Carrying In Vehicle w/o CHL

[txinvestigator]

We'll try this one more time, then I believe I am done with this thread. I would assume all of us can read and have some level of reading comprehension.

PC s9.04. 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.

No, it does not say you can willy nilly draw your weapon any time you want to. It says that when the use of force is justified under that chapter, that drawing and presenting your weapon with the intention of creating apprehension that deadly force will be used if necessary is justified under the use of force sections of the chapter.

Since you have chosen to be condensending to those who disagree, I will act likewise. My 12 year old read that section, and even SHE can comprehend that 9.04 does not read "that drawing and presenting your weapon with the intention of creating apprehension that deadly force will be used if necessary is justified under the use of force sections of the chapter". It simply says that doing so IS NOT DEADLY FORCE.

You must realize that the use of force laws refer to degrees of force. The degree of force you use must be reasonable. Producing a weapon is not a reasonable response to a simple shove from another person, nor does 9.04 make it justified. It is not a reasonable degree of force.

Producing a weapon IS force. It is not deadly force if your purpose is to create an apprehension that you will use deadly force if necessary. Producing a weapon is not a "threat of force", it is a threat of deadly force.

I guess it all depends on what the definition of 'is' is...either way, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Disagree all you want, but I will be sure others don't depend on the wrong information contained in this thread.

 

[Kerbouchard]

You seem to be ignoring the first sentence in 9.04 and concentrating on the last sentence. The first sentence is the applicable sentence in this discussion. The rest of 9.04 explains the first sentence.

An officer is absolutely required to go by a force escalation procedure which is internal to the department, not part of the penal code. They also have several means at their disposal. Everywhere from unarmed to batons to tasers to a firearm. An officer also has backup.

As a civilian, I do not have those options, and force escalation procedures are not applicable. There are countless stories of a fatality occurring from one punch. There are stories of fatalities occurring from a shove(usually related to impact to a curb or some other object during the fall). There are two types of force mentioned in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code; Force and Deadly Force. There is no 'in between', or at least not that I am aware of.

If a man attempts to use unlawful force against another, and the use of force is justified under chapter 9, then 9.04 applies. The first sentence of 9.04 affirms this. You are correct that the production of a weapon is not a threat of force. It is a threat of deadly force, therefore it falls under the use of force statutes. That is why I say that when the use of force is justified, the threat of deadly force is also justified.

The rules are very strict as to when 'force' is justified and even more so when 'deadly force' is justified.

When a civilian carries a firearm for personal protection, he has to realize, or at least consider the possibility, that every altercation is an armed encounter. There will always be at least one firearm present. Being knocked out by a punch to allow a mugger or road rager access to your firearm is not an option for me. There is, of course, deescalation, which if possible would be my first option, but I am under no requirement to simply let somebody pummel me just because he has not produced a weapon. As I am sure you are aware, most fights are won with the first punch. If I am carrying, I will do whatever is necessary to ensure there is no first punch. If that involves a threat of deadly force, so be it.

That is why I believe section 9.04 was included in chapter 9 of the Penal Code.

In any case, I do believe that avoiding trouble and avoiding altercations is one of the primary responsibilities of anybody who carries a firearm. I think most people who carry do undergo a change in the way they interact with people.

As I said earlier, I do not believe he handled the situation perfectly, but he did not break any brandishing laws or any others.

I really didn't want to get into a debate on penal code on an internet board with people I don't even know. I am merely a student of everything and not an attorney. The way I interpret the first sentence of 9.04 is apparently different than the way others read it. I guess the only thing that matters is how a DA reads it.

No, 9.04 does not absolve somebody from following the applicable statues on use of force, but it does define another non-deadly use of force that is an option where the use of force, but not deadly force, is justified under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. At least that's the way I read it.

I am sorry if I came off as condescending earlier, it was not intentional. Its one of the disadvantages of non-verbal communication. Inflection and tone are not carried through.

I'll part with one of my favorite quotes:
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged

 

[TEXAS_MARINE]

So it has to be your car and your gun? What if Im in my wifes truck? Can I still carry w/o a CHL?

 

[Texas1911]

So it has to be your car and your gun? What if Im in my wifes truck? Can I still carry w/o a CHL?

It has to be a motor vehicle under your control.