Friend pulled a gun yesterday

Status
Not open for further replies.

tnieto2004

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
1,389
I don't have the ENTIRE story but I talked to my friends girlfriend and she told me this much. There was a guy who was mad at him for supposedly cutting him off in a boat while they were out on the water. The guy followed him to the dock and proceeded to attack my friend. My friends girlfriend tried to stop the guy by talking to him but the guy pushed her (She is pressing charges) out of the way. My friend then told the guy three times to stop coming towards him. After he saw the guy wasn't stopping, he drew his gun on him. The guy was twice his size and my friend knew he shouldn't try to take him 1 on 1. He DOES NOT have his CHL and we are in TX. He is now in jail and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. His bond is set at $40,000. Has anyone had a situation like this happen? He is a retired marine and I am wondering if that will help him or not?
 
Your buddy is SKREWED, unfortunately. Maybe if he had still been in the boat, a fancy lawyer could claim it as an extension of your home, like a car or truck. When he stepped out onto the piers and pulled a gun w/o a permit, thats just a no, no. Sometimes you just have to take an ass kickin'. If you carry w/o a permit you have to assume the risks that come with it. Would your buddy be dead if the assualt continued and he hadn't pulled? If I thought I was gonna die from the assualt, then fine, throw me in the slammer for saving my life. If I thought I was just gonna get beat up a little then no, I wouldn't pull.
 
Sadly, I'm going to have to agree with exar. Hire the best lawyer he can, gather up witnesses, and hope for the best.

If I noticed someone following me back, I would have not left the water.


\/ \/ Pepper spray (as mentioned) is a good choice.
 
Common sense would make you think he could have the assault charge dropped with proper witnesses, but he'd probably still get hit with a possession charge.
 
Last edited:
Having been a marine might hurt him. There's no way he can claim he didn't know better than to have a concealed handgun on him.

Situations like this are a good reason to also carry pepper spray. If he'd sprayed the guy, he might get an assault charge, but not a weapons charge.
 
If I thought I was just gonna get beat up a little then no, I wouldn't pull.
How do you know you are just gonna get beat up a little by the guy who is twice your size, fuming with anger, and won't stop coming towards you with water all around and possibly no escape path (assuming what the OP was told is indeed the truth)?

Not having the government's permission to defend yourself with the most effective tool is the real crime, and that's just sad.
 
Let us know when you get the whole story. I'd like to know what your friend did to agitate the other guy. I have seen some real clowns out on the water.
 
I am a bit confused on the charges. The friend was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, not possession.

To me, this implies that it is the view of the authorities that the use of the firearm was not warranted.

Then I see a comments regarding possession. What is the law regarding possession in TX?



If I thought I was just gonna get beat up a little then no, I wouldn't pull.


Wrong. In any situation NO ONE is getting within reach of me. If my personal space is invaded and warnings have been ignored, they SHOULD be considered a threat to my life.

A friend of my father's thought he was about to get in a physical altercation with someone once who came at him. Turns out the attacker had a trailer hitch ball cupped in his hand and caved in the side of the man's skull. Yes, he is dead now.



-- John
 
I would think he could beat the assault charge if he can find the witnesses. Texas allows use of deadly force to prevent loss of life or serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury can be caused by fists and has been used that way in court. At least that was the case with a CHL holder.

If he does beat it, he'll probably get a possession charge.


Were there any witnesses to the incidents on the water?
 
Disclaimer: obviously I'm just going by the information above, and it's just one side of the story.

I don't understand people who say the guy is screwed on the charge of assault. The other guy assaulted his girlfriend and ignored verbal warnings. If the other guy was twice his size presenting a weapon may have been reasonable.
 
Lesjones, IANAL, but depending on the jurisdiction, carrying without a permit automatically puts you in the wrong, and the circumstances don't matter at that point.
 
If he pulled it, he should have used it.

Remember the four rules.

Now, he has to deal with the other guy's point of view in court. If he had used it, he could claim self defense, regardless of whether he had a permit or not. It is likely he would have been charged with an additional firearms charge, but not with assault.
 
