Ok, lets talk actual scenarios, “When your life is in danger” is not an acceptable answer. Neither is pasting legal code.  I want to know in plain English, when do you think it's ok to draw and possibly fire? Really? I'll start...

Let's assume this takes place in the state of Texas:
You are walking through a parking lot at night and get harassed by some thugs, they push and shove you around, you try to escape, and you can not. If no weapons are being brandished by the thugs, at which point do you defend your self with your concealed weapon?

Loosely translated, you could argue that you think your "life is in danger", when in reality, you are probably just in for an ass whooping.

Quoted: Ok, lets talk actual scenarios, “When your life is in danger” is not an acceptable answer. Neither is pasting legal code.  I want to know in plain English, when do you think it's ok to draw and possibly fire? Really? I'll start... Let's assume this takes place in the state of Texas: You are walking through a parking lot at night and get harassed by some thugs, _____________________________________________________________________________ This is the point I would draw and fire. And that's the way it is in Texas when I lived there. _____________________________________________________________________________ they push and shove you around, you try to escape, and you can not. If no weapons are being brandished by the thugs, at which point do you defend your self with your concealed weapon? Loosely translated, you could argue that you think your "life is in danger", when in reality, you are probably just in for an ass whooping.

It all comes down to your level of fear.  If there are three of them and one of you then you can reasonably explain that you felt like you were in danger of being seriously hurt or killed.  You never know their true intention so why leave yourself hoping for the best.  What if they knock you out, take your gun and put two in your head??

When the tin foil hat no longer does any good, then draw down.  Or when the neighbor's dog shits in your yard.

Quoted: It all comes down to your level of fear.  If there are three of them and one of you then you can reasonably explain that you felt like you were in danger of being seriously hurt or killed.  You never know their true intention so why leave yourself hoping for the best.  What if they knock you out, take your gun and put two in your head??

I agree, but coming from a state that prosecutes people for defending themselves in their own homes, I'm trying to understand what's acceptable, when I move to Spring TX later this month.

When you feel the need to terminate someone else's life to save your own.

There is no set answer for this question, everyone is different, just be sure that a jury will understand your side of the story if it goes to court.

If it was me, 3 thugs against me, someone would die.

the general rule is you get 2 shoves before you get punched.  3 guys come up talking shit i will try to verbally deescalate and put myself in good position.  The second i get shoved, game over.  3 on 1 necessitates cheating.  I've got pretty good "kung fu" but i'm not gonna risk it.

Quoted: the general rule is you get 2 shoves before you get punched.  3 guys come up talking shit i will try to verbally deescalate and put myself in good position.  The second i get shoved, game over.  3 on 1 necessitates cheating.  I've got pretty good "kung fu" but i'm not gonna risk it.

Agreed. But coming from Illinois, I think I would rather take 2 in the back of the head then take it in the hind end in prison.hock.gif ahahhahha

Quoted: Quoted: the general rule is you get 2 shoves before you get punched.  3 guys come up talking shit i will try to verbally deescalate and put myself in good position.  The second i get shoved, game over.  3 on 1 necessitates cheating.  I've got pretty good "kung fu" but i'm not gonna risk it. Agreed. But coming from Illinois, I think I would rather take 2 in the back of the head then take it in the hind end in prison. ahahhahha

Between dead or prison bitch, i'll take fleeing the scene and taking my chances.

That's why God made Mexico!

even better is why god made pennsylvania and texas, because you don't have to flee if you're in the right.

I read a story in the Houston Chron about a guy that was having his car stolen in the middle of the night. He ran out of his house ran down the street, ran along the side of his car and put six .357 rounds into the cab. Killed 1 & wounded 1. Police showed up and no charges were filed.  GOD BLESS TEXAS.

In Illinois he would be looking at 1st degree murder & life.

that's true in any state but texas.  to my knowledge texas is the only state where you're allowed to use deadly force to defend property.

From a moral/ethical standpoint, let them have the car.

