TexasCHLforum.com

...I didn't say to shoot 'em in the rearend...so that example doesn't apply ...this is criminal law and clearly spells out what is justified...our moral choices, well, they're ours to make...but shooting an armed robber is not a sucker punch...according to the law...


...but here's a Texas example where it happened that the running suspect was shot in the tail and the CHL who did it was not in trouble... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpKTqCCJdAo...goes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; well with the morning coffee to see a good guy do it right...

...I have been in dozens of adrenaline-charged situations while a cop, and three since...and none of them caused me to forget or disregard the lawful thing to do...on the contrary, because I'd learned and was confident in what the law required me to do or not do, I was able to make better decisions...and that's the way it's supposed to work...know what to do ahead of time...and plug in the facts of your current situation to see what the right decision is...according to law...

...in my opinion, the greatest value in this forum is that it makes us think, and teaches us to look up the laws and study...and leaves us better prepared to do things within the law...

Great, now you want me to carry a throw down wallet. Already have a 9mm pocket carried and everything else (wallet, cell phone, car keys, extra mag. etc. in the other pocket. Just don't have the avaialble space to carry the extra wallet.

kjolly wrote:Great, now you want me to carry a throw down wallet. Already have a 9mm pocket carried and everything else (wallet, cell phone, car keys, extra mag. etc. in the other pocket. Just don't have the avaialble space to carry the extra wallet.

That's my tactic. If held up at gunpoint for my wallet, I will start emptying my pockets of spare change, pocket knife, nail clippers, rabbit's foot, lip balm, etc etc until the robber gets so bored he gives up and leaves.

Keith B wrote:

kjolly wrote:Great, now you want me to carry a throw down wallet. Already have a 9mm pocket carried and everything else (wallet, cell phone, car keys, extra mag. etc. in the other pocket. Just don't have the avaialble space to carry the extra wallet.

That's my tactic. If held up at gunpoint for my wallet, I will start emptying my pockets of spare change, pocket knife, nail clippers, rabbit's foot, lip balm, etc etc until the robber gets so bored he gives up and leaves.

Keith -- does that include dropping your spare mags? That might add some excitement for your attacker!

...he ain't foolin' me...he might drop 'em...but only after they were empty...

speedsix wrote:...he ain't foolin' me...he might drop 'em...but only after they were empty...

This.....

glock27 wrote:in texas if you run into anyones rearend while driving its automatically your fault. shooting someone in the back IMO is morally wrong. more like a sucker punch, if they got your money and are running off your no longer inthreat.or to begin with you could act like your going for your wallet and pull out a surpirse pocket .357.... that would be my first reaction "to act scared and fumble for your wallet and pull a gun". only if i was a victim of a surprise attack and held at knife point or a family member....

IMO it is unhuman-like to shoot someone in the back as they are running away i think a jury would corkscrew someone on this, unless they have your childs carseat running and you are promising with your shot. to retrieve your child.


adrenaline gets the best of us, who knows what anyone of us would do if somthing happend, we can say one thing and do the completely opposite. adrenaline and fear and nerves take over thinking lawfully is the last thing on our minds. survival and revenge would be #1 for me personally. but at the same time this forum "trains" us to "slow our roll" on ceratin situations and to double think situations. as well as expecting the unexpected and being ready for it....

I'll jump in on this one.

First auto laws are different. You are supposed to maintain a proper distance to allow you to stop before hitting the car in front of you. That is your responsibility. That has nothing to do with self-defense situations.

BG has threatened you so you are not illegal under the stated codes. You give up your wallet, that we will assume contains cash DL, CHL, SS, CC, etc, really doesn't matter. He is now running away. Does he still have a weapon? If so then he is still a threat. He could turn at anytime and shoot or run back to stab you. Draw and cover or run away is an option but he also has all your information, including your address and maybe pictures of your wife and children. By the time you call the police and they take your statement the BG could be at your house.

I don't want to think I would shoot someone in the back for $13.00 but there are more things to consider. He made the decision to threaten me with a weapon which means he also made the decision to accept the conscequences of that decision. If that is buying a bullet in the back then I don't think I would lose too much sleep. Would I do it, don't know, like so many scenarios it depends on too many factors.

