Black Eye versus "Serious" Bodily Injury

Rickmeister · January 25, 2002, 03:45 PM

Some of us who pack on a permit were taught various conflict resolution techniques at the CHL training course. It is always better---we were told---to de-escalate a potentially lethal encounter whenever there is good reason to believe that we can. We were also told that an investigation WILL take place if you shoot someone who assaults you, regardless of how obvious your need to have done so may appear. There will be A LOT of bushwhacking concerning the merits of using deadly force. You might even find that your most valued bonds are of the "bail" sort if there is even the slightest doubt regarding your justification in this matter.

Some champion the "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" motto. But wouldn't it be better if you can avoid both, given half a chance? We know we must preclude shooting at all costs, except when death or serious bodily injury threaten. But where does one draw the line between "serious" and "non-serious" bodily injury? If BG is merely a bully who says he wants to punch your lights out and has no "plain" intent to give you a permanent nose job, and assuming he will not back off until he does, do you hand him a one-way ticket to the other side, or take the knuckle soup?

Rarely in my life have I seen the actual need to physically confront another person, though it behooves you to know that I am as likely to fight like a badger as I am to regard the benefits of "wimping out" should the event call for it. It all depends on my state of confidence. But carrying a weapon lands you in a completely different ball game, and fighting back may have a potentially disasterous effect where otherwise there might have only been an "acceptable" loss to deal with. Alas for easy decisions.

Guesses anyone?

Double Naught Spy · January 25, 2002, 05:13 PM

Rickmeister, either your CHL instructor didn't cover some salient information or you missed it.

Would avoiding being judged by 12 or carried by 6 be the best venue? Of course. What makes you think you will necessarily be making the decision on whether or not you get to avoid a bad situation? For whatever reason, people get chased, cornered, or surrounded by unfriendlies. At that point is when it becomes necessary to decide if you want to be judged by 12 or carried by 6.

Tell me, how do you know the intent of some bully is or is not to give you a permanent nose job? Do you have some special 6th sense? In such cases, it is not that you have to know the intent of the bad guy, but what you are in fear of. Some bruiser says he is going to punch out your lights. I am not exactly sure how that translates into medical terminology, but I would feel very safe in assuming that he wishes to do me serious bodily harm and that I should be in fear for my life. If that should happen, then likely I will have a date with the grand jury.

Why would you ever take knuckle soup? Surely you all covered the first Texas CHL case where Gordon Hale was punched repeatedly in the face/head and shot his attacker once in the chest, killing his attacker. Being punched in the face can easily result in broken bones, lost teeth, and eye damage. Those are all forms of serious bodily injury. Hale permanently lost vision in one eye. He feared for his life and actually showed considerable restraint in not shooting his attacker sooner. Hale was in fear for his life, and rightfully so as he did definitely sustain serious bodily injury.

Art Eatman · January 25, 2002, 09:13 PM

In Texas, any homicide by anybody by any method must go to the Grand Jury. Non-LEO, LEO, weapon, vehicle...All must go to the GJ.

Under Texas law you have the right to not be beat on. Yeah, you gotta try to de-escalate--but that doesn't mean accepting violence.

If I'm offered no way out but to get beat on or to shoot, I'm going to back away as I draw. Just because I draw doesn't absolutely mean that I will pull trigger right then; I'll give HIM an opportunity to de-escalate his way toward the next county.

I've created, or tried to create space; I've shown I'm ready to defend myself--so after that it's up to him. That's about as common-sensical as I can see it.

Art

Quartus · January 25, 2002, 09:42 PM

Quote:

But wouldn't it be better if you can avoid both?

Of course. Why would that need to be stated? It's a given. Sometimes it's not an option, in which case the decision may be 'judged by 12 or carried by 6'.

Pointing out which of those is preferable in no way implies that the speaker prefers either one of those to the choice of "none of the above".

As for taking the knuckles, that's your choice. How do you decide that minor bodily injury is:
[list=a][*]His only intent? AND[*]The only likely outcome?[/list=a]

Even if he STARTS with the intent of merely re-arranging your nose, it is simply a fact that he could misjudge and kill you. You could fall and strike your head in such a way that you die. Or he could go into a killing frenzy and beat you to death.

It's your decision, of course.

