TexasCHLforum.com

imkopaka wrote:Several thoughts:

Penal Code 9.42 gives you the authority to shoot someone following the commission of various theft crimes if they are fleeing with your property. The act is over and they are fleeing with your stuff, but you can kill 'em. I understand that this does not give LEGAL right to use this same level of force to stop a fleeing murderer, but it certainly supports it from an ETHICAL standpoint. The provisions for using deadly force in various circumstances to stop a fleeing felon or fleeing prisoner of a penal institution support this also.

Those of you playing the intent card need to stop. Saying "we can't use the doctrine of necessity because we don't KNOW that he was going to hurt anyone else" is beyond idiotic. We can NEVER "know" a person's intent; even if they tell us, they could be lying. It is times like this that the "reasonable person" must come out. If he committed a murder and attempted to drive away in the murder weapon it stands to reason that his intent is not to go turn himself in. He, and no one else, branded himself a murderer.

Here's a hypothetical: a man shoots another with a handgun and walks away. Someone else shoots him in the back on the assumption that he is still armed and dangerous. Does not the doctrine of necessity support this? Now change out "handgun" for "car" and see if anything changes. A man purposefully runs over another several times then drives away (therefore still in possession of what he just used as a deadly weapon). Someone shoots him in the back on the assumption that he is still armed and dangerous. Does not the doctrine of necessity support this?

Those of you who are attacking those Good Samaritans who would risk their own freedom to see that a dangerous man was stopped: you shame yourselves. If you could never dream of standing up to defend someone besides yourself and your immediate family, that is your choice and it is your right to make it; but how dare you belittle and attack those brave enough to stand up to evil just because they could face consequences for doing so? So they make different choices than you - so what? Who are you to cut down their courage and make light of their sacrifice? How disgusting. Imagine if the police/founders/military/etc acted so cowardly?

One final note to those who bring up the tired rebuttal about stray rounds:

so if I had a clear line of fire, you'd better believe I would empty every round I had to get him to stop.

Fifth weapon safety rule is "know your target and what lies beyond it." I'm not going to shoot at something driving through a street fair. This sounded like a deserted street. Use some judgment, people.

I'm done with this conversation. Y'all's cowardice and bickering is making me sick.

Paladin wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:

Paladin wrote:

Abraham wrote:LTC's are not LEO's.

Highly dependent upon circumstances before we step in slinging bullets.

Shooting at a fleeing car?

Do you know for certain where your misses are going to end?

Bad idea.

It is very true that any LTC shooting at a fleeing car even in these circumstances is taking liability upon themselves if stray rounds hit the wrong people or damage property. Fortunately the LTC's in this case had the appropriate skills.

It is also a bad idea to let a murderer get away to hurt or kill someone else. I can assure you that if the murderer got away, and later killed one of your loved ones, your opinion would be different.

In hindsight I absolutely agree. But unless you are Tom Cruise in Minority Report and the precog's tell you that the fella is going to commit murder, it strikes me as too hypothetical to legally exercise deadly force here in the present.

The LTC's witnessed a murder. They were attempting to prevent the murderer who ran down an innocent woman from driving himself and his murder weapon away from the scene and becoming a continuing threat to the community. The reason courts lock murderer's up in prison and bar them from owning firearms are the same. There is nothing hypothetical in that.

Paladin wrote:

Abraham wrote:LTC's are not LEO's.

Highly dependent upon circumstances before we step in slinging bullets.

Shooting at a fleeing car?

Do you know for certain where your misses are going to end?

Bad idea.

It is very true that any LTC shooting at a fleeing car even in these circumstances is taking liability upon themselves if stray rounds hit the wrong people or damage property. Fortunately the LTC's in this case had the appropriate skills.

It is also a bad idea to let a murderer get away to hurt or kill someone else. I can assure you that if the murderer got away, and later killed one of your loved ones, your opinion would be different.

J.R.@A&M wrote:

Paladin wrote:

apostate wrote:

imkopaka wrote:Nope - I'd have shot at him, too! Deadly force is perfectly legal to prevent the fleeing of one who has just used unlawful deadly force,

Please cite the relevant law that justifies this.

Sec. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

link

Of course in places like Austin the local DA may interpret the law differently

What imminent harm is being avoided by shooting at a fleeing car?

Paladin wrote:

apostate wrote:

imkopaka wrote:Nope - I'd have shot at him, too! Deadly force is perfectly legal to prevent the fleeing of one who has just used unlawful deadly force,

Please cite the relevant law that justifies this.

Sec. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

link

Of course in places like Austin the local DA may interpret the law differently