I think I remember the DPS officers telling us at Instructor's School about a situation where an officer shot through the back window of a car with an armed BG that had just sped past him. Hit and killed the driver. Family was in an uproar over "shot in the back" and "running away". It was successfully defended that the suspect was still a threat, he could turn around or stop and get out. Also was presented that the time it took the officier to process the car was already by him was not enough time to stop the pull of the trigger. Either way it was determined the officier was justified and was aquitted or no billed.
Someone help me on this because I don't quite remember the details but that is the gist.

While John Wayne may not have ever shot any BG in the back we are not in Hollywood. The rules are different out here. What you decide and what I decide and what the next man decides, while all "legal" may not be on the same personal moral platform. That is for each individual to decide within his legal and religous beliefs.

What would I do? Can't honestly say. Again, it goes back to the situation. I may curl up and suck my thumb. I hope to never be in that situation but I also hope I have the fortitude to do the right thing and get to go home to family.

SWAMPRNR wrote:If they took my wallet the joke would be on them since It's empty. I normally only carry enough loose cash for lunch.

your thinking about this the wrong way, if some one comes up to you robs you and takes your wallet even if its empty, if you dont stop them then your breaking the law, carrying your firearm with out your licesnes and CHL so as a law abiding citizen you pretty much required to shoot them.

glock27 wrote:in texas if you run into anyones rearend while driving its automatically your fault. shooting someone in the back IMO is morally wrong. more like a sucker punch, if they got your money and are running off your no longer inthreat.or to begin with you could act like your going for your wallet and pull out a surpirse pocket .357.... that would be my first reaction "to act scared and fumble for your wallet and pull a gun". only if i was a victim of a surprise attack and held at knife point or a family member....

IMO it is unhuman-like to shoot someone in the back as they are running away i think a jury would corkscrew someone on this, unless they have your childs carseat running and you are promising with your shot. to retrieve your child.


adrenaline gets the best of us, who knows what anyone of us would do if somthing happend, we can say one thing and do the completely opposite. adrenaline and fear and nerves take over thinking lawfully is the last thing on our minds. survival and revenge would be #1 for me personally. but at the same time this forum "trains" us to "slow our roll" on ceratin situations and to double think situations. as well as expecting the unexpected and being ready for it....

while I cant say I know how I would react in every situation I will just point out one thing here. I think robbing some one is morally wrong, so why give some scum bag special treatment? This has been discused a lot on this forum and your free to have your own opinion, but anyone who is armed is a threat until they are disarmed or have been put down IMO

to be honest if I had a choice on my location reatlive to the BG in a shooting I would pick behind him every time, would rather he not be able to get a shot off

glock27 wrote:in texas if you run into anyones rearend while driving its automatically your fault.

Just to help clear up the argument, this is not true. while Texas law does say you should leave adequate room to stop, it does nto say you are automatically at fault. For example, if I cut in front of someone with little room and then slam on the brakes, he will rear-end me and it would be my fault not his.

In one accident I handled, I wrote the driver in front a ticket because they started from the light but popped the clutch too fast and stalled the car. Since it stopped without signaling the intent to stop and was not expected to stop, I thought they were more at fault than the car behind them that also started with the green light and should have waited a little more.

shooting someone in the back IMO is morally wrong.

This is a personal judgement and each of us gets to make our own decision on our morals. The law may be seen as what society as a whole has agreed is moral. It does not say this in the law.

more like a sucker punch, if they got your money and are running off your no longer inthreat.

This is not how they are teaching police officers any more. If the suspect is still armed and is leaving, he is still a threat and may be headed to threaten someone else. The use of deadly force is justified. In texas law, the threat is not even needed if he is leaving with your property and it is the only reasonable way to get it back.

IMO it is unhuman-like to shoot someone in the back as they are running away i think a jury would corkscrew someone on this, unless they have your childs carseat running and you are promising with your shot. to retrieve your child.

Probably the best example of proving you wrong is a case in Austin that made lots of news a few years ago. I may be remembering this wrong since I am not looking it up but going on old memory. A CHL followed a car burglary suspect and ended up shooting him away from the scene. There was some debate as to whether or not the suspect was armed or made threatening movements towards the CHL. I think it took the DA a couple tries to get a grand jury to indict. The trial jury said not guilty. And that was in the liberal heart of Texas. What do you think a more conservative area would do?

adrenaline gets the best of us, who knows what anyone of us would do if somthing happend, we can say one thing and do the completely opposite. adrenaline and fear and nerves take over thinking lawfully is the last thing on our minds. survival and revenge would be #1 for me personally. but at the same time this forum "trains" us to "slow our roll" on ceratin situations and to double think situations. as well as expecting the unexpected and being ready for it....