But getting back to the subject, in a situation like that, if you feel threatened, can you legally display your firearm before the situation get's out of hand in the first place. Maybe just throw your Hawaiian shirt back over the holster? By the way a couple of nickels sewn into the bottom of your shirt makes this quite easy (even if it’s windy).

Wow.... there is a TON of bad information this this thread.  

First - the question of when to draw is invalid.  There is no legal precendent on "when to draw"  

The question is, "When can/should you use force?" and secondly (and more importantly) "when can/should you use deadly force?"   If you decide to "draw" then you had better already made the decision to use deadly force.

The use of force or deadly force cannot be summarized in a few paragraphs.  I recommend you read and understand the statutes.  Every state is similar in use of force for self defense, but many have differences.

www.capitol.state.tx.us

"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

There is a provision for the "threat of deadly force" which is justafiable under some situations... which would be "drawing" but then not using deadly force.  However - this falls under "force" so you had better be sure that you could legally use force if you would consider drawing, or threatening someone with deadly force.

§ 9.22.  NECESSITY.  Conduct is justified if:                               (1)  the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2)  the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct;  and (3)  a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear. § 9.31.  SELF-DEFENSE.  (a)  Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force[0] against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force[0] is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force[0]. (b)  The use of force[0] 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[0] used or attempted by the other; (4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force[0], 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[0] 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[0] 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[0] than necessary to make the arrest or search;   and (2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force[0] is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force[0] than necessary. (d)  The use of deadly[0] force[0] is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.   Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. § 9.32.  DEADLY[0] FORCE[0] IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person is justified in using deadly[0] force[0] against another: (1)  if he would be justified in using force[0] against the other under Section 9.31; (2)  if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated;  and (3)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly[0] force[0] is immediately necessary: (A)  to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly[0] force[0];  or (B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b)  The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force[0] against a person who is at the time of the use of force[0] committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

Please keep in mind this is just a SUBSET of the law.  It goes into much more details.

But to blindly summarize - Deadly force is justified when:

1.  It is immediately necessary at the very moment it was applied.
2.  You cannot retreat (or a resonable person would agree you cannot retreat)
3.  You believe you are in immediate, imminent danger of death, or serious bodily injury.

The thing to keep in mind is each use of force or deadly force are judged on the TOTALITY of the circumstances.

Using your scenario - there is not enough information present to make an assumption, and anyone making such an assumption would be irresponsible, or ignorant of the legal process.

Quoted: I read a story in the Houston Chron about a guy that was having his car stolen in the middle of the night. He ran out of his house ran down the street, ran along the side of his car and put six .357 rounds into the cab. Killed 1 & wounded 1. Police showed up and no charges were filed.  GOD BLESS TEXAS. In Illinois he would be looking at 1st degree murder & life.

And in Texas this guy will lose pretty much everything he owns when he is sued by the family of the deceased.  He *may* have not received any criminal charges - but he will not escape the costs of a civil trial, even if he wins.

I had a CHL instructor who said this about defense of property - basically... if the property is insured, or worth less than $20,000 to $40,000.... then do NOT defent property with deadly force.  That is what the civil procedings will cost you.... not to mention years of your life.

Quoted: LEGAL JARGON

Very nice.  Found out some good info there, thanks!

Quoted: even better is why god made pennsylvania and texas, because you don't have to flee if you're in the right.

That is not completely correct.  In Texas - if you have the option to flee, you must, in self defense.  In cases of protecting property or a third person, then you are correct.

Ability: 3 big guys
Opportunity: stanging right infront of you
Intent: Assaulting you.

Quoted: But getting back to the subject, in a situation like that, if you feel threatened, can you legally display your firearm before the situation get's out of hand in the first place. Maybe just throw your Hawaiian shirt back over the holster? By the way a couple of nickels sewn into the bottom of your shirt makes this quite easy (even if it’s windy).

This is called the threat of force.

§ 9.04.  THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE[0].  The threat of force[0] is justified when the use of force[0] 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[0] force[0] if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly[0] force[0].

