TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks for posting this lrb111! Interesting video.

txinvestigator wrote:A threat to your personal safety is NOT enough.


Text
§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31;


(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful deadly force;

Pretty different than a threat to your safety.

for the purpose of defense of a person discussion, I have NOT included language regarding defense of property.

Threat to your "safety"...

Threat to your "person"...

Threat to your "property"...

However that it is described, the key to this is "threat"...How you are able (per the law) defend against it, as defined, should help you, and others, to determine how reasonable "your" response was...

In real life your just not going to have the time or luxury to sit down and check your notes and discussion boards on the internet to help you...

Trust your instincts, your training and judgement...

Our Comp-Tac Tuesday group has discussed this issue many times and we've gone so far as to set up a similar scenario in force on force sessions with AirSoft pistols. I too think something like this probably would be a great program for CHL Forum Day 2007. However, our experience indicates a force on force class can be difficult to control and hard to prevent it from turning into a game. So with that in mind, it may be best to produce a video for the classroom and discuss how one might react at different stages of the video.

With the video in question, I think there are bad choices made through out the video but the sheriff and news staff are only looking at the final outcome to call it a no shoot situation. It's my belief the couple mad a bad choice the moment they found their front door open.

If I and my wife came home to discover my front door open, I have no reason to enter the home. All authorized occupants are already present. If I believe someone is in the home, I'd call the local PD at that point and advise them that I've discovered a break-in and believe the burglar may still be inside the home. In my case, knowing there are guns in my home, I have even less desire to go looking for intruders. Even with the knowledge that my guns are secured, there's no reason not to assume an intruder hasn't brought a weapon of his own. The point lurking here is that I'm a big fan of avoiding the engagement altogether. Up to the point the homeowner commited himself in the bedroom, I saw opportunities to avoid a confrontation.

Assuming I made all the same choices and actually faced a burglar in my home with a gun in my hand, I can't see allowing that person to advance toward me even if I don't see a weapon in his hands. This brings to mind the fact that you should have options other than deadly force. I keep OC in my vehicle, my wife keeps it in her purse. If I am searching my home, I'd certainly have the OC with me and would not hesitate to use the OC on an advancing subject who appears to be unarmed as shown in the bedroom scene. But who says this is the only guy in the house?

Didn't we discuss some one who confronted one burglar only to be capped by a second? Which brings me back to my original position of not going into the home in the first place!

One more side. The guy pulled in his drive away, his dogs are barking, the front door is ajar, his gun was inside, the safe thing was for him to back out wait outside, and call 911?
The question for the video when he "charged me" by "jumping on the bed " I would have then double tapped!

I am glad I am not the only one that thought the home owner used poor tactics by entering the house without a gun in his hand. That was my first thought, why enter instead of calling the police while watching the outside?

But, after he entered, my answers differ from the video in two ways. First, there are two different questions to be asked. One question is if I would shoot. The second question is if the law allowed me to shoot.

I probably would never have gotten to the part with the bad guy running out of the door because I would have shot him when he took his first step forward from the wall after standing up. I was surprised the homeowner did not shoot then or when he backed up through the door and the guy kept coming. A gun is useless if you won't pull the trigger.

The most important disagreement I have with the news station and the sheriff is the decision at the end. This is also where the two questions separate. I, personally, don't think I would have shot him once he had his back towards me and was running away. That is my personal opinion on the use of force to stop a fleeing felon. Thus, my answer to "would" I shoot is no.

But my answer to the second question is yes, it is a good shoot if you did. The penal code specifically allows a person to shoot the criminal fleeing the burglary with the property. There does not have to be a threat to you and he does not have to be facing you. The restrictions, as TXI posted, are simply that he be fleeing a burglary, has the property, and there is no other reasonable force to use to stop him and recover the property.

Also, TXI has another good point for all of you. This is taught to cops in their basic academy and hammered into them by their sergeants. Always use the wording from the law when you are justifying your actions. You can explain it but never, ever paraphrase it. If the law says you had to be in fear of your life, put in your statement that you were in fear of your life. Don't just say he lunged at me, but say he lunged at me making me think he was trying to get my gun and putting me in fear of my life. The exact wording is the best way to convince the jury that the law does cover you. Anything else makes it easier for the DA to try to say your case was different and prosecute you.

Montgomery and Rothstein said it best.

I would have never even entered the home in the first place.

If i was inside, after seeing the door open, and knowing i had an unsecured handgun inside, id also have oc spray and would have sprayed the punk where he stood :)

casselthief wrote:my thought is, that guy lunging at you, may just very well be lunging for your Agent 45.
I'm familiar with what the law says, but couldn't you argue that since he is burglarizing you, that makes him a felon, and when he lunges, he is a felon attempting to posess a firearm, which we all know is illegal!!
I mean, you're trying to prevent a felon from gettin' their greasey paws on a smokewagon!

a stretch? yeah, maybe.... but you get the point, right?

You are not justified in using deadly force to prevent "A" felony, only to prevent the specific felonies listed in chapter 9. and Felon in possession of a handgun IS NOT one of them.