Quote:

I'll give HIM an opportunity to de-escalate his way toward the next county.

Good 'un, Art!

Double Naught Spy · January 27, 2002, 09:32 AM

Good point CaptainHoek.

You know that in the hockey dad fight, the guy did not start off with the intent on killing the other father, just teaching him a lesson. Funny how things go to hell in a hurry.

melglock · January 27, 2002, 02:04 PM

Mr. Junta, the angry hockey dad, apparently only wanted to beat the stuffing out of his victim. Of course, he was much more successful than he anticipated - which is why he's serving 6-10 years. Even if a bully only wanted to hurt you, rather than kill you, in the heat of an adrenaline dump and pure rage, chances are he'll go way further than he thought he would go. So in these circumstances, even if you're "not in danger of death or grevious bodily harm", you are.

This is when it's good to remember all your self defense training - not just your lethal options like guns & knives & such (though they may become necessary,) but other options such as kuboton, pepper spray, martial arts training, or running away.

Rickmeister · January 28, 2002, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Hale permanently lost vision in one eye. He feared for his life and actually showed considerable restraint in not shooting his attacker sooner.

Ah! My point exactly! Why did he go that length? Why didn't he shoot before loosing his eye? I'm just curious, of course.

Quote:

So in these circumstances, even if you're "not in danger of death or grevious bodily harm", you are.

Interesting point. However, "circumstances" are what determine your actions. And as we all know, "circumstances" come in every shade of gray.

Kharn · January 29, 2002, 07:35 AM

Anyone that takes a swing at my eyes, IMHO, is trying to do serious, permanent, disabling bodily injury by popping my eyes out. Thats enough to warrant pulling a weapon, but IANAL.

Kharn

Double Naught Spy · January 29, 2002, 08:26 AM

Rickmeister, there is one really good reason why Hale did not shoot Tavai before Tavai was able to damage Hale's eyesight. Prior to that time, Hale had zero justification for shooting Tavai. The punch that damaged Hale's vision was the very first one.

So Rickmeister, you really aren't familiar with the Hale incident? it was a huge case for Texas CHL and happened almost exactly one month after CHL became legal. Here is a good link where you can read more about it.

http://ptb.org/txchl/defense/022196.html

Apparently after all was said and done, Hale had something like $25.000 in legal fees of which the NRA pitched in and paid most of it since it was such a fundamental case for the state and for the future of CHL. Hale has repeatedly said that he wished he never would have pulled the trigger. The incident was a horrible experience for Hale based on what I have read and having seen some post grand jury interview footage. I am not sure that Hale didn't figure that he would have been better off dead than having to go through what he did. At that time, Hale had no intent of ever carrying again. While that might have all been the result of poor decision/reasoning right after being set free, Hale's case illustrates fairly well just how bad an average, law abiding citizen is prepared to go through the police, jail, and court systems.

Rickmeister · January 29, 2002, 09:35 AM

Thanks, all, for the input.

Sorry, Double Naughty Spy: I had never heard of the Hale incident before this post. It was never brought up by my CHL instructor. For whatever reason, he dwelt entirely on the theory---not case histories. He answered plenty of "what if" questions, but such inquiries did not include pondering the lesser of three evils. Hence my question.

D.W. Drang · January 29, 2002, 12:23 PM

An observation on this thread:
Keep in mind that legal requirements vary from state to state. (Which the posters all seem to have done--I'm not quibbling, just making an observation.)
Examples:
WA does not require training, "just" prints and an FBI background check.
At least according to internet lawyers, GA allows you to use deadly force in self-defense if the other guy just says "I'm gonna kill you."
For a while, VA required you to retreat from your house to avoid a confrontation.
And so forth.

spacemanspiff · January 29, 2002, 01:14 PM

while many of the variables have been covered here, (bg intends to do bodily harm, wants to beat the bejesus out of something, rage overtakes during and a homicide occurs, etc), there is one variable that has not been mentioned.

Once in this situation, which I would guess would come as a surprise rather than having a few seconds to register that you are in a life threatening situation and need to respond, the victim may actually suffer the initial physical attack. A hit to the head or body with fists, feet, or a blunt object could affect a persons decision to retaliate/defend themselves. Not that it would impair the decision, but you may wind up doing something you wouldnt think of doing had you not been hit.

