Another scenario

[Rayden]

I thought about this once in a while but I don't have an answer for.

Let's say Mr. Good Guy (GG), a CHL holder, is walking down the street and was approached by Mr. Bad Guy (BG). Mr. BG proceeds to lift up his shirt to reveal a pistol tucked behind his waistband, but did not pull it out and proceeds to let his shirt slide back down to conceal it. Mr. BG then demanded money/wallet/car keys from Mr. GG and threatens to shoot Mr. GG if the demand was not met.

Mr. GG complies. While Mr. BG is momentarily distracted but did not have his pistol in his hand, Mr. GG pull out his CCW and shoots Mr. BG killing him.

1.) Did Mr. GG commit an offense?

2.) Did Mr. GG commit an offense if after Mr. BG gained possession of said money/wallet/car keys and started to turn away from Mr. GG, and at the same time Mr. GG pulled out his CCW and shoots Mr. BG but hit him in his back?

3.) Did Mr. GG commit an offense if initially Mr. BG got away with said money/wallet/car keys but came right back within a minute or so to look for something on the ground but did not brandish his pistol this time around, and Mr. GG pulled out his CCW and shoots Mr. BG to death ... either front or back?

Other than suggesting that these questions are better left for attorneys, any opinions from you guys? I am just curious to know what's the limit as I am not an attorney.

[seamusTX]

With the use of deadly force justified to prevent aggravated (armed) robbery (PC PC §9.32) and to recover stolen property (PC §9.42), this would be a pretty favorable situation for the good guy.

The only catch (which absolutely must be ingrained in the mind of every CHL holder who wants to stay out of jail), is "when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary." If there is some non-deadly alternative, you must use it.

I don't see an alternative in the scenario that you described. An example of an alternative would be an attempt to break into your car while you are in it. If you can hit the accelerator and drive like you stole it ( ), you can get away.

When you use deadly force, you run the risk of your actions being examined by a hostile DA, a grand jury composed of people who, let us say, will never be Nobel Prize candidates, and all the bad luck that could follow. This doesn't happen often in Texas, but it happens.

- Jim

[Rayden]

...

The only catch (which absolutely must be ingrained in the mind of every CHL holder who wants to stay out of jail), is "when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary."
- Jim

Then the question would be: "How would Mr. GG know that no harm would be inflicted upon him just based on the fact that Mr. BG isn't shooting at him NOW"?

[Venus Pax]

...

The only catch (which absolutely must be ingrained in the mind of every CHL holder who wants to stay out of jail), is "when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary."
- Jim

Then the question would be: "How would Mr. GG know that no harm would be inflicted upon him just based on the fact that Mr. BG isn't shooting at him NOW"?

That would be my concern. I would take his threat seriously and act accordingly.

[seamusTX]

The law allows the use of deadly force to prevent robbery or aggravated robbery (with the caution that I wrote earlier). Armed robbery is by definition aggravated robbery (and it doesn't matter if the robber has a non-functional or replica gun).

Armed robbers kill their victims with increasing frequency, according to my reading of news reports. In the good old days, they just said, "Give me your wallet and your watch." Now it seems that many are acting out fantasies from the movies or something (I don't watch that kind of movie).

You don't have to wait until you are 1 millisecond from deadly injury. If the robber is armed and has indicated his felonious intent, he is a deadly threat.

So in the scenario that you presented, IMHO, the good guy is justified in the use of deadly force because of the ongoing threat that he can not escape from or neutralize in any other way.

As always, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

If I misunderstood your question (which i suspect that I may have done), please rephrase it.

If you are ever in a position to attend Charles Cotton's lecture on the use of deadly force, move heaven and earth to do so. He is a lawyer.

P.S: I see that Venus beat me to the Enter key. For women, armed robbery is often followed by abduction, rape, and murder. They have a greater justification than men, and probably will get more sympathy all-round.

- Jim

[KRM45]

1.) Did Mr. GG commit an offense?

2.) Did Mr. GG commit an offense if after Mr. BG gained possession of said money/wallet/car keys and started to turn away from Mr. GG, and at the same time Mr. GG pulled out his CCW and shoots Mr. BG but hit him in his back?