One COULD argue that the bad guy was going for your weapon and that put you in immediate need to use deadly force to protect yourself from his attempted use if deadly force (shooting you with your own gun) against you.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:Our Comp-Tac Tuesday group has discussed this issue many times and we've gone so far as to set up a similar scenario in force on force sessions with AirSoft pistols. I too think something like this probably would be a great program for CHL Forum Day 2007. However, our experience indicates a force on force class can be difficult to control and hard to prevent it from turning into a game. So with that in mind, it may be best to produce a video for the classroom and discuss how one might react at different stages of the video.

With the video in question, I think there are bad choices made through out the video but the sheriff and news staff are only looking at the final outcome to call it a no shoot situation. It's my belief the couple mad a bad choice the moment they found their front door open.

If I and my wife came home to discover my front door open, I have no reason to enter the home. All authorized occupants are already present. If I believe someone is in the home, I'd call the local PD at that point and advise them that I've discovered a break-in and believe the burglar may still be inside the home. In my case, knowing there are guns in my home, I have even less desire to go looking for intruders. Even with the knowledge that my guns are secured, there's no reason not to assume an intruder hasn't brought a weapon of his own. The point lurking here is that I'm a big fan of avoiding the engagement altogether. Up to the point the homeowner commited himself in the bedroom, I saw opportunities to avoid a confrontation.

Assuming I made all the same choices and actually faced a burglar in my home with a gun in my hand, I can't see allowing that person to advance toward me even if I don't see a weapon in his hands. This brings to mind the fact that you should have options other than deadly force. I keep OC in my vehicle, my wife keeps it in her purse. If I am searching my home, I'd certainly have the OC with me and would not hesitate to use the OC on an advancing subject who appears to be unarmed as shown in the bedroom scene. But who says this is the only guy in the house?

Didn't we discuss some one who confronted one burglar only to be capped by a second? Which brings me back to my original position of not going into the home in the first place!

That about covers it in my mind. Good post.

Don't enter. Call the cops. Don't try to clear the house alone. I faced this choice once when I returned home and found an open door. The cops cleared the house and garage. They forgot the attic though so I had them clear that as well.

The homeowner had no awareness that there could be more than one BG present. If there was another BG he could have been anywhere including the kitchen where the wife went in alone and unarmed.

As others have said the critical point in the video is when the BG begins to advance.

Once the BG turns his back to run away let him go.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This video has me thinking that age-ranger’s and TX Rancher’s suggestion to make a Shoot/No-Shoot video is a very good idea. The exact scenario they filmed for the TV news spot could be varied slightly multiple times, with each version presenting new elements for the homeowner to consider.

I think this a marvelous idea. Similar to that news broadcast, what might be especially helpful would be a pause-point in each clip where a class or group of shooters could discuss the situation and express--and justify--their decisions. Hit "play" again and have a follow-up discussion by a small panel of three or four experts who express their decisions and justifications. That would let the class compare their rationale with that of the experts. This would allow the video to be used effectively as a standalone, without requiring the instructor to be a total authority and present only his or her single-expert opinion.


And I suppose you have the option of having the clips be staged so that what leads up to the shoot/no-shoot decision is tactically correct so the discussion is solely around the decision, or, as was the NewsWest 9 clip, fraught with tactical mistakes so that "What should he/she have done?" can also be part of the discussion.

Like a bunch of you, I was positively cringing at the news video just as soon as the returning homeowner touched the storm door. Geez. Open the squeaky thing and proceed inside, why don't ya? Then his also-unarmed wife follows him into the house.

There's a reason they call them the "Ways of Death": hallways, doorways, stairways... In my admittedly modestly-informed opinion, clearing a structure is just about the last thing I'd choose to do. If you're already inside, different story; but if you and your family are safely outside, leave the house-clearing to the professionals.

Skiprr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This video has me thinking that age-ranger’s and TX Rancher’s suggestion to make a Shoot/No-Shoot video is a very good idea. The exact scenario they filmed for the TV news spot could be varied slightly multiple times, with each version presenting new elements for the homeowner to consider.

I think this a marvelous idea. Similar to that news broadcast, what might be especially helpful would be a pause-point in each clip where a class or group of shooters could discuss the situation and express--and justify--their decisions. Hit "play" again and have a follow-up discussion by a small panel of three or four experts who express their decisions and justifications. That would let the class compare their rationale with that of the experts. This would allow the video to be used effectively as a standalone, without requiring the instructor to be a total authority and present only his or her single-expert opinion.


And I suppose you have the option of having the clips be staged so that what leads up to the shoot/no-shoot decision is tactically correct so the discussion is solely around the decision, or, as was the NewsWest 9 clip, fraught with tactical mistakes so that "What should he/she have done?" can also be part of the discussion.

Like a bunch of you, I was positively cringing at the news video just as soon as the returning homeowner touched the storm door. Geez. Open the squeaky thing and proceed inside, why don't ya? Then his also-unarmed wife follows him into the house.

