Lady asked me about this scenario

[Micten2]

Okay guys, this is probably a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyways, while adding a little bit(sorry if it's been covered already). You're chasing the BG, he turns, aims his gun at you, you draw and fire. Under stress and panic, you fire off target and hit him in the leg, arm, stomach(anywhere that he can survive the shot). He lives, but the BG is stopped and detained. Is this considered using deadly force? Will the same laws/prosecution(civil suits) apply as if you'd have killed the BG? Obviously, you're not going to aim for a limb in this situation, I know that you should always aim for the center of mass to stop the threat. But is this considered using deadly force if the BG survives? Just curious.

Mike

[yobdab]

Using any type of weapon that could kill is use of deadly force even if the BG lives.

[Micten2]

Using any type of weapon that could kill is use of deadly force even if the BG lives.

That's what I thought. Thanks for the info.

[Liberty]

Section g makes it real clear that deadly force is not authorized under section b.

Just a technical correction, but section G says deadly force is not authorized under C and D. It does not show that it is not authorized under B.

But I agree with your conclusion that the law does not generally authorize a citizen to shoot the bad guy running from an attempted murder as was described.

Now I know I'm picking knits but its difficult to understand this stuff.

(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances
enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).

This says only if under the conditions c and d, but to me, implies no other conditions such as what is listed in b which describes using force but not deadly force.

Not that any of this really matters most of us understand that it is a bad idea to shoot someone who is running way. Even though I am sure someone could come up with a scenario where it might make sense.

[seamusTX]

Thanks for clarifying this issue, guys. I got busy yesterday and couldn't spend any more time on the computer.

- Jim

[Will938]

Am I the only person who would probably shoot?

In my hopefully reasonable opinion someone who walks up and shoots someone is a deadly threat to anyone in the area. If there was even someone close to him as he fled I'd feel they were in danger of being shot as well.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Okay guys, this is probably a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyways, while adding a little bit(sorry if it's been covered already). You're chasing the BG, he turns, aims his gun at you, you draw and fire. Under stress and panic, you fire off target and hit him in the leg, arm, stomach(anywhere that he can survive the shot). He lives, but the BG is stopped and detained. Is this considered using deadly force? Will the same laws/prosecution(civil suits) apply as if you'd have killed the BG? Obviously, you're not going to aim for a limb in this situation, I know that you should always aim for the center of mass to stop the threat. But is this considered using deadly force if the BG survives? Just curious.

Mike

When he turned and aimed his gun at you, he was at that moment threatening to use deadly force. IANAL, but it seems it would be OK for you to employ deadly force in return.

Using a firearm is considered deadly force no matter where you hit him, or even if you miss. You could hit him in the arm or leg and he could still bleed to death if an artery was severed.

[Photoman]

I wouldn't shoot.

I also find it very hard to believe a police officer would not pursue a masked person with a gun running from a shooting scene.

[TX_Jim]

I would think it would be reasonable to assume that the BG was in the middle of commiting agrevated robbery...mostly because it as was a sonic and the victim was working. In that case deadly force is authorized and even authorized to protect another.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[TX_Jim]

in reference to my statment above...I would not advocate shooting someone who is fleeing in the back. However, the chase, if in fresh pursuit is justified and then if at any given point the BG turns a faces you then you have fear of immediate danger, especially because you just witnessed the BG shoot someone else, then the situation changes and things now fall under normal usage of deadly force...because you fear for your life.

I know the laws are different here than in AZ but I read an article (i will try to find it and post it later) where a buiness owner who lived minutes away from his business heard the alarm go off. He armed himself and went to investigate. when he got to the place of business the BGs were getting back in their vehicle and took off. The business owner gave chase (fresh pursuit). At some point, the BGs turned around and tried to ram or did ram the business owners vehicle...fearing for his life at that moment in time...he opened fire. I can't remember if he killed the BGs or just injured them, none the less, no charges were filed....or maybe he was no billed, but either way it was deemed justified.

[srothstein]

Section g makes it real clear that deadly force is not authorized under section b.

Just a technical correction, but section G says deadly force is not authorized under C and D. It does not show that it is not authorized under B.

But I agree with your conclusion that the law does not generally authorize a citizen to shoot the bad guy running from an attempted murder as was described.

Now I know I'm picking knits but its difficult to understand this stuff.

(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances
enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).

This says only if under the conditions c and d, but to me, implies no other conditions such as what is listed in b which describes using force but not deadly force.

Not that any of this really matters most of us understand that it is a bad idea to shoot someone who is running way. Even though I am sure someone could come up with a scenario where it might make sense.

I apologize. You are right and I misread it when I looked at it and posted.

[Lucky45]

I would think it would be reasonable to assume that the BG was in the middle of commiting agrevated robbery...mostly because it as was a sonic and the victim was working. In that case deadly force is authorized and even authorized to protect another.

I think from original post, there was never any mention of a robbery or anything taken. The orignal poster said the suspect came up to the window and shot his friend in the neck and then took off.
So the Penal code you stated would not apply to this incident, since there was nothing taken to be recovered. That is why you have to have these scenarios fully run through in your mind before you run after someone and get yourself in trouble with the legal system. Make sure you are justified under the correct penal code.

This one applies :

PC §9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. 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.