Therefore - you must be justified in using force in order to use the threat of deadly force.  If you ARE justified in the use of force, then the threat of deadly force is not considered the use of deadly force.

Here is a link to a great article on the subject.www.tsra.com/Lott77.htm

It's a bunch of examples around the country of people brandishing their firearms to stop or end a crime. I'd love to know how these people made out in court afterwards though.

Quoted: I read a story in the Houston Chron about a guy that was having his car stolen in the middle of the night. He ran out of his house ran down the street, ran along the side of his car and put six .357 rounds into the cab. Killed 1 & wounded 1. Police showed up and no charges were filed.  GOD BLESS TEXAS. In Illinois he would be looking at 1st degree murder & life.

Unfortunately this is true.We have a case here of a man being charged for using a"handgun"to shoot an intruder that broke into this mans house for the second time.He is being charged with violating a local ordinance banning handguns.(Shitty Town.)The town I live in has clear regulations banning any leagal action against a homeowner that defends himself from an intruder with any firearm.

Quoted: Quoted: even better is why god made pennsylvania and texas, because you don't have to flee if you're in the right. That is not completely correct.  In Texas - if you have the option to flee, you must, in self defense.  In cases of protecting property or a third person, then you are correct.

I was talking about after the shooting stopped.

Quoted: Let's assume this takes place in the state of Texas: You are walking through a parking lot at night and get harassed by some thugs, they push and shove you around, you try to escape, and you can not. If no weapons are being brandished by the thugs, at which point do you defend your self with your concealed weapon? Loosely translated, you could argue that you think your "life is in danger", when in reality, you are probably just in for an ass whooping.

My opinion?  I wouldn't draw until I had to - I'm a lot faster at running when my hands are empty.

I think even then it would take me up until the point I ended up on the ground before I drew.  The shod foot is considered a lethal weapon when applied to a person who is down.  An unarmed group of thugs becomes an armed group of thugs the moment they cause you to go to the ground.  

Also, every (as in, any) member of a mob enjoys the same risk until all of the group's hostility stops.  So your target selection options should steer you towards whichever situation will keep your gun out of your attacker's hands.

Also, theoretically,  everyone involved in attacking you will be charged with felony murder if you happen to DRT one of their party.  As they say, "in for a penny, in for a pound"

Agreed, I think that in a circumstance like this, my reaction is going to be to hold off, maybe even longer than I should, before revealing my weapon or discharging it. Unless an attacker has a weapon, gun, pipe, knife etc. Then it's lights out, no questions.

I think I'd be more fearful of a bad jury or civil suit than a group of hostile thugs.

And it is wories like these that allow more and more violent criminals to go on the offensive...  

1.  they know that if they attack a person that the person is not likley to be armed,

2.  if the attacked person is armed the person may let them run away for fear of the legal system,

3.  they know if they get caught the liberal courts will let them off light or let them out early because there is no room for them in jail....

If you are going to carry you had better be prepared to use the weapon as the lethal weapon it is...  It is proper to think about when to draw but if I feel threatened enough that I draw my gun a bullet will be coming out of the barrel pretty damn soon after.

Personally, I would rather be judged by 12 of my peers than carried off by six of my best friends!

If you display your gun, you better be ready to use it.

There isn't any real studies done on how often good people display firearms to eliminate or deter a threat.

A visual display is a deterrent and telling the perp what you have. If they still attack you after you have displayed your firearm, they are going for your gun and you are totally in the right to use deadly force.

If you wait until you're on the ground or for them to hit you, its too late.

In your senerio i'd try to put ground or a car between myself and them first. If they are close enough to be shoving you, your chances of out running three guys in a parking lot are slim.

After the first shove i'd draw and put room between myself and them. If they continue to threaten me or make any advancemet toward me, i'd shoot the closest one and work my way to the farthest one assuming the other two stick around.

In Indiana I believe there is a law that prevents a civil case after a good shoot. I need to find this out for sure though.

If there isn't such a law in you the state you are in, you can take your choice....$40,000 in legal bills or $40,000 in medical bills plus the pain and suffering.

