TexasCHLforum.com

I am trying to figure out how you could assume that the motive was robbery when "someone" sees the guy just walk up to a window and open fire and then flee without taking property. Couldn't it have been a hitman sent by his wife or he owed someone money or something else. Maybe I have lived in a large city for too long and therefore see it through different eyes. For one, to use the environment that the crime took place and not the actions of the BG, is really jumping the conclusions. How many times have you seen a "person" enters a building and proceed to shoot people, even better, these mall shootings. Are those people there to rob those establishment and patrons???
You make your determination from the actions of the suspects. IF nothing is said and no motion is made to take anything, then I would assume that it was a HIT, MURDER, or EXECUTION. But like I said earlier, maybe I have lived in a metropolis long enough to know the difference.
Also they is a difference between chasing and following a suspect. I would do the latter, and follow the suspect until LEO arrive. I would NEVER try to do a citizen arrest in public. The only time that would venture into my mind is on MY PROPERTY, period.

Lucky45 wrote:I am trying to figure out how you could assume that the motive was robbery when "someone" sees the guy just walk up to a window and open fire and then flee without taking property. Couldn't it have been a hitman sent by his wife or he owed someone money or something else. Maybe I have lived in a large city for too long and therefore see it through different eyes. For one, to use the environment that the crime took place and not the actions of the BG, is really jumping the conclusions. How many times have you seen a "person" enters a building and proceed to shoot people, even better, these mall shootings. Are those people there to rob those establishment and patrons???
You make your determination from the actions of the suspects. IF nothing is said and no motion is made to take anything, then I would assume that it was a HIT, MURDER, or EXECUTION. But like I said earlier, maybe I have lived in a metropolis long enough to know the difference.
Also they is a difference between chasing and following a suspect. I would do the latter, and follow the suspect until LEO arrive. I would NEVER try to do a citizen arrest in public. The only time that would venture into my mind is on MY PROPERTY, period.

I think you just made my point for me. It would be just as reasonable to believe it was HIT, MURDER, or EXECUTION. Unless we know all the details, which are not described in the original post, as a witness I could reasonably beileve anything you said, as well as reasonably believe robbery. Again, it's all about what an ordinary person believes and not what the actual facts are.

BTW...I would venture to guess that most crimes like this are either money or drug related, followed closly by crimes of passion and therfore more reasonable to believe robbery gone bad as opposed to murder for hire...not that those types of crime don't occur...just less likely to occur.

Deadly Force would not be justified. Even the section that Matt quoted in defense of his argument states that the deadly force would have to be used a a peace officers direction.

To clarify, here are the facts to which I am referring.

1) Bad Guy approaches a man sitting in a car.

2) Bad Guy produces weapon and shoots man in car.

3) Bad Guy runs away.

4) It is not assumed that the BG stole anything or attempted to.

txinvestigator wrote:Deadly Force would not be justified. Even the section that Matt quoted in defense of his argument states that the deadly force would have to be used a a peace officers direction.

To clarify, here are the facts to which I am referring.

1) Bad Guy approaches a man sitting in a car.

2) Bad Guy produces weapon and shoots man in car.

3) Bad Guy runs away.

4) It is not assumed that the BG stole anything or attempted to.

Riddle me this bat man..."It is not assumed that the BG stole anything or attempted to"...who made this assumption? You....based on what? Do you make this assumption on the fact that it was not said in the original post? Are we to believe that someone simply walked up to the car....said and did absolutley nothig and then opened fire? I suppose that is possible...however...it is more likely that something was said or done.

This would have to fall into one of those completely rare categories of either a hired hit or completely crazy random act. Most murders are done by someone who is known by the victim and most others have some sort of other motivation like money or drugs.

For the sake of argument, lets suppose it did occur the way you guys think it did...completely random or hit for hire. Nothing was said and nothing was done...just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Suppose we witness this felony (can we at least agree that it is a felony?) and as joe witness I want to execute a lawful citizens arrest...can you show me in code where is says that I can not give fresh pursuit to effect a lawful arrest as such?

If I am in the middle of a lawful act (as in the case of a citizens arrest) and the BG gets the upper hand....am I not allowed to defend my self to the degree which is necessary to protect my life...up to and including the use of deadly force? Or does all the self-defense stuff go out the window when executeing a lawful citizens arrest.

