txinvestigator wrote:
Is he in the imminent commission of Aggravated Robbery, kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery?
I don't know. do you know what the elements of Agg Robbery are? In the scenario, as you see it in your mind, is the BG doing something that would meet the definition of Agg Robbery?
Actually I know a number of people who were victims of aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and capital murder.
I've personally witnessed a murder trial and a capital murder trial. Have you?
I've personally witnessed 6 victims of aggravated robbery (2 of whom were shot) testify in court.
Have I what? I was a street cop in a large city in S Texas for 10 years. A LEO friend was murdered by a BG. Not only have I witnessed many trials, I have testified in many, meet with the DA's office in preperation for many criminal cases, given depositions, etc.
I handled many murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, etc. Your point is?????
txinvestigator wrote:
For the example I mentioned earlier. If a teenager is stealing the wheels from you car at 2:00 am, thats Theft during the nighttime, right?
So you could just blast them, right?
We talked about just that at the seminar. While it's not at all advisable to do so, because it would be a harsh thing to do and a jury would likely be unsymathetic, you are quoting Texas law. I certainly wouldn't shoot somebody for stealing my hubcaps.
I can quote to you examples of Theft during the nighttime and malicous mischief during the nightime where people were legally killed in Texas.
I agree that I would not shoot someone for stealing my wheels. I don't believe that I would be justified inder Texas law. However, right here in Dallas last year, a man of 70+ years DID use deadly force in the above scenario. The Grand Jury No-billed him, as well they should have. The man reasonably believed there was no other way to prevent the imminent commission of the theft.
Would that be a reasonable belief for ME? I don't think so. I am 44 years old, have LE experience.
Each situation is judged based on the totality of the circumstances. Making blanket statements regarding using deadly force without considering ALL of the facts is not, IMO, a good idea.
I think you denigrated yourself. Your former comment sounded really naive. I'm personnally surprised that someone with law enforcement experience would be that naive.
If a bad guy breaks into my home and they don't run when confronted, and I just wait for him to cover me with his gun, stab me with a knife from my own kitchen, or for his buddy to sneak up behind me... I'm dead. And my family and my pets are dead. Maybe the badguys will go out an kill some more people with the firepower they lifted from my house...
All cause I waited for some explaination for evil?
Like: Excuse me Mr. Burglar... Do you plan on stealing something or just committing some other felony? I can legally shoot you for either one, but I need to know the exact one for my checklist?
Sorry, but I just think your advice would get me and other people killed, and that's why I say it sounds naive.
JOIN NRA TODAY!, NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, SAF, FPC, VCDL Member
LTC/SSC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. -Thomas Jefferson
I think you denigrated yourself. Your former comment sounded really naive. I'm personnally surprised that someone with law enforcement experience would be that naive.
If a bad guy breaks into my home and they don't run when confronted, and I just wait for him to cover me with his gun, stab me with a knife from my own kitchen, or for his buddy to sneak up behind me... I'm dead. And my family and my pets are dead. Maybe the badguys will go out an kill some more people with the firepower they lifted from my house...
All cause I waited for some explaination for evil?
Like: Excuse me Mr. Burglar... Do you plan on stealing something or just committing some other felony? I can legally shoot you for either one, but I need to know the exact one for my checklist?
Sorry, but I just think your advice would get me and other people killed, and that's why I say it sounds naive.
I am tired of your smart assed comments and taking things out of context. We never mentioned anyone covering you with a gun, nor even having one. we never mentioned anything other than someone simply being in your house.
I have considerable experience in the application of the law, thrrough real life encounters, realistic training scenarios and being both a Private Security Board and CHL instructor., not from internet boards.
Blanket statements like you make are irresponsible and would likely land someone in jail if they took your advice.
You consider me naive? I've BTDT. I will stay someowhat civil and not say what I think of YOU.
I am still waiting for you to show me the law that allows you to use deadly force if you are afraid.
