling you, making it impossible for you to retrieve and use your gun. Please understand, I'm not being argumentative. I just am not sure how I would handle the situation myself. I can't blame the guy for drawing his weapon. At what point is it NOT OKAY for someone to infringe on the rights of others to live in peace?

  10. #25
    Member Array d2jlking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    419
    One more point....."people who get the crap stomped out of them".............

    if you are getting the "crap stomped out of you" would you feel justified in pulling your gun? At what point in the assault do you make the determination that you must stop the assault by force?
    ep1953 likes this.

  11. #26
    Distinguished Member Array onacoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post

    4) Being on line for a Black Friday sale violates the rules of stupid.

    Thoughts from the gallery please.
    Item four (4) is the only Pertinate issue! Had dinner yesterday at the Red Rock Casino Buffet with she who must be obeyed and after a 3 hour wait in line my neck is sore from scanning for BGs, etc.


    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams

    If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

  12. #27
    Member Array d2jlking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I think this is pretty thin ice because the next thing you know an unarmed individual gets shot (lethal force)
    and the whole question of whether or not the use of lethal force was justified by the threat comes into play.

    Also risk of bystanders in the crowd getting shot too were exceedingly high. IMO sufficiently high
    to constitute criminal negligence if it happened.

    The use of force was appropriate in this case, but force considerably less than drawing the gun was
    probably in order. e.g., pepper, a kick, or how about less ego and just walk away.

    I do agree with the earlier poster who said an LEO made a call at the scene so there probably
    are lots of pieces of info we don't have.

    Hopyard- good point about the bystanders. A real important consideration. As for "pepper, a kick or less ego" what is you don't have pepper spray? What if you arent capable of engaging in or winning a fight (kicking, punching, whatever).? As for LESS EGO. I fundamentally disagree with this. Our society is so backwards now that it seems to usually be the victims of bullying or violence or verbal abuse who end up in trouble with authority because of their response to the situation. To me, if you punch me in the face, my response is not about my ego. You punching me, that may have been about your ego, but my response? My response is about me standing up for my right to live free from abuse. My response is about self defense.
    Tayopo, ep1953, msgt/ret and 2 others like this.

  13. #28
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by ntkb View Post
    He pulls the gun after he is attacked, not before, if he was to use mace or pepper spray and it got other people a law suit may have been pending. I disagree with you completely, several people have been killed with just one punch and also others have had severe damage done to their person, losing an eye and what not.
    It’s high time people learned to be polite in public, my guess is the next time he thinks of smacking someone he will think twice.
    Wow, you are responding on the emotional level---"its high time...etc." not on the level of
    what the law allows. In this instance there was no legal presumption to protect the license holder
    from being charged. The law does allow what he did if it is deemed "reasonable." We all know
    that what one officer or DA finds reasonable another might find outrageous.

    Not being there we only know that the responding officer sided with the license holder. Good.

    But, as a general matter, once the punch has been landed it is over unless the guy is winding up or
    threatening more. You as the defender don't keep a fight going just for ego when there is
    nothing further to defend against. The horrific analogy is that pharmacist who shot
    a robber after he was no longer a threat.

    A determined assailant, who meant you serous harm would probably have thrown a series
    of combative strikes and kicks and drawing a weapon would have been impossible. A trained
    defender may have been justified in returning the force with equal or similar force, but
    per the law there is no presumption that he would have been.

    It all depends on what is reasonable in the circumstance. How many here
    really want to trust their freedom to "it all depends," and the 20/20 hindsight of others?

    NOT ME.

    Unless another blow was imminent or being threatened, I'd get my injury treated and let the cops
    make the arrest. If no weapon was being presented I'd prefer pepper to presenting a firearm
    because ALL --absolutely ALL of the legal downsides of its use are greatly far less severe
    than the legal downsides of pointing a gun and perhaps actually firing it.

    There is a reason why the famous book everyone here knows is titled, "IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME."
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #29
    Senior Member Array Lish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    766

    Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee

    I used to shop every Black Friday. Barely sleep...wait in line...be one of the first ones in at 2am... I finally realized it's not worth it. People are nuts. There's a fist fight almost every year at my Walmart on Black Friday. I'd rather be home, safe and warm, sleeping. Maybe I'm getting old...

    On the other hand, if you punch me in the face...I can see me going for my weapon...
    ep1953 likes this.

  15. #30
    Member Array d2jlking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Not so fast:

    PC §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:
    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    1A Is irrelevant to the situation
    1B Is also irrelevant to the situation
    1C Says nothing about simple assault, and is irrelevant.

    Per this section (which deals with use of force in general, not lethal force specifically) there
    does not appear to be a presumption that force can be used in response to what occurred.
    Simply being punched doesn't create the presumptions which are defined; at least
    that is my reading of this. Put another way, you can't just engage in a fight if you can walk away.
    You can't just retaliate.
    I read the info. Thanks for providing that. Is that a Texas law? As for the last sentence.......is that true in practice? You can't just retaliate? If someone punches me, I can't punch them back? That doesn't sound correct.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

black friday melee

,

powered by mybb african american art for sale

,

powered by mybb bra training for men

,

powered by mybb drawing head

,
powered by mybb free legal forms wa
,

powered by mybb head injury attorneys

,

powered by mybb michigan state

,
powered by mybb nevada business license
,

powered by mybb post falls animal control

,

powered by mybb real numbers

,

powered by mybb sell your art online

,

powered by mybb texas state

Click on a term to search for related topics.