Of course, this is assuming I really thought they were going to attack me.

Quoted: Of course, this is assuming I really thought they were going to attack me.

Just to point out - in TX - fearing an attack means nothing, and does NOT give you the right to use deadly force.

Fearing death or serious bodily injury, with no reasonable opportunity to retreat - changes things.

I believe a car wash is the only appropriate place to draw down on someone.

Thus the reason behind this thread. I believe that Florida has the right idea with the "stand your ground" law. Basically it means that you don't have to try to flee an attacker. With a law like this on the books it helps reduce the amount of liability you are going to have after a good shoot.

Now to change the scenario a bit, what if you are witnessing a rape or violent attack? Should a citizen with a concealed carry permit involve himself or not?

Quoted: Now to change the scenario a bit, what if you are witnessing a rape or violent attack? Should a citizen with a concealed carry permit involve himself or not?

Texas law is pretty clear here:

§ 9.33.  DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.  A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: (1)  under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect;  and (2)  the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.   Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Referencing 9.31 and/or 9.32 already posted.

I would rather use deadly force on an attacker committing a rape, and deal with the civil suit possibilities..... then deal with knowing I did nothing to stop it for the rest of my life.

Witnessing a violent attack?  That is another thing.  The totality of the circumstances again come into play.... do I truly feel that my intervention with deadly force is "immediately necessary" to prevent death or serious bodily injury"?  I dunno.  I someone is getting his ass kicked.... unless I was SURE the risk of death or *severe* bodily injury was present.... I dont know that I would involve myself.

Quoted: I believe a car wash is the only appropriate place to draw down on someone.

Funny you should say this.....It happened a half mile from my house!!!!
http://www.newbritainherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10818875&BRD=1641&PAG=461&dept_id=10110&rfi=6

Someone says, "I'm going to kill you with a knife, gun or a bunch of buddies!"
Someone has a gun pointed at you.  It maybe too late!
Someone is running at you with a knife.
When you can't leave without putting yourself or your family/friends in danger of attack.
Someone knocks at your door at any time.
Someone is attacking you in your car and you can't drive off.

Hopefully you can be very verbal before an attack to warn off someone and let the understand you see them and not unaware!

Just a few thoughts... Srigs

Another thing to look into would be what constitutes a deadly weapon...

If one of your attackers has a deadly weapon and you believe he intends to use it on you (even if it's brass knuckles) your being in the right to defend yourself with deadly force is that much more justified.

Here's the 'Deadly Force Summary" for the state of VA off of packing.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia has no law on deadly force, per se. Instead Virginia covers deadly force with case law and common law.

Basically a person may stand his ground as long as he was not a part of the initial confrontation. If he was part of the initial confrontation, then he must retreat as far as possible and announce his intentions to leave the confrontation before he can use deadly force to defend himself.

An innocent third party can also be defended with deadly force.

Deadly force can only be used against deadly force, where the victim could be killed or greviously injured.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I interpret this to mean that in a confrontation, as long as I am not the aggressor, I am not required to flee, but am allowed to meet the threat of deadly force or attempted application thereof in kind.  I would still choose to flee rather than draw my weapon if at all possible, simply to avoid having to live with killing someone.

If I were the aggressor (which would never be the case, ESPECIALLY when I'm carrying) and the tables turned on me, I would have to effectively "become the aggressee" and flee if and as far as possible before escalating to the use of deadly force, otherwise the deadly force would be considered part of the initial aggression and thereby criminal.

As far as defense of property, nothing I own is worth another mans life.  If you want it that bad, you can have it.  I'll work the proper channels to nail you legally, if possible.

Quoted: Here's the 'Deadly Force Summary" for the state of VA off of packing.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia has no law on deadly force, per se. Instead Virginia covers deadly force with case law and common law. Basically a person may stand his ground as long as he was not a part of the initial confrontation. If he was part of the initial confrontation, then he must retreat as far as possible and announce his intentions to leave the confrontation before he can use deadly force to defend himself. An innocent third party can also be defended with deadly force. Deadly force can only be used against deadly force, where the victim could be killed or greviously injured. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damn - that is about a vague as it gets.  That kind of legal jargon can get turned around on you in a heartbeat.  Are prosecutors lenient when deadly force is used?  Meaning, as long as it appears a "good shoot" do they typically not indict the shooter and save you all the legal hassles?