Okay guys, everyone take a deep breath. This is an emotional discussion, with strong opinions on both sides. Everyone can keep discussing this issue as long as you wish, but please remember, when you loose the dis portion, then you're left with simply cussing each other. Hey, that's kind of funny, even if I do say so myself.
Okay, shake hands and come out swinging, . . . oh, wait a second; that's not what I meant to say . . .
txinvestigator wrote:
I am still waiting for you to show me the law that allows you to use deadly force if you are afraid.
Maybe this was the train of thought:
If someone can prove a reasonable fear of loss of life, then a GJ/DA would probably label it a clean shoot, as a reasonable person would have acted as such in a self defense capacity.
The law is well and good, but courts interpret the law in the light of reason.
Just a midnight thought.
-nick
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
txinvestigator wrote:
I am still waiting for you to show me the law that allows you to use deadly force if you are afraid.
Maybe this was the train of thought:
If someone can prove a reasonable fear of loss of life, then a GJ/DA would probably label it a clean shoot, as a reasonable person would have acted as such in a self defense capacity.
The law is well and good, but courts interpret the law in the light of reason.
Just a midnight thought.
-nick
Well said, gigag04.
Sec. 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.
If someone is in immediate fear for one's life, a reasonable person would think that the actor felt that murder, or "unlawful deadly force" would be imminent, therefore deadly force would be immediately necessary to prevent such unlawful action.
Not really a leap of logic.
Thinking. It's not that overrated...
"A man who asks is a fool for five minutes- a man who does not ask is a fool forever."
First off - Charles, that is a superb play on words that I will probably repeat (with your permission). Discussing without the dis is just cussing...
Someone on another board wrote: "Anger is only one letter away from Danger" - sorry, I enjoy succinct expressions of small truths.
Maybe the issue of being afraid stems from the legal difference between what they call "bare fear" and "reasonable fear."
I'm not a lawyer, I'm an engineer, but this is something Ayoob wrote about in a book I read many years ago. If you are in "reasonable" fear it means you have some reason to be afraid, and presumably you are justified in acting to prevent the harm you reasonably forsee.
Apparently "bare fear" is like an unreasonable fear of e.g. snakes or spiders. Some are venomous, most are harmless. If you see a "threatening-looking" man you are not justified in acting against him on the basis of your fear, since it is not yet reasonable. If he acts in a threatening manner, the situation changes.
Hey - I need more coffee before I spout off more and make a bigger fool of myself.
Just a few of my thoughts. Obviously we don't know the REAL story. However, at the point that the resident was in his home and the suspicious characters (since it is unclear whether they were breaking in to the house or were just in the yard) were on the run my immediate concern would be to secure my family in the house. By leaving the house and chasing the suspects he left his family vulnerable. That is unless someone else in the house had a weapon, knew how to use it, and would be able to identify him from a returning intruder before it was too late. And, if they were indeed breaking in, how did he know there wasn't an intruder already in the house that he left with his family inside? At what point were the police called? And how about those sixteen rounds? A neighborhood, at night, sixteen rounds! I really don't think he hit his intended targets sixteen times. They had to go somewhere! Seems pretty reckless.
Since we only have limited info these are all just thoughts. We don't know if he recognized these characters from previous trouble. We don't really know if this is a high crime area, or how many times he's been a victim. Maybe he was just fed up and anger took control. I don't know, but if he can't prove they were breaking in or were intending to break in, he might have some trouble. He will probably be ok.
I didn't mention anything about the suspects having a gun because I don't know. The Chronicle article says the homeowner returned fire but the ABC13 article says "It's either them or me or my family and I don't know if they had guns or not," said Lerma.. There may be more info out there than I've seen. In which case disregard the preceeding..
August 11, 2005 -- A suspect has been arrested and charged in the fatal shooting of one man and wounding of another at 3129 Lakewood Drive about 1 a.m. on June 27.
The suspect, Sergio Lerma (H/m, DOB 2-1-81), is charged with murder and aggravated assault in the 351st State District Court. He is charged in the killing of Oscar Leos, 24, of 2903 Briarwick Lane and the shooting of Rodrigo Martinez, 22, of the same address. Leos suffered a gunshot wound to the head and was pronounced dead at the scene. Martinez suffered a gunshot wound to the shoulder and an arm and was transported to Ben Taub General Hospital in stable condition.
