Self defense question

IMHO given the fact that your 2-year-old child was next to you, no jury in Texas would convict you of any wrongdoing. I would not have done anything different.

OTOH if I were alone in the same situation, I would have first backed up rapidly while loudly exclaiming "I HAVE A GUN- BACK OFF!!" If they did not respond by the count of 2, then I would draw. :)
 
Part of this in any jurisdiction is going to depend on what witnesses saw. Calling LE was the right thing to do, but you should have remained at the scene until the LEOs arrived, and gotten the names of any witnesses. Also, I would not "confess" to anything, especially brandishing a weapon. Let the witnesses tell the story. If there were no witnesses, and the BGs left, you only need to report their actions so LE can be on the look out. You cannot be convicted of brandishing a weapon unless there are witnesses. Stick to the facts, and say as little about your actions as you can.
 
In my own little world, their is no higher law (state, federal, whatever) than that of defense of your child. Hesitation caused by legal concerns could have cost you the life of your child. The lifetime guilt that you would have endured would have been a lot more of a punishment than ANYTHING the law could do to you.
 
FWIW, the rules for drawing and the rules for firing are one and the same.
Click to expand...
That is not correct in TX.

In TX, you may not fire until deadly force is legally justified, however you CAN threaten someone with a gun when only force (not deadly force) is legally justifed. Here is the applicable section of law.

Sec. 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.​

NavyLT has correctly quoted the section of the law dealing with the justification for deadly force. Below is the section dealing with the justification for force NOT deadly force.

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:

(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;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(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.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.​
 
So, in NC you'll be jailed for pulling your weapon on an attacker?
Click to expand...

In your situation I doubt that very much. There were two aggressors which amounts to a disparity of force, plus the mitigating factor of a young child to defend.

Well done. You didn't have to shoot so you didn't shoot. It couldn't have turned out better. Do get some pepper spray. In this case, with your two attackers, it probably wouldn't have helped. But against one unarmed assailant, it can save you a lot of 'splainin and a mountain of attorney's fees.
 
absolutely. You're outnumbered 2 to 1 and you have a daughter to defend. You were right in many ways:
- you tried to evade them
- you drew your gun
- you verbally warned them to stop
- you didn't shoot them once they ceased to be a threat

The police get picky about leaving the scene of a crime, but I can understand your desire to get out of there.
 
There is no legislation that has been past in this regard that I know of. There is Case law on it. It is from a study done years ago that indicated that a bg at 21 feet can run at you and stab you in less time than it takes you to draw and fire.

What exactly is a "federal kill zone for self defense" and where can I find the language of the law that establishes it?
Click to expand...
 
Whoa..... wait a minute

NO.... you don't stick around waiting on the punks to get back with their armed buddies. You take your baby and get the h*** out of there. Waiting around for some cops to fill out some paperwork is just plain stupid.
 
Seems like a perfect example of carry use. No controversial discharge, clear perception of violence about to take place, not to mention the perps were willing to attack someone who had a child with them!? You stopped a crime, and perhaps even saved your child and yourself.

Glad you're okay.
 
My 2c worth

Sounds like you did everything perfectly, to me. You put your daughter down in the best place you could, you drew (understandibly) you warned them, they ran..... you did like the good shepard and "got the flock outta there" :D

Well done ;)

I say what you did (no matter what the law says.... the law wasn't there) you drew your weapon, but you didn't fire it..... (just because a gun is drawn, does not mean it has to be fired, I dont care what anyone else thinks otherwise)

To my way of thinking, you used your gun sensibly, to defuse a situation that would have had a totally different outcome, had you not acted as responsibly as you did. :D Had you been too quick/forced to fire, you might have ended up regretting that (legally or morally)

You did great, mate IMO :D

Glad your little angel and you are ok :D
 
If your post contained nothing more than a "+1," it was deleted as wasted space. If you agree with what another person has said, then have the common curtesy to say why you agree.

flyguyskt, as Bart implied and rwilson452 expanded, the 21 foot "rule" is case law, not any kind of actual legislated law. You might want to look up "Tueller Drill" (named after Sgt. Dennis Tueller, SLCPD, Utah).

