What happens if you shoot someone is self defense?

[AmnChode]

It is kinda funny you bring up the "too upset" "vomit bit. My instructor advised us to "have" a heart attack to get away from the questioning and allow you lawer time to show up. At first it seems odd, but it makes sense if you think about it.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Charles Cotton does a lecture on use of deadly force and its aftermath. It is well worth attending, even if you have to drive to the Houston area. Here's what I took away from it:

911: State the nature of the emergency.
Citizen: A man tried to kill me and I shot to stop him. Send an ambulance and the police.

You can read all the stories, mostly in the Never Again section. If you are ever in one of these situations, you might not be arrested or charged; or you could be found guilty of criminal homicide. It's a very risky business.

- Jim

Charles' advice is right on. Ayoob basically advises doing the same thing. Tell the police that you'll be happy to fully cooperate with their investigation after you have had a chance to calm down from the horrific experience you have just been through, and get the advice of counsel.

[Venus Pax]

As the saying goes: "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

Keith

How about only using deadly force as a means of last resort, and then only to save a life? Then avoid both the 12 and the 6.

That of course would be ideal, however I don't trust our legal system enough to think they would pat you on the back and say "Well done, Citizen!" My realist nature tells me to expect to go to court, regardless of how justified the use of deadly force may have been.

Keith

Different individuals and regions of the state look upon self-defense differently. My dh & I were talking a few evenings ago, and I was telling him about our discussion of the 71-year-old man in a rural area of East or Central Texas that shot the 50+ yr-old that was busting out his car windows.
I believe the 71-year-old was either no billed or found not guilty. Would that happen in Harris County? I doubt it.

Prepare for the worst. Realize that you may have a responding officer disgusted by your audacity to defend yourself. Now I don't think this is as likely, but possible enough to prepare for mentally.

[seamusTX]

I believe the 71-year-old was either no billed or found not guilty. Would that happen in Harris County? I doubt it.

People are frequently no-billed in self defense cases in Harris County. It happened last week.

There's no epidemic of righteous citizens being prosecuted anywhere in Texas.

- Jim

[HankB]

. . . There's no epidemic of righteous citizens being prosecuted anywhere in Texas . . .

I think that, in general, Texans are more sympathetic to persons who use deadly force in self-defense than in other jurisdictions, but politically activist DAs can still cause problems.

In the very 1st case of a rightous CHL shooting, when a guy assaulted another motorist blocked in Dallas traffic and received a gunshot in response, the DA did his darndest to indict the shooter, but a grand jury "no billed" him.

Several years ago in Austin, a guy shot a gangsta who'd broken into his girlfriend's SUV. The DA pulled out all the stops and managed to browbeat the grand jury into an indictment, and personally joined the prosecution . . . but the Travis County jury set a record for the shortest deliberations ever when they acquitted him. (The DA was the same Ronnie Earl - a pure political animal - who indicted Tom Delay.)

But it still cost the guy legal fees, time, and bad press.

So even after a totally justified shoot, you have to protect yourself.

[seamusTX]

I'm not saying it never happens, but I don't lose sleep over the possibility.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

Several years ago in Austin, a guy shot a gangsta who'd broken into his girlfriend's SUV. The DA pulled out all the stops and managed to browbeat the grand jury into an indictment, and personally joined the prosecution . . . but the Travis County jury set a record for the shortest deliberations ever when they acquitted him. (The DA was the same Ronnie Earl - a pure political animal - who indicted Tom Delay.)

And it took him three grand juries before he could even get an indictment!

[Skiprr]

Charles Cotton does a lecture on use of deadly force and its aftermath. It is well worth attending, even if you have to drive to the Houston area.

"Don't be full-on stupid.
--Clint Smith

[Eddie A.]

I shoot and kill the BG.

From what I remember from my class on Saturday should this sentence be reworded to say something to the effect of "I shot to stop the BG"

This sentence wasn't the statement that I would make to the police, it was just the end result of the scenario.

[txinvestigator]

As the saying goes: "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

Keith

How about only using deadly force as a means of last resort, and then only to save a life? Then avoid both the 12 and the 6.

That of course would be ideal, however I don't trust our legal system enough to think they would pat you on the back and say "Well done, Citizen!" My realist nature tells me to expect to go to court, regardless of how justified the use of deadly force may have been.