I would still like to know what happened before the incident on the dock.
Did your friends violate the "rules of the road", and place the other guys life in danger through recklessness? Did your friend do anything to escalate the confrontation?
 
regardless of what he did on the water doesnt mean he should get a beating. If there was an incident on the water it has no bearing on this situation because it is now a situation off the water.

Sounds like the guy got off his boat and then went looking for trouble.

I find it ridiculous that someone would be charged like this for defending himself. People have been killed by beatings alone.
 
shoulda drawn down :eek: I hope to God the fact that he assaulted his girlfriend first is a good chunk of defense
 
Just because I draw on someone doesn't mean I will shoot them. I am prepared to, but if the draw means they back down, then the gun has done it's job w/o taking life.
 
OK I need to clear things up a little bit. I just went and had lunch with his girlfriend and another friend. He was being PULLED by the boat while skiing and the guy was mad because he thought my friend came too close to his son who was in the water after dropping from skiing.

The gun was IN HIS TRUCK which is legal in TX, for the most part. He was by his truck when the guy starting coming after him. He then told him three times to stop. The guy pushed his girlfriend out of the way and then proceeded to attack my friend. After it happened my friend called the police and told them exactly what happened. The police came and the other guy wasn't even taken in. What makes me furious is that the cops told my friend's girlfriend she could not press charges on the man at the time of the incident. The cop clearly lied to them and the lawyer was shocked at the fact that they were not "allowed" to file assault charges at that time.
 
I think it is quite relevant what led up to the brandishing of the firearm.
Was the guy just minding his own business, and all of a sudden some guys wants to kick his ass? Or was he playing a game of brinksmanship, and pussed out when someone called him on his game?
Things don't usually happen in a vacuum.
 
"the guy was mad because he came too close to his son who was in the water after dropping from skiing".
The guy shouldn't be mad?

"The gun was IN HIS TRUCK".
He had time to retrieve the gun. He had time to get in the truck, if he was afraid of the other guy.

"attack my friend"
Please elaborate.
 
Get a good attorney. If there is any proof that the guy was being aggressive, plus physical contact with the girlfriend, chances are your friend will be no-billed by the grand jury. Deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, defending yourself in the face of imminent serious bodily injury or death is a defense to prosecution.

Then go after the arresting officer and the department for telling them they couldn't press charges on the assault. Go after them hard. That kind of crap is what gives good police officers a bad name.

Brad
 
"the guy was mad because he came too close to his son who was in the water after dropping from skiing".
The guy shouldn't be mad?

"The gun was IN HIS TRUCK".
He had time to retrieve the gun. He had time to get in the truck, if he was afraid of the other guy.

"attack my friend"
Please elaborate.

I am telling a story of what happened. I see you most likely don't understand how the law works. Being mad doesn't merit any type of aggression towards another human. Screaming "I'm going to kick your a**" and running after someone would be what I meant by "then proceeded to attack my friend". I don't know if you are familiar with the usage of a boat, but you have to pull it out of the water (in most cases) with a vehicle (in this case a truck). He was trying to get his boat out of the water and leave when this happened. So he could not have jumped into his truck and left (which would be ideal).
 
Texas Statutes:

§ 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 he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(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.

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 FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force 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 force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; 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 against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

That said:

§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(3) "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.

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 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 293, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


§ 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to
prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this
chapter.

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.

In other words, the arrest and prosecution are more than likely in accordance with the law and witness statements on the scene. He may be able to use the Texas statutes as a defense in court though.
 
I suppose that if he felt that his life was endangerd to the point of using deadly force to repel the attack, he could have gotten in the truck and locked the doors.
Am I supposed to take your friends side just because he had a gun, and I am a gun owner also?
I guess I can sympathise with the other guys whose child your friend admittedly endangered. I am a boater, and I have seen some real assclowns on the water. If someones recklessness with a boat, car, etc. endangered my kids life, I would be pissed too. Maybe even pissed enough to kick someones butt.
From what I have read, your ex-marine friend was not justified in the use of deadly force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top