There's a reason they call them the "Ways of Death": hallways, doorways, stairways... In my admittedly modestly-informed opinion, clearing a structure is just about the last thing I'd choose to do. If you're already inside, different story; but if you and your family are safely outside, leave the house-clearing to the professionals.

I agree.

Unfortunately, this would have made a better (How to get yourself killed) video, than a "shoot/no shoot" one. Just about every tactical blunder that could be made....WAS.

I know every person will have a slightly different perception of what occurred, but I did not see the intruder "lunge" at anyone. He was eager to leave, no doubt about that. It looks as if he "came across" the bed on his knees (hardly a lunge), and it seemed clear to me that his intent was to vacate the premises. I view this situation as a "no shoot", but one that could have turned out differently.

It was so hard to get past the tactical errors and just accept the video for what it was.

Some of the obvious ones:

Entering the house to begin with.
Permitting wife to follow.
Wife enters kitchen without looking.
Communication between wife and husband too loud.
Wife points muzzle of pistol at husband when handing it to him.
Husband hugs wall when going to investigate (target indicator).
Hubby stands in doorway when confronting BG (target funnel).
Hubby allows BG to take charge of situation.

And so much more!



I very much like your idea of having the video "pause" for discussion, I think that would prove to be an invaluable aid.


Just my .0002

txinvestigator wrote: You are not justified in using deadly force to prevent "A" felony, only to prevent the specific felonies listed in chapter 9. and Felon in possession of a handgun IS NOT one of them.

verily I jest about stopping that felony, but thank you for shedding light onto that particular situation.
I finally had the oppurtunity to watch the video, and shall chime in.
again, the rationalization by the sheriff was at the point of stoppage, the burglar at the door, back turned towards homeowner.
I as well, upon further review, did not see an attempted lunge, but merely a slow calculated attempt at closing the distance. in this instance the homeowner was too juiced to respond, and therefore allowed the perp to escape. a verbal exchange may have caused the circumstances to change in a different direction.
a nice attempt by the news team, but I think the "dramaization" should have been performed in a much more sound scenario with the homeowner waking up to find the burglar, then the discussion could have been focused on the actual shoot/don't shoot premise, instead of diverting our attention with flippant bad judgment calls on the part of the homeowner.

txinvestigator wrote:If I return home and find a door open, I back off and call the police. Especially if I am dumb enough to leave a handgun in a drawer in the kitchen.

Agree. I don't own any property worth a gun battle over. Family, in a heartbeat, property, no way. That's what insurance is for.

Skiprr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This video has me thinking that age-ranger’s and TX Rancher’s suggestion to make a Shoot/No-Shoot video is a very good idea. The exact scenario they filmed for the TV news spot could be varied slightly multiple times, with each version presenting new elements for the homeowner to consider.

I think this a marvelous idea. Similar to that news broadcast, what might be especially helpful would be a pause-point in each clip where a class or group of shooters could discuss the situation and express--and justify--their decisions. Hit "play" again and have a follow-up discussion by a small panel of three or four experts who express their decisions and justifications. That would let the class compare their rationale with that of the experts. This would allow the video to be used effectively as a standalone, without requiring the instructor to be a total authority and present only his or her single-expert opinion.


And I suppose you have the option of having the clips be staged so that what leads up to the shoot/no-shoot decision is tactically correct so the discussion is solely around the decision, or, as was the NewsWest 9 clip, fraught with tactical mistakes so that "What should he/she have done?" can also be part of the discussion.

Like a bunch of you, I was positively cringing at the news video just as soon as the returning homeowner touched the storm door. Geez. Open the squeaky thing and proceed inside, why don't ya? Then his also-unarmed wife follows him into the house.

There's a reason they call them the "Ways of Death": hallways, doorways, stairways... In my admittedly modestly-informed opinion, clearing a structure is just about the last thing I'd choose to do. If you're already inside, different story; but if you and your family are safely outside, leave the house-clearing to the professionals.

I think this is a valuable idea. We need to turn all of these 'what ifs' into a script and shoot it this summer to use at the PSC Forum day. I can see a participant standing in front of a TV with an airsoft gun and compressed air (simulating OC spray) and letting them respond in real-time as well as the designated pause points.

In this particular case, I also have to agree with G.C. Montgomery and others that point out how the homeowner should not have let the situation progress to this point. However, merely saying they'd never enter the house is taking the easy way out. Suppose you were returning from 'date-night' with your wife knowing your kids were left with the baby sitter. Now you find the door forced open and the dogs barking. Do you really wait the 5, 10, 20 or more minutes for police to arrive and prepare for entry while your kids are inside? We need to turn all of these variants into a series of scenarios for the video. Oh, what fun! And if maybe someday this "training" is used to save a life, well that would make it all worth the effort.

I'm frequently amazed at how little most people know about the laws regarding use of lethal force. I know lots of people who have guns in the house, but would probably guess wrong if put in such a situation.

If you have guns, you need to know the law.

There's a new video tonight. It's a no-brainer for y'all.
http://www.kwes.com/Global/story.asp?S=6123408