9.22 Necessity

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
LSUTiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1112
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:36 pm

9.22 Necessity

#1

Post by LSUTiger » Sun May 20, 2018 8:40 am

Just for the sake of argument because I know what I would do in this situation but:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm

Is section 9.22 Necessity a legal defense to prosecution in the scenario that you are in the parking lot of a school and an active school shooter situation occurs and you are able to respond and as such must bring a weapon onto school premises to do so to neutralize the threat?
Chance favors the prepared. Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.
There is no safety in denial. When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.
Sometimes I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?


Greybeard
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Denton County
Contact:

Re: 9.22 Necessity

#2

Post by Greybeard » Sun May 20, 2018 8:47 am

Possibly a quite viable application of 9.22 as a defense. Just hope you could get the situation resolved and the gun put away before the LEOs arrive or you might not be around to need it.
CHL Instructor since 1995
http://www.dentoncountysports.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "A Private Palace for Pistol Proficiency"
24/7 Independent Practice Plans for local LEOs and Texas CHL holders


flechero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2057
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: 9.22 Necessity

#3

Post by flechero » Sun May 20, 2018 9:02 am

I can say without question that I don't know or care what the statutes say on this... I'm heading in. Knowing full and well that I could be killed by friend or foe. My faith assures me that Gods full and final plan for me was written long before the shooter drew my attention.

ETA: no matter the law, you wouldn't be prosecuted for that.


skeathley
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:29 am
Location: McKinney, TX
Contact:

Re: 9.22 Necessity

#4

Post by skeathley » Sun May 20, 2018 9:21 am

These situations have actually happened. Regardless of the law, if someone stops an active shooter and saves lives, and is not reckless, experience shows that public pressure makes it impossible to prosecute those people.

This is not a guarantee, but the public appreciates someone who steps up for public safety, even putti g tbemselves in legal jeopardy to do so.

Note that "reckless endangerment" will not be overlooked, nor will shooting someone who is not indisputably an immediate threat.
Texas LTC Instructor / RSO / SSC
Viet Nam Veteran: 25th Infantry, Cu Chi
https://mckinneyfirearmstraining.com


jeffbird
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:28 am

Re: 9.22 Necessity

#5

Post by jeffbird » Sun May 20, 2018 2:27 pm

skeathley wrote:These situations have actually happened. Regardless of the law, if someone stops an active shooter and saves lives, and is not reckless, experience shows that public pressure makes it impossible to prosecute those people.

This is not a guarantee, but the public appreciates someone who steps up for public safety, even putti g tbemselves in legal jeopardy to do so.

Note that "reckless endangerment" will not be overlooked, nor will shooting someone who is not indisputably an immediate threat.
The 7th Amendment right to trial by jury has a powerful tempering effect on the interpretation and application of laws.

User avatar

Allons
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:03 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: 9.22 Necessity

#6

Post by Allons » Sun May 20, 2018 2:39 pm

flechero wrote:I can say without question that I don't know or care what the statutes say on this... I'm heading in. Knowing full and well that I could be killed by friend or foe. My faith assures me that Gods full and final plan for me was written long before the shooter drew my attention.

ETA: no matter the law, you wouldn't be prosecuted for that.

:iagree: I'm going in too.
EDC'S: Dan Wesson CCO, CZ-P07, XDS-45 MOD 2, SCCY CPX-2 , MP Shield-45
Home Defense: Mossberg 930 SPX
NRA Member
US Army 1988-1999
Image


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: 9.22 Necessity

#7

Post by K.Mooneyham » Sun May 20, 2018 3:35 pm

I've stated many times that my LTC is to protect me and mine...but also that it's not a hard rule, just a mental guideline. Each and every situation would have its merits and difficulties. Am I pulling a gun and shooting some punks for breaking into a car? Oh, no way, I'm calling the police. I don't have the money to defend myself from some overzealous ADA who needs a notch in the belt. But when life is on the line, there are other factors at work. Each and every individual has to make that mental call for themselves.

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 12115
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: 9.22 Necessity

#8

Post by C-dub » Sun May 20, 2018 8:24 pm

If I'm waiting in the parking lot for my daughter to come out after school and something like that were to happen, I'm going in to protect and get her. If I'm able to stop the BG then great.

However, now that I'm thinking about it, what if I do not engage the BG, but am discovered in or exiting the school and have my holstered firearm? How much trouble am I in? The whole necessity thing might be out the window since I did not find or engage or stop anyone.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 23913
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: 9.22 Necessity

#9

Post by The Annoyed Man » Mon May 21, 2018 7:39 am

It is my fervent prayer to never find myself in that situation, but I take care of a 4yr old granddaughter and 2yr old grandson every day. Some day they’ll be in school. My liberty is a cheap price to pay if their lives are on the line, so I’ll do whatever I have to do to protect them. If I and the first responder, then I’ll respond and trust my fate to God’s judgement. But if the pros are already there and entering to engage the shooter, then I will stay outside, on my knees in intercessory prayer. I don’t want to be “that guy” that just gets in the way and makes things worse.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


cdwieg
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 12:32 pm
Location: DFW

Re: 9.22 Necessity

#10

Post by cdwieg » Tue May 22, 2018 2:48 pm

It seems to me that the easier argument would be that the person entered the building to protect the lives of others and utilized reasonable and deadly force would be fairly well covered under §9.33, “Defense of Third Person”.

More specifically, §9.33 states,

“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.

Then you can get into the chicken/egg argument about the validity of §46.03 “Places Weapons Prohibited”.

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”