HPD Homicide Division Sergeant H. Riojas and Officers I.F. Flores, P.T. Yochum and R. Cervantes reported:
The suspect, Lerma, initially told investigators on June 27 that four Hispanic males were standing in his yard and that he believed he was going to be a victim of a home invasion. Lerma said he confronted the males with a weapon and shot at them. The males fled on foot and then got into a vehicle. Lerma said he followed them and fired several more shots. One of the males, Leos, died of his injuries a short distance away from the scene while another of the males, Martinez, was taken to the hospital.
The investigation has revealed details of the incident were otherwise, and Lerma was arrested and charged on Wednesday (Aug. 10).
Hmmmmm.. Confronting people hanging around in your yard, okay.
Chasing them off, that's okay too.
Shooting them after chasing them into their car, that's a big No No.
Been following this thread for a while, without comment until now.
There was not a doubt in my mind that the homeowner would be charged with murder. Whether or not a jury convicts him is another story for another discussion, but there was no doubt in my mind that he would be charged, if all the facts played out as were first presented.
While a few posters have been going back and forth here about imminent danger and threat level, what must be kept in mind to keep someone out of legal troubles is WHEN the threat of imminent danger exists. In this instance, just the initial report that the subjects were running away was enough to justify the homeowner being charged because the threat level had deescalated when the subjects ran.
Later reports that the homeowner had to go inside to get a gun and then fired really put him on a fast track to a grand jury, then when the last report provided more information that the bad guys were in a car fleeing the scene and he fired at them in a car chase scenario, well it was a no-brainer that he would be charged. At that point he became the threat level for use of deadly force.... against him.
My background is in law enforcement, and includes time spent actually sitting in the hot seat of a grand jury. "Justified police shooting" said the investigators, Sheriff's Department, Texas Ranger, and the subsequent FBI investigation..... but still having to go before a grand jury with a jury foreman who disliked police officers was not an experience I would ever like to repeat. The shooting was a family disturbance call with a drunk w/m who took a shot at me that missed my head by an inch, I returned fire as he was aiming at another officer, who literally froze when the first shot rang out. He had not even unholstered and the bad guy was turning to aim his weapon at him. I fired two rounds with my duty weapon, 1 round exploded in his heart and he died in very short order.
In spite of the fact that I was on duty, it was a disturbance call, I had been fired upon, and that the BG was taking aim at another officer, the foreman of the grand jury tried to sway the jury by bringing up the fact that I had served two tours in Vietnam, therefore I must be a "trained killer" who wanted to kill. After I testified to the events, the foreman tried to take my testimony that I had fired two rounds and turn that around as he told the jury members that I must have really wanted to kill the guy because I fired two times. When I tried to explain 'combat shooting' he called me a liar, stating to the jury that combat shooting was only when we emptied our weapons. After I left the room, I passed Sid Merchant in the hallway, he was the Texas Ranger who investigated the shooting. When I told him what had happened in the room with the foreman of the grand jury, he was livid.... said that the foreman owned a Western Auto store and sold guns so he thought he was an expert. Ranger Merchant also told me not to worry, he would take care of it. He was in with the Grand Jury for an hour, I was no-billed right after that.
That was in 1982, back in the days when laws were not as restrictive towards police officers. Things are much different today.... mostly because of laws, lawyers and bleeding heart organizations. Carrying a concealed handgun allowed by law in this day and age means that you should know the law better than most, and believe me, a hotshot DA trying to make a name for himself will zero in on that in a heartbeat..... you are licensed, you have been trained, and that means you better be right.
Bottom line:
If you carry, you need to know the law.
Study it. Not just on internet discussion boards, but actually take the time to read and comprehend the written word.
Keep up with changes.
If you shoot, the law will either save you or crucify you.
So you resort to denigrating those who disagree?
Hey, that's kind of funny, even if I do say so myself.