Quoted: Quoted: Of course, this is assuming I really thought they were going to attack me. Just to point out - in TX - fearing an attack means nothing, and does NOT give you the right to use deadly force. Fearing death or serious bodily injury, with no reasonable opportunity to retreat - changes things.

fearing that 3 full-grown men will attack you = death or serious bodily injury when they stomp you to death.

let me clear up something, saying "if you draw your gun be prepared to use it" does not mean you have to use it.  It is perfectly defensable to draw your gun and threaten deadly force if you are being accosted, with no practical ability to retreat by 3 large men who's intention is to attack you, which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.  you'll get further with a kind word and a gun.  You do not need to be on your back getting the shit stomped out of you.  Keep the finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire, but clear leather when the threat presents itself.  In police studies the majority of cops don't draw their gun when it is warranted.  Don't make the same mistake and die holstered.

scenario (same parking lot situation):
-men approach start getting angry "you (took my parking spot/cut me off/looked at my girlfriend) you motherfucker!"
-you deescalate as you begin circling "hey i don't want any problems, how can we fix this" "man i wasn't thinking, my mother just died" "yes, you have a lovely girlfriend, i apologise, you're a lucky man"
-men get violent and shove you "fuck you!"
-here is where you draw, "STOP! GO AWAY! SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!"
-they run away or decide to fight and get shot or freeze and allow you to escape.

That's totally defensable and you can articulate why you drew the gun and did or did not fire.

Ok, what if it is 1 guy, unarmed (as far as you can tell)? If you must fight, win or lose, wouldn't it be wise to keep your weapon concealed?  

Flip side to that is even in a fair fight, most of the time it is going to the ground. If you are carrying, you now have the chance for the gun to become dislodged, fly out into the street and now you have a totally different problem.

Quoted: Just to point out - in TX - fearing an attack means nothing, and does NOT give you the right to use deadly force. Fearing death or serious bodily injury, with no reasonable opportunity to retreat - changes things.

Fearing and attack and fearing serious bodily injury or death are the same thing, especially in this case. Besides that, when there are multiple attackers disparity of force comes into play and it doesn't matter if they are armed or not, deadly force can be used.

If it was 2 or 3 "thugs" versus myself I don't stand a very good chance of coming out not seriously injured or dead, and i'd do whatever I could to get away or stop their aggression including using my CCW. No question about it.

Quoted: Quoted: Just to point out - in TX - fearing an attack means nothing, and does NOT give you the right to use deadly force. Fearing death or serious bodily injury, with no reasonable opportunity to retreat - changes things. Fearing and attack and fearing serious bodily injury or death are the same thing, especially in this case.

No - they arent.  Not even close.  We are talking legal definitions here - not your opinion.

Besides that, when there are multiple attackers disparity of force comes into play and it doesn't matter if they are armed or not, deadly force can be used.

WRONG!  You had beeter understand the statues before giving legal advice!  There are no legal provisions in Texas for what you speak of.  There IS, however, consideration for the totallity of the circumstances.  Of course, the number of attackers is taken into consideration under the totallity of the circumstances.  However - stating (as you did) that multiple attackers give the right to use deadly force is incorrect in Texas.... I dont know about Indiana law.

If it was 2 or 3 "thugs" versus myself I don't stand a very good chance of coming out not seriously injured or dead

That is your opinion, and has nothing to do with the law.  Maybe they just want to rough you up a bit.  Maybe they just want your money?  Maybe they just want to invite you to the nursing home for a round of Bingo?  I dont know.  What matter in this state is the totallity of the circumstances at the time.  If the jury believes a reasonable person would be in frear of death or serious boldiliy injury.... then you have a point.  Just atating multiple attackers = death/serious boldily injury is invalid.

and i'd do whatever I could to get away

Of course!  The law requires you to do everything you can to flee

or stop their aggression including using my CCW. No question about it.