However, we are discussing whether it would be better to brought up on charges of murder (even if its in self defense) or being buried. I am not afraid to die, but I am also not afraid to defend myself or others. Some things are not worth dying for, a wallet, a car, a watch, but some things are worth fighting for.

cuerno de chivo · January 30, 2002, 01:53 AM

"The Department of Public Safety has been teaching CHL instructors (with the expressed intention that it be passed on to CHL students) that "striking vital areas of the body" (head, neck, throat, spine) is considered a means of deadly force. Furthermore, there is no precedent in Texas case law for a "proportional response" once an assault has escalated to the unlawful use of deadly force."

If they hitting you in the eye, then aren't they hitting you in the head and therefore aren't they using deadly force on you?

January 25, 2002, 03:45 PM	#1
Rickmeister Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 797	Black Eye versus "Serious" Bodily Injury Some of us who pack on a permit were taught various conflict resolution techniques at the CHL training course. It is always better---we were told---to de-escalate a potentially lethal encounter whenever there is good reason to believe that we can. We were also told that an investigation WILL take place if you shoot someone who assaults you, regardless of how obvious your need to have done so may appear. There will be A LOT of bushwhacking concerning the merits of using deadly force. You might even find that your most valued bonds are of the "bail" sort if there is even the slightest doubt regarding your justification in this matter. Some champion the "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" motto. But wouldn't it be better if you can avoid both, given half a chance? We know we must preclude shooting at all costs, except when death or serious bodily injury threaten. But where does one draw the line between "serious" and "non-serious" bodily injury? If BG is merely a bully who says he wants to punch your lights out and has no "plain" intent to give you a permanent nose job, and assuming he will not back off until he does, do you hand him a one-way ticket to the other side, or take the knuckle soup? Rarely in my life have I seen the actual need to physically confront another person, though it behooves you to know that I am as likely to fight like a badger as I am to regard the benefits of "wimping out" should the event call for it. It all depends on my state of confidence. But carrying a weapon lands you in a completely different ball game, and fighting back may have a potentially disasterous effect where otherwise there might have only been an "acceptable" loss to deal with. Alas for easy decisions. Guesses anyone? Last edited by Rickmeister; January 28, 2002 at 01:11 PM.

January 25, 2002, 05:13 PM	#2
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	Rickmeister, either your CHL instructor didn't cover some salient information or you missed it. Would avoiding being judged by 12 or carried by 6 be the best venue? Of course. What makes you think you will necessarily be making the decision on whether or not you get to avoid a bad situation? For whatever reason, people get chased, cornered, or surrounded by unfriendlies. At that point is when it becomes necessary to decide if you want to be judged by 12 or carried by 6. Tell me, how do you know the intent of some bully is or is not to give you a permanent nose job? Do you have some special 6th sense? In such cases, it is not that you have to know the intent of the bad guy, but what you are in fear of. Some bruiser says he is going to punch out your lights. I am not exactly sure how that translates into medical terminology, but I would feel very safe in assuming that he wishes to do me serious bodily harm and that I should be in fear for my life. If that should happen, then likely I will have a date with the grand jury. Why would you ever take knuckle soup? Surely you all covered the first Texas CHL case where Gordon Hale was punched repeatedly in the face/head and shot his attacker once in the chest, killing his attacker. Being punched in the face can easily result in broken bones, lost teeth, and eye damage. Those are all forms of serious bodily injury. Hale permanently lost vision in one eye. He feared for his life and actually showed considerable restraint in not shooting his attacker sooner. Hale was in fear for his life, and rightfully so as he did definitely sustain serious bodily injury. __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

January 27, 2002, 09:32 AM	#5
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	Good point CaptainHoek. You know that in the hockey dad fight, the guy did not start off with the intent on killing the other father, just teaching him a lesson. Funny how things go to hell in a hurry. __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