I certainly agree that we may not react in the real situation the way we think we will. Adrenaline and stress do things we do not think they will. I also agree that the forum, and many other training programs, helps us to think things through in advance and plan a better than just instinctive response. That is one of the things I like here.

On this subject, I would strongly suggest anyone do some research on what the scientists are showing now. I especially like some of the research coming out of the Force Science Institute in Minnesota. I especially like some of their motion studies and how fast a fleeing suspect turns into a threat. One of their studies showed that it was almost impossible for an officer to shoot a suspect who was lying on the ground with his hands under his chest faster than the suspect could turn over and shoot the officer.

...that reinforces my belief that as private citizens, we shouldn't talk to armed perps...if we've determined them to be a threat...stop the threat...any time spent by me talking, warning, etc. is burning up precious reaction time...and pray for our police who are required to give warnings,commands, etc...I'll be digging those studies out...would you happen to have a link???

Liberty wrote:

snack wrote:... but other side of me says he need to be taken out so that he doesnt do this again. This was at night.

This is probably not a good reason to shoot someone. We CHL holders are not judge nor jury. Shooting slimeballs to protect ourselves and is a good good idea, to get a wallet with the IDs back might be worthy, but to get back $13.00 and a penknife, or for revenge doesn'ty seem prudent, even if it may be legal.

I have asked myself that question many times already. What is Chuck's rules for deadly force. My answer is to defend one's life. My property
can be replaced.

This is probably against what others think but that is ok. Hopefully no of us has to make that decision.

Chuck

I realize that we are acting out the scenario proposed by the OP. We are all assuming that the BG will simply ask for our personal affects from a safe distance thus giving hope for the "throw down" wallet.
However, I've had personal experience with two family members who were involved in street style gunpoint robberies and both times the BG's searched the (male) victims by hand! Now I realize this may not always happen................but how would I know, as a potential victim, if my BG is going to hand search me or not?
There is the frightening potential that he may discover my CC, and, out of a "knee jerk" fear reaction, shoot me or just take my gun away from me!
My existing plan for any scenario is to, if at all possible, take the first available opportunity to employ my weapon to stop any life threatening situation against me or mine before he has a chance to search me. No matter the scenario, once the BG is no longer a threat to me, then he will become a problem for law enforcement. I would never pursue a BG unless it was a kidnapping.

Any thoughts on the search issue?

I know some may suggest BUG's, but let's say you don't have one.

alpmc wrote:I realize that we are acting out the scenario proposed by the OP. We are all assuming that the BG will simply ask for our personal affects from a safe distance thus giving hope for the "throw down" wallet.
However, I've had personal experience with two family members who were involved in street style gunpoint robberies and both times the BG's searched the (male) victims by hand! Now I realize this may not always happen................but how would I know, as a potential victim, if my BG is going to hand search me or not?
There is the frightening potential that he may discover my CC, and, out of a "knee jerk" fear reaction, shoot me or just take my gun away from me!
My existing plan for any scenario is to, if at all possible, take the first available opportunity to employ my weapon to stop any life threatening situation against me or mine before he has a chance to search me. No matter the scenario, once the BG is no longer a threat to me, then he will become a problem for law enforcement. I would never pursue a BG unless it was a kidnapping.

Any thoughts on the search issue?

I know some may suggest BUG's, but let's say you don't have one.

Lets say he found that also.

I have thought about being searched like that before and I guess how I would react would depending on how many people where with him, if im getting robbed by 1 man with a gun and he is searching me and gets anywhere near my gun, from that point on you have 2 options go on the offesnive or put your life in the hands of the thug

I think it has less to do (from a moral or practical standpoint) with the amount/value of property that he is getting away with, and more to do with how much of a threat he is to you (and others). If he appeared to be a scared kid with a knife, you might react differently than if he appeared to be a hardended criminal with a gun who you had no doubt would just as soon kill you as not. In the second case, I would have less hesiation to shoot him as he will probably wind up killing someone else sooner or later. Also, be aware that if he has a gun and you elect to shoot as he is running away, you had better incompacitate him or you may find yourself involved in a gunfight!

Shooting someone in the back is good tactics. Special forces snipers do it Fighter pilots do it and the pilots intentionally get on the enemy's six.

If someone thinks those guys are cowards, it's not even worth debating in my book.