Your honor, I'm stunned and not a little impressed ... I was fully expecting you to keep the good times rolling.Commando Rbrt, get over it.
But I do appreciate you correcting my using the wrong word. To do that and the rest of the blah blah, shows how much of an impression it made. Obviously this is a sensitive issue for you.
I think it's obvious you got the message and hopefully see fact that a gun isn't a casual instrument of control. Enjoy the day.
(see, too easy )
Please review. You introduced the idea that because you had a gun, you were in a better situation when involved in an incident involving getting a good parking place. It's no surprise sarcasm poured in your direction.
Regardless of what you said or did, you posted something that showed recklessness and irresponsibility whether it's what really happened or not; you eluded to it being true. I have a feeling you were just caught up in the discussion and were for some reason, compelled to embellish the story, but it didn't work out well for you.
Alright, I'm half-witted at times and my story does read very funny, so I'll elaborate. I pulled in a parking lot where every car gets searched (Never been there before, did not know), I immediatly told the personnel I had 2 guns in the trunk, thats when they told me to wait for an officer. A man came out of the building (plain clothed) and addressed himself as officer so and so and gave me my new chunk of wisdom requarding Texas gun laws.
Really? It sounded to me like he was in an unexpected situation that could have taken a turn for the worse, but was able to handle it confidently because he had a concealed handgun.
Wow, you sarcastic....id never have thunk itYa, it's a good thing brandishing is encouraged when trying to get a good parking place, but glad you didn't have to resort to it and just had to act like you were reaching for it because you know, he knew you had a gun and that changed his demeanor. If it weren't for firearms, I'd never get to park in the really good spots.
Ya I know, here I go again. But sometimes, it's just so easy.....
PC s9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justiied 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.
If you are waving your firearm around to create panic or fear, it's brandishing.
(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously
offensive manner;(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a
manner calculated to alarm;
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the
actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening
conduct.
Since Texas has no "brandishing" law you are correct. But there is NO justification for displaying a firearm to "frighten" or show that letahal force is available.Showing a firearm with the intent to frighten or with the intent of showing that a person has lethal force available to him is NOT brandishing.
That is not correct.The presentation of a firearm is justified if the actor was justified in using any amount of force.
The term in Texas is "deadly force", and it would depend upon the circumstances.It is not even in the same classification as lethal force.
Again, that entire concept is wrong. and Texas never allows any use of force if you are in fear.If he was in fear of unlawful use of force against himself, he is justified in using force to prevent that...i.e. the presentation of a firearm.
Since I am sure I will be challenged and/or asked about it, here is the statute I am referring to.
Page 56 of http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf
PC s9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justiied 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.[/left]
[/size][/font]
PC
99.31. 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.
Yes it does...Back to 9.04, "... The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter."Notice that reads that the production of a weapon if you meet those standards IS NOT DEADLY FORCE. It never reads that you can display a weapon anytime you are justified in using ANY level of force.
Obviously, I do not know what kind of 'dispute' there was over the parking space...
That is NOT what 9.04 means. The presentation of the weapn must be reasonable AND only to create the aprehension that deadly force will be used if necessary. In that situation your producsion of a weapon is not deadly force. Nowhere does 9.04 read that it is automatically justified.I didn't say that 9.04 removed that requirement. I said that if the use of force is justified, then the presentation of a weapon is justified under 9.04.