Good.  But dont assume you would not be indicted for manslaughter.  I am not judging your position at all.  Like I said - it is the totallity of the circumstances - and coming up with scenarios - while excellent in practice - is never a guarantee that you will or will not be cleared as justified use of deadly force.

Quoted: No - they arent.  Not even close.  We are talking legal definitions here - not your opinion.

I really don't care about "legal definitions."  If im in fear of being seriously injured or killed, i'm using my CCW. Those legal definitions won't mean a damn thing to me when eating through a straw in the hospital.

WRONG!  You had beeter understand the statues before giving legal advice!  There are no legal provisions in Texas for what you speak of.  There IS, however, consideration for the totallity of the circumstances.  Of course, the number of attackers is taken into consideration under the totallity of the circumstances.  However - stating (as you did) that multiple attackers give the right to use deadly force is incorrect in Texas.... I dont know about Indiana law.

If its 2, 3, 4...on 1 I wouldn't be affraid to use my CCW if i had to, even if they were unarmed. I can't site the law for that but I have read articles of people defending themselves against an unarmed group with no charges being filed. I will try to find Indiana law actually has a clause in it for this. Regaurdless of the law, if theres an "unarmed" group of people that are about to attack me, im using my CCW. Whether that means the situation is defused just by drawing or by shooting, is up to them.

That is your opinion, and has nothing to do with the law.  Maybe they just want to rough you up a bit.

You can't be serious. It makes it ok if they "just want to rough me up?"

Maybe they just want your money?

The money I had to go to work to get? What if I dont' have enough and they arn't satisfied and get even more angry? Even though I think you should be able to, i'd never shoot someone over property, but in this case it isnt' even about the money, its about the physical threat to myself.

Maybe they just want to invite you to the nursing home for a round of Bingo?

If they want to do that they can ask like a normal person, but i'm not a big fan of bingo anyway, I never win.

What matter in this state is the totallity of the circumstances at the time.  If the jury believes a reasonable person would be in frear of death or serious boldiliy injury.... then you have a point.  Just atating multiple attackers = death/serious boldily injury is invalid.

A reasonable person would be in fear of injury or death being confronted and physically threatend/shoved  by while alone by a group of thugs. Have you ever seen what a group of 2-4 unarmed guys can do to one man in a mattter of 5 minutes? Its not like in the movies where the guy gets up and is walking around and takling the next day with a couple of cuts and bruises.

Good.  But dont assume you would not be indicted for manslaughter.  I am not judging your position at all.  Like I said - it is the totallity of the circumstances - and coming up with scenarios - while excellent in practice - is never a guarantee that you will or will not be cleared as justified use of deadly force.

I understand there is never a gaurantee you won't be charged. I also wouldn't just shoot someone for the hell of it. If I did I would have been in real fear of being injured or killed.

You seem intelligent and very knowledgeable of Texas law, which is good, but in a serious situation, other peoples opinions, legal definitions and the letter of the law aren't going to be of any use.

Its a sad day when law abiding people have to be more worried about the consequences of the law rather than the consequences of letting a criminal attack them.  

I have a pretty good grasp of Indiana law, there are a few points I am going to research just so I know 100% such as the multiple attacker aspect.

Bottom line, if im in fear of being injured or killed, im using my CCW. I'm positive by the time ive reached that decision the laws for self defense will have been met in any reasonable state. You can't just go around shooting people everytime youre a little uncomfortable or scared.  My general rule is to try every possible option of getting away or defusing a situation, and don't shoot anyone, but the fact is not all situations can be defused short of deadly force.

Quoted: If it was 2 or 3 "thugs" versus myself I don't stand a very good chance of coming out not seriously injured or dead That is your opinion, and has nothing to do with the law.  Maybe they just want to rough you up a bit.  Maybe they just want your money?  Maybe they just want to invite you to the nursing home for a round of Bingo?  I dont know.  What matter in this state is the totallity of the circumstances at the time.  If the jury believes a reasonable person would be in frear of death or serious boldiliy injury.... then you have a point.  Just atating multiple attackers = death/serious boldily injury is invalid.