Tueller, Dennis (March 1983), "How Close is Too Close?", S.W.A.T. Magazine
Ayoob, Massad (October 1991), "Explaining the deadly force decision: the opportunity factor", Shooting Industry
Young, Dan. "Handgun Drills, Standards, and Training Page" (about middle of the page).
De Jongh, Lloyd. "The Reality Of Edged Weapon Attacks". FightingArts.com.
Truscott, Ted. "The Hidden Lesson of the Tueller Drill".

A TFL thread from 1999, is here. Another thread, from 2001, is here.

It is a self defense technique that most trainers use today. Anyone relying solely upon their gun, should be well versed in the fact that you may very well lose the fight, should your assailant be within 21 feet of you.

Kudos, to the OP for handling the situation the way he did.
 
I have seen the 21 foot rule(or 7 yard) proven several times. It takes someone who knows the exact steps to take, but if they do it the person with a gun has to be VERY fast to have a chance.
One of the reasons I prefer a knife when legal(which is practically never).

When your baby is involved how worried are you about the law?
I won't judge you.
 
Last edited:
NC CCH

I just completed a four hour course on North Carolina use of deadly force law.

The North Carolina CHP rules stated earlier on this thread are absolutely incorrect.

1. Justified self-defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force in North Carolina against another if and only if:

a. The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death great bodily harm, or sexual assault and

b. The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and

c. The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and

d. Force used was not excessive - greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.


2. Duty to retreat before using deadly force

Unless an exception such as those listed below applies, a citizen must retreat before using deadly force if retreat is possible.

Exception A: There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the assault threatens imminent death or great bodily harm – a murderous or felonious assault or sexual assault.

Exception B: There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the victim is on his or her own premises, or on his or her business premises, or is at home.

Because the law requires retreat from a simple assault but does not require retreat from a murderous or felonious assault, an assault victim is once again faced with a decision: when does a simple assault become a murderous assault? No clear answer exists for the multitude of circumstances constituting an assault.

I believe the OP did the right thing and would be free from retribution in TX as well as NC however, it's can always be a very gray area.

On a side note, think carefully before carrying mace since it opens up the ability for the prosecution (if it comes to that) to ask 'why did you opt for lethal force when you had non-lethal force available to you?'
 
Last edited:
Even California has a Stand Your Ground law. I can't believe people want you to turn your back on dangerous criminals who will chase, shoot or stab you in the back.
 
My question is would I have been justified in firing on them if they got any closer?? I did not see either with a weapon. But I dont think they would have needed one. Do you think I did the right thing in drawing my weapon?
Click to expand...

First of all, it would have been a justifiable since you verbally warned them. Had they come any closer while you were holding your daughter in your arms, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that they would have assaulted you which would cause a bodily injury to both you and your daughter. The law does not require a person to see a visual weapon, you just have to justify that you felt there was a legitimate reason that they could cause bodily harm to you and that your life was in danger. Say those 2 people werent ruff looking etc and were 2 12 year old kids running towards you screaming curse words, I'm sure your not going to feel the same way you did with 2 rough looking people and dont think anyone will side with you if you drew out your .45 aiming at kids.

The only way you could get in trouble is if someone witnessed the situation, saw you drew out your pistol, and while they retreated they saw you shoot them behind their backs
 
Last edited:
For the life of me, I can't even fathom why we are talking about the law. In my opinion you did everything above and beyond what you should have. You protected you life and your child's. I commend you! The law is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, these evildoers are free to harm others. Let's pray next time they pick the wrong person once again and receive justice.

Blessing to you.
 
Thank you very much Kent E. I do understand that they may now go and harm others, simply because they are alive. Sadly there are many people like that in this world. But maybe next time they see a 5'3'' 135lbs single dad they will think twice. I am however glad they ran off, for the simple reason that I dont want my little one to see her dad shoot and kill somebody with a gun. The last thing I want is to harm another human being, no matter how bad they are. Even though sometimes that is just what they deserve. All I can say is that if I had it to do all over again. I would NOT have went to Wal-Mart.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top