January 29, 2002, 08:26 AM	#9
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	Rickmeister, there is one really good reason why Hale did not shoot Tavai before Tavai was able to damage Hale's eyesight. Prior to that time, Hale had zero justification for shooting Tavai. The punch that damaged Hale's vision was the very first one. So Rickmeister, you really aren't familiar with the Hale incident? it was a huge case for Texas CHL and happened almost exactly one month after CHL became legal. Here is a good link where you can read more about it. http://ptb.org/txchl/defense/022196.html Apparently after all was said and done, Hale had something like $25.000 in legal fees of which the NRA pitched in and paid most of it since it was such a fundamental case for the state and for the future of CHL. Hale has repeatedly said that he wished he never would have pulled the trigger. The incident was a horrible experience for Hale based on what I have read and having seen some post grand jury interview footage. I am not sure that Hale didn't figure that he would have been better off dead than having to go through what he did. At that time, Hale had no intent of ever carrying again. While that might have all been the result of poor decision/reasoning right after being set free, Hale's case illustrates fairly well just how bad an average, law abiding citizen is prepared to go through the police, jail, and court systems. __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

January 29, 2002, 09:35 AM	#10
Rickmeister Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 797	Thanks, all, for the input. Sorry, Double Naughty Spy: I had never heard of the Hale incident before this post. It was never brought up by my CHL instructor. For whatever reason, he dwelt entirely on the theory---not case histories. He answered plenty of "what if" questions, but such inquiries did not include pondering the lesser of three evils. Hence my question. Last edited by Rickmeister; January 29, 2002 at 03:16 PM.

January 25, 2002, 09:13 PM	#3
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	In Texas, any homicide by anybody by any method must go to the Grand Jury. Non-LEO, LEO, weapon, vehicle...All must go to the GJ. Under Texas law you have the right to not be beat on. Yeah, you gotta try to de-escalate--but that doesn't mean accepting violence. If I'm offered no way out but to get beat on or to shoot, I'm going to back away as I draw. Just because I draw doesn't absolutely mean that I will pull trigger right then; I'll give HIM an opportunity to de-escalate his way toward the next county. I've created, or tried to create space; I've shown I'm ready to defend myself--so after that it's up to him. That's about as common-sensical as I can see it. Art

January 27, 2002, 02:04 PM	#6
melglock Member Join Date: November 17, 2001 Posts: 98	Mr. Junta, the angry hockey dad, apparently only wanted to beat the stuffing out of his victim. Of course, he was much more successful than he anticipated - which is why he's serving 6-10 years. Even if a bully only wanted to hurt you, rather than kill you, in the heat of an adrenaline dump and pure rage, chances are he'll go way further than he thought he would go. So in these circumstances, even if you're "not in danger of death or grevious bodily harm", you are. This is when it's good to remember all your self defense training - not just your lethal options like guns & knives & such (though they may become necessary,) but other options such as kuboton, pepper spray, martial arts training, or running away.

January 29, 2002, 07:35 AM	#8
Kharn Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,531	Anyone that takes a swing at my eyes, IMHO, is trying to do serious, permanent, disabling bodily injury by popping my eyes out. Thats enough to warrant pulling a weapon, but IANAL. Kharn

January 29, 2002, 01:14 PM	#12
spacemanspiff Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2002 Location: alaska Posts: 3,498	while many of the variables have been covered here, (bg intends to do bodily harm, wants to beat the bejesus out of something, rage overtakes during and a homicide occurs, etc), there is one variable that has not been mentioned. Once in this situation, which I would guess would come as a surprise rather than having a few seconds to register that you are in a life threatening situation and need to respond, the victim may actually suffer the initial physical attack. A hit to the head or body with fists, feet, or a blunt object could affect a persons decision to retaliate/defend themselves. Not that it would impair the decision, but you may wind up doing something you wouldnt think of doing had you not been hit. However, we are discussing whether it would be better to brought up on charges of murder (even if its in self defense) or being buried. I am not afraid to die, but I am also not afraid to defend myself or others. Some things are not worth dying for, a wallet, a car, a watch, but some things are worth fighting for. __________________ "Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard

January 30, 2002, 01:53 AM	#13
cuerno de chivo Junior member Join Date: July 6, 2000 Posts: 919	Black Eye versus "Serious" Bodily Injury "The Department of Public Safety has been teaching CHL instructors (with the expressed intention that it be passed on to CHL students) that "striking vital areas of the body" (head, neck, throat, spine) is considered a means of deadly force. Furthermore, there is no precedent in Texas case law for a "proportional response" once an assault has escalated to the unlawful use of deadly force." If they hitting you in the eye, then aren't they hitting you in the head and therefore aren't they using deadly force on you?