His opinion has a lot to do with the law.  Given his opinion, he obviously feared for his life.  You don't have to wait for the attack to start to judge whether death or serious bodily harm is likely.  All you have to do is articulate.

Secondly, you're not making a distinction between drawing and firing.

and i'd do whatever I could to get away Of course!  The law requires you to do everything you can to flee

Incorrect, the law says you must flee if possible.  That doesn't mean you have to gamble on the assumption that you can run faster than them.  The time to get in a fight is not after you have sprinted 200 yards an realized you can't outrun them and the time to realize you can't outrun them is not when you have a knife in your back.

Quoted: Ok, what if it is 1 guy, unarmed (as far as you can tell)? If you must fight, win or lose, wouldn't it be wise to keep your weapon concealed?   Flip side to that is even in a fair fight, most of the time it is going to the ground. If you are carrying, you now have the chance for the gun to become dislodged, fly out into the street and now you have a totally different problem.

The statistic you're quoting is a police statistic that says 95% of the time police fights with suspects go to the ground.  That is only however because the ground is the place to slap the cuffs on.  The vast majority of street fights do not go to the ground and when both opponents do go down the opponents usually both stand up unless one is a groundfighter which is rare.  If one goes to the ground, he is getting stompped, not followed to the ground.  This particular statistic was popularized out of context by the Gracie's to market Brazillian Ju Jitsu, a grounfighting system.

If you do go to the ground, contact shots and tactical folders are your friend.  The ground is way to dangerous when there are weapons or multiple opponents.  Make sure it is way more dangerous for your opponent.

As for me, if it was the lone belligerant asshole, he'd probably get a face full of pepper spray then a quick beating before i left the scene.  The force continuum is good.

To my understanding, clubsoda is correct. First one on the ground, loses.

Quoted: Quoted: Here's the 'Deadly Force Summary" for the state of VA off of packing.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia has no law on deadly force, per se. Instead Virginia covers deadly force with case law and common law. Basically a person may stand his ground as long as he was not a part of the initial confrontation. If he was part of the initial confrontation, then he must retreat as far as possible and announce his intentions to leave the confrontation before he can use deadly force to defend himself. An innocent third party can also be defended with deadly force. Deadly force can only be used against deadly force, where the victim could be killed or greviously injured. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Damn - that is about a vague as it gets.  That kind of legal jargon can get turned around on you in a heartbeat.  Are prosecutors lenient when deadly force is used?  Meaning, as long as it appears a "good shoot" do they typically not indict the shooter and save you all the legal hassles?

Actually, the above quote is not part of VA statutes.  Its part of our case law.  Case law is just a description of how things work in the absense of statutes.  Here in VA, we don't have a retreat requirement and we are not allowed to defend property.  While things may be changing, in general, if its a "good shoot", its a good shoot and the shooter goes on about his life.  

There was a recent case down in Richmond where a man with a CHP was accosted by a 14 year old kid who had a toy gun with an AK mag duct taped to it.  The guy shot and killed the kid.  He didn't spend a single night in jail and no charges were even considered.  

In answer to the original question, with three attackers and the obvious intent to harm me, I would make an effort to difuse it with words, while attempting to create distance between us.  Hopefully, that would get me into a better defensible position where I would draw.  The decision to shoot would depend upon the distances involved and the reaction of the attackers.  If they were far enough away, I would give them a VERY short chance to leave before firing.  

I know there is a statistic out there regarding the distance between victim and assailant during a shooting.  Anyone know what that is?  My biggest concern about carrying is having an attacker get so close that my ability to get to my gun and/or aim it properly are removed.  Learning to 'create space' is one of the most important skills you obtain when carrying concealed, IMO, and having to make a decision as to whether you NEED to create space plays a big part in whether to draw or not.

When is it ok to draw?