Keith

Using the phrase, "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" gives the impression of a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and potential consequences of using deadly force. IMO, it shows immaturity and a certain ignorance of reality.

I mean no offense either, but this is about the most serious topic that you might ever have to deal with. While I am sure none of us actually HAS such an attitude, we need to be careful in what we teach, the example we set, etc.

[NcongruNt]

As the saying goes: "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

Keith

How about only using deadly force as a means of last resort, and then only to save a life? Then avoid both the 12 and the 6.

That of course would be ideal, however I don't trust our legal system enough to think they would pat you on the back and say "Well done, Citizen!" My realist nature tells me to expect to go to court, regardless of how justified the use of deadly force may have been.

Keith

Using the phrase, "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" gives the impression of a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and potential consequences of using deadly force. IMO, it shows immaturity and a certain ignorance of reality.

I mean no offense either, but this is about the most serious topic that you might ever have to deal with. While I am sure none of us actually HAS such an attitude, we need to be careful in what we teach, the example we set, etc.

I will have to agree here. Shooting someone is the last thing I want to do. Taking a life is some very serious business. It is not something I would wish on anyone. On the other hand, the death of a loved one in a violent murder is not something I would wish on anyone either, speaking from personal experience. The gravity of taking a life in self-defense is something we cannot truly be faced with until the time comes to make such a decision, or more likely in the aftermath.

While preparedness to defend ourselves is something we definitely need put a lot of practice and forethought into, knowing when the life of yourself or someone else near you is imminently threatened is something much more innate to our nature. Situational awareness helps us understand this nature and the nature of a threat. The base instinct of survival from imminent harm is something that is much more fundamental to our nature. I believe a person who does not have a criminal mind will avoid the use of deadly force if at all possible, but when all reasonable options have been eliminated the time comes to use deadly force is there. The timeline varies wildly, and there are situations where there is no option from the outset. The laws of our land seem to reflect an understanding of this.

If you can avoid deadly force and at the same time escape serious injury to yourself and your loved ones, by all means do so. I am not advocating becoming a willing victim at all. If you are presented with a deadly threat and your only options are to respond in kind or become a victim, I believe you are within rights to use said deadly force. The laws of Texas agree, as far as I can interpret. I'm not a lawyer, so I encourage everyone to read them thoroughly for themselves and seek the advice of someone qualified to interpret them along with applicable case law.

[Venus Pax]

If you can avoid deadly force and at the same time escape serious injury to yourself and your loved ones, by all means do so. I am not advocating becoming a willing victim at all. If you are presented with a deadly threat and your only options are to respond in kind or become a victim, I believe you are within rights to use said deadly force. The laws of Texas agree, as far as I can interpret. I'm not a lawyer, so I encourage everyone to read them thoroughly for themselves and seek the advice of someone qualified to interpret them along with applicable case law.

However, watch your back, legally speaking, as well.

[Photoman]

Using the phrase, "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" gives the impression of a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and potential consequences of using deadly force. IMO, it shows immaturity and a certain ignorance of reality.

I mean no offense either, but this is about the most serious topic that you might ever have to deal with. While I am sure none of us actually HAS such an attitude, we need to be careful in what we teach, the example we set, etc.

Yes. I'm not sure which is worse, using that "12 or 6" statement or publishing it on a public internet forum where it can be used against you in court.

Even if you do believe it, for heavens sake, don't post it on the internet!

[swiven]

I can see two reasons to give the LEOs at the scene a brief narration of what happened.

1) To try to stay out of jail that day. This seems a poor reason to me. In the unhappy event I am ever involved in a self-defense shooting, I will be a complete chemical and emotional mess. I'll gladly trade 24 hours in jail for the time to let the chemicals get out of my system so I can think about what I am saying.

2) To be able to show at trial that you have told a consistent story from the time of the incident. Theoretically, the fact that you refuse to make a statement after a Miranda warning has been given cannot be used against you at trial (see Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976)), but if the prosecution does it, you're going to have to show that it was not "harmless error." And your refusal to make a statement before a Miranda warning is given can be used to impeach your testimony at trial, at least under federal law. (See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993)). Does anyone know if Texas has a higher standard on this?

[pbandjelly]

Even if you do believe it, for heavens sake, don't post it on the internet!

although I agree that we shouldn't post things we may later regret, I was unaware that we were under oath...