Is your intervention immediately necessary before / during the commission of the shooting; or after the suspect is fleeing from the scene? So make sure you know your justifications before pulling your weapon.

[TX_Jim]

I would think it would be reasonable to assume that the BG was in the middle of commiting agrevated robbery...mostly because it as was a sonic and the victim was working. In that case deadly force is authorized and even authorized to protect another.

I think from original post, there was never any mention of a robbery or anything taken. The orignal poster said the suspect came up to the window and shot his friend in the neck and then took off.
So the Penal code you stated would not apply to this incident, since there was nothing taken to be recovered. That is why you have to have these scenarios fully run through in your mind before you run after someone and get yourself in trouble with the legal system. Make sure you are justified under the correct penal code.

This one applies :

PC §9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. 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.

Is your intervention immediately necessary before / during the commission of the shooting; or after the suspect is fleeing from the scene? So make sure you know your justifications before pulling your weapon.

I agree that it was not mentioned in the original post that anything was taken. The laws in Texas seem to revolve around the words “ordinary person� and "reasonable belief." That is why I used the word reasonably in my response. Given the information in the original post, sonic employee is shot through cashier window. If I were to witness that, it would be reasonable to believe (and assume I could convince a jury that it was reasonable for me to believe that at the time) the BG was committing aggravated robbery. That in in itself would at the very least give one authority to give chase. It is not until the BG turns around and faces me...as in the original post...with a gun in hand....is where the situation changes from defense of a third person's property to standard self defense at which point One would be justified in the use of deadly force because one would at the time have reason to fear for their own safety and therefore the statute I quoted would apply and a savvy attorney would insure that.

It's all about what an ordinary and reasonable person believes at the time and not what is actually fact.

On another forum I read of a situation were a man comes home to find his wife sitting in a truck in the driveway with another man. The wife, who did not want to get caught cheating, screamed that she was being rapped. The husband drew down on what "he reasonably believed at the time" to be a rapist. He shot and killed the man (if memory serves). Later the husband found out that the wife was not being rapped but instead just cheating. No charges were brought against the husband, but the wife is now behind bars. The point of this true story (here in TX..I believe) is that these situations occur in just seconds and if one has reason to believe something is true and acts based on that assumption, then it does not really matter what the true intent was of the BG.

If it were not for this key concept of reasonable belief of an ordinary person....then we could not have self defense laws period. If laws did not include this reasonable theory than it would be all to easy for a prosecutor to say something like...How did you know the BG was going to kill you...just because he points a gun does not mean he is going to shoot, or that he has enough skill to hit center mass...and if he did that the results of such a shot would definitely cause death. With the reasonable belief theory...the law would have to deal in definite situations...and one could not use the logical argument that based the preponderance of the evidence i had reason to believe that my life was in danger.

[Lucky45]

just a point of information; where do you see it written in the original post that the man was an employee at a cashier's window? Unless I missed something. Until the original poster clears it up, why couldn't his friend have been a customer that was sitting in his car at one of those stalls. Isn't Sonic one of those fast food joints that you roll down your car window and order from the callbox at your parking space.

Seems that the man was at a Sonic and a BG walked up to his window and shot him in or near the neck and took off running. The strange thing was that her husband who was with the man, flagged down an LEO and pointed to the BG running and briefly described what happened.

[TX_Jim]

just a point of information; where do you see it written in the original post that the man was an employee at a cashier's window? Unless I missed something. Until the original poster clears it up, why couldn't his friend have been a customer that was sitting in his car at one of those stalls. Isn't Sonic one of those fast food joints that you roll down your car window and order from the callbox at your parking space.

Seems that the man was at a Sonic and a BG walked up to his window and shot him in or near the neck and took off running. The strange thing was that her husband who was with the man, flagged down an LEO and pointed to the BG running and briefly described what happened.

I made an assumption about being an employee (maybe a bad assumption) but even if the victim was in his own vehicle it does not change things much. As a witness to a felnoy One can execute a citizens arrest (Code of Criminal Procedure 14.01...no peace officer direction or presents requirment) (either agrevated assault or aggrevated robbery are felonies....1st degree becuase of the weapon used), and again I could reasonably believe that it was agrevated robbery, I would be able to give chase under that authority. That does not give me enough authority in itself to use deadly force. However, at anytime, if the BG turns and becomes a threat...than the whole situation changes and then use of deadly force is justified under Penal Code 9.32.

It still all boils down to what an ordinary person reasonably believes at the time.

CCP 14.01 allows a peace officer OR citizen to make an arrest if the offense is a felony committed in the presents or view or the citizen or peace officer...without warrent. Does not necessary or specifically state anything about fresh pursuit. However it would seem that One could chase a BG down to affect such a lawful warrentless arrest.

PC 9.42 does authorize fresh pursuit if the BG commited agrevated robbery (as i said it is reasonable to believe this is the case).

PC 9.32 this is the statue that would apply if and when the BG turns and becomes a threat. If the BG never turns and becomes a threat then deadly force is not justified.

Points:

1: Authorized to give lawful chase.
2: Not authized at that time to use deadly force but authorized to execute a warrentless arrest.
3: If, and only if, BG becaome a threat during the execution of a lawful warrentless arrest, then 9.32 kicks in and deadly force is justified.