Anytime the crayons are sharped.

Quoted: Wow.... there is a TON of bad information this this thread.   First - the question of when to draw is invalid.  There is no legal precendent on "when to draw"   The question is, "When can/should you use force?" and secondly (and more importantly) "when can/should you use deadly force?"   If you decide to "draw" then you had better already made the decision to use deadly force. The use of force or deadly force cannot be summarized in a few paragraphs.  I recommend you read and understand the statutes.  Every state is similar in use of force for self defense, but many have differences. www.capitol.state.tx.us "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury. There is a provision for the "threat of deadly force" which is justafiable under some situations... which would be "drawing" but then not using deadly force.  However - this falls under "force" so you had better be sure that you could legally use force if you would consider drawing, or threatening someone with deadly force. § 9.22.  NECESSITY.  Conduct is justified if:                               (1)  the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2)  the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct;  and (3)  a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear. § 9.31.  SELF-DEFENSE.  (a)  Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force[0] against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force[0] is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force[0]. (b)  The use of force[0] 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[0] used or attempted by the other; (4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force[0], 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[0] 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[0] 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[0] than necessary to make the arrest or search;   and (2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force[0] is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force[0] than necessary. (d)  The use of deadly[0] force[0] is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.   Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. § 9.32.  DEADLY[0] FORCE[0] IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person is justified in using deadly[0] force[0] against another: (1)  if he would be justified in using force[0] against the other under Section 9.31; (2)  if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated;  and (3)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly[0] force[0] is immediately necessary: (A)  to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly[0] force[0];  or (B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b)  The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force[0] against a person who is at the time of the use of force[0] committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor. Please keep in mind this is just a SUBSET of the law.  It goes into much more details. But to blindly summarize - Deadly force is justified when: 1.  It is immediately necessary at the very moment it was applied. 2.  You cannot retreat (or a resonable person would agree you cannot retreat) 3.  You believe you are in immediate, imminent danger of death, or serious bodily injury. The thing to keep in mind is each use of force or deadly force are judged on the TOTALITY of the circumstances. Using your scenario - there is not enough information present to make an assumption, and anyone making such an assumption would be irresponsible, or ignorant of the legal process.

I have to thank you for one of the best worded and thought out use of force instructions I have ever seen on the net.  You save me a LOT of typing.  ;)

To clear up a few things..... mulitple attackers does not automatically mean justification of deadly force.

Remember DF is a Defense to Prosecution and you must be able to prove your justification beyond a reasonable doubt.  

You must REASONABLY believe your use of DF was immediately necessary to protect yourself from the other use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force against yourself, or from having one these crimes committeed on you;

aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

NOWHERE does Texas Law allow DF if you "are afraid for your life"  That might describe how you felt, but you cannot act on feelings, and it is not your justification.

Questions to be asked are; what actions did you take or warnings did you make prior to using deadly force?  Was it reasonable for you to believe that DF was IMMEDIATELY necessary?  

Remember the use of force continuum.  If you verbaly warn three thugs who are approaching you in a manner you reasonably believe to the threatening to move back, stay back or go around and they continue to approach, you are gaining reasonable belief!  

If at that point you display your weapon and again give verbal commands to stay back, and they continue to approach the question for you is this:  "can you convince a jury that you reasonably believed it was necessary to use DF to stop them from using DF against you, or to prevent the immenint commission of one of the listed crimes?

Look at the facts;  3 dangerous looking men.  you warned them to stay back, and they continued to approach.  The area was a parking lot with the only retreat more open parking lot.  you pulled your jacket back and warned them again and they continued to approach.  What else could you believe?  

Your actions prior to the use of force, and any attempt you made to difuse or avoid the situation will be scrutinized.  Acting macho and just blasting away will likely result in your bedmate's name being bubba.

And to clarify the retreat issue;  DF is justified if the other conditions are met and "a reasonable person in the same situation would not have retreated"

That dooes not mean you must do everything in your power to retreat, or even that you must retreat in ALL sistuations.  The question, as always...is what is reasonable?