3.) Did Mr. GG commit an offense if initially Mr. BG got away with said money/wallet/car keys but came right back within a minute or so to look for something on the ground but did not brandish his pistol this time around, and Mr. GG pulled out his CCW and shoots Mr. BG to death ... either front or back?

This may be an unpopular answer, but I will say that Mr. GG did comit an offense. Penal Code Section 19.02 defines murder as intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual. The real question is does he have a defense to prosecution. Chapter 9 discusses justification as a defense, and outlines the use of force and deadly force.

The way I read chapter 9 I believe the GG would be justified under 1 and 2. I would take a different approach on 3.

You may want to read all this for yourself:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[srothstein]

KRM beat me to it. The question is not if Mr. GG committed an offense, but more properly is if he had the defense of justification for committing the offense of murder.

And yes, I do think he was justified based on the previously posted answers about preventing the commission of an aggravated robbery or the escape immediately following.

[Rayden]

1.) Did Mr. GG commit an offense?

2.) Did Mr. GG commit an offense if after Mr. BG gained possession of said money/wallet/car keys and started to turn away from Mr. GG, and at the same time Mr. GG pulled out his CCW and shoots Mr. BG but hit him in his back?

3.) Did Mr. GG commit an offense if initially Mr. BG got away with said money/wallet/car keys but came right back within a minute or so to look for something on the ground but did not brandish his pistol this time around, and Mr. GG pulled out his CCW and shoots Mr. BG to death ... either front or back?

This may be an unpopular answer, but I will say that Mr. GG did comit an offense. Penal Code Section 19.02 defines murder as intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual. The real question is does he have a defense to prosecution. Chapter 9 discusses justification as a defense, and outlines the use of force and deadly force.

The way I read chapter 9 I believe the GG would be justified under 1 and 2. I would take a different approach on 3.

You may want to read all this for yourself:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By the time you decide if you have the justification, it MIGHT be too late. Split second decisions can be debated over and over again in hind sight, but really I wouldn't know what I would've done given that split second to make the decision. Do we have to make certain decisions in advance based on different scenarios? This is something that is troubling to think about sometimes.

[Rayden]

It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I knew this phrase would come up sooner or later .... but it is on my mind sometimes

[bdickens]

Mr. BG proceeds to lift up his shirt to reveal a pistol tucked behind his waistband, but did not pull it out and proceeds to let his shirt slide back down to conceal it. Mr. BG then demanded money/wallet/car keys from Mr. GG and threatens to shoot Mr. GG if the demand was not met.

That right there, KRM45, is an unlawful threat of deadly force. And you are justified in meeting that threat with deadly force of your own. We aren't living in the People's Republik of Taxachussets where you get to have armed guards as long as your name is Kennedy and everyone else is out of luck!

[KRM45]

By the time you decide if you have the justification, it MIGHT be too late. Split second decisions can be debated over and over again in hind sight, but really I wouldn't know what I would've done given that split second to make the decision. Do we have to make certain decisions in advance based on different scenarios? This is something that is troubling to think about sometimes.

I agree wholeheartedly. And yes, there are some decisions that you should make now, before you get into the fight.

[KRM45]

Mr. BG proceeds to lift up his shirt to reveal a pistol tucked behind his waistband, but did not pull it out and proceeds to let his shirt slide back down to conceal it. Mr. BG then demanded money/wallet/car keys from Mr. GG and threatens to shoot Mr. GG if the demand was not met.

That right there, KRM45, is an unlawful threat of deadly force. And you are justified in meeting that threat with deadly force of your own. We aren't living in the People's Republik of Taxachussets where you get to have armed guards as long as your name is Kennedy and everyone else is out of luck!

I'm not sure I understand your issue with my position. I stated that upon him threatening you with the gun, or upon his turning to leave after threatening you I believe you would be justified in your use of deadly force.

If he leaves my sight for a minute and then I see him again I believe I would be justified in using force to detain him, but I do not think I could just shoot him. If he were to again threaten me with the gun I would then be justified.