Lets use the VA Tech scenario. Random shooter killing people...you are a CHL holder and draw your weapon. The shooter sets his weapon down and begins to walk away...you walk over to keep him at bay/confinement (essentially a citizens arrest as you are not allowing him to leave the sceen) he suddenly changes his mind and pulls a pocket weapon and turns on you. Are you saying that in this case you are not justified simply because you were executing a lawful citizens arrest? Does that honestly make sense to anyone?

IMHO if i am in the middle of a lawful act....whether it be executing a lawful citizens arrest or sitting at a rest stop smoking a cigar....if I am threatened with deadly force....then I should be allowed to match the deadly force.

TX_Jim wrote:

Are we to believe that someone simply walked up to the car....said and did absolutley nothig and then opened fire?............This would have to fall into one of those completely rare categories of either a hired hit or completely crazy random act.

YES to first part......and RARE???? c'mon now.

I think what would help me more see through your eyes is if you tells us what city you live in and population. I noticed it was blank on your profile.

I don't think most have a problem with self defense when threatened directly, but injecting yourself into a situation after the suspect have fleed with the intentions of making an arrest is where I step of the train. I would prefer to follow and wait for the uniformed calvary to arrive with back up. Because, at the end of the day you are accomplishing the same thing by EFFECTING A LAWFUL ARREST of a suspect. The difference is that your way has a high probability of having yourself seated in the DEFENDANT's box in court, and my way has a high probability of me sitting in the WITNESS box. Also, a witness normally is never brought up on charges either.

Also public notice, DPS, Dallas PD, and HPD are understaffed and hiring, if anyone out there is interested.

Ok last scenario....true story here in Austin Texas. Paul Saustup...

Saustrup and Sasha Sessums (Sausturps girlfriend at the time) get to their vehicle and find Eric Smith who had broken into the vehicle. Smith tried to flee but Saustrup and Sessums followed the supect at gun point (Sessums was on the phone with 911) for three blocks (800 ft)...btw....no stolen property....at that point Smith turned towards Saustrup. Saustrup opened fire hitting Smith in the back killing him (BTW...Smith was not armed). Saustrup was indicted for murder but subsequintly aquitted on the grounds of self defense.

Look it up...

Coorelations...to this thread's scenario
1. nothing was stolen...as in thread...
2. Saustrup gave chase when smith fled trying to execute a lawful citizens arrest.
3. Saustrup acted in self defense when smith turned...

Whenn applied to this threads scenario....what I said holds true in the eyes of at least one jury. A felony took place...one could give chase and still have a self-defense aquital if one must shoot the BG.

"Defense pushes theory at trial"
By Leah Quin
American-Statesman Staff
Wednesday, May 24, 2000

As the state began its murder case Tuesday against Paul Anders Saustrup, the defendant's lawyer laid the groundwork for a self-defense theory -- referring to statements that were heard only by his client.

Saustrup, on trial for shooting Eric Demart Smith in 1998, is expected to testify later in the trial. His girlfriend, Sasha Sessums, testified for most of the day Tuesday about the estimated three minutes that started with an attempted car burglary and ended with a shooting death.

Though she backed up Saustrup's assertion that Smith seemed about to turn on him, Sessums also said she could hear only a "low mumble" from Smith throughout the confrontation.

From the beginning, Saustrup has said he shot Smith in self-defense after the would-be burglar turned on him.

But prosecutor Doug O'Connell, in his opening statement, explained to jurors why the state believes Saustrup committed murder.

After finding Smith in Sessums' car just before 2 a.m. on July 8, Saustrup aimed a gun at him and followed him for 855 feet -- or "three football fields" -- before shooting him twice in the back in a dim alley across from the Austin Convention Center, O'Connell said.

"Eric Smith never had a weapon," the prosecutor said. "Eric Smith repeatedly tried to get away. If Eric Smith wanted to attack the defendant, he had plenty of opportunity before then."

O'Connell then questioned Sessums, who called police on Saustrup's cell phone after finding Smith in her Chevrolet Suburban, its passenger window broken out where it was parked on Fourth Street and San Jacinto Boulevard. She and Saustrup were returning to the car from the Black Cat Lounge, which Sessums owns and manages.

Both she and Saustrup are licensed to carry concealed guns. Saustrup's lawyer, Joe Turner, said they obtained the guns for protection against Sixth Street's increasingly dangerous environment and because both own small businesses.

Sessums said she recognized Smith as a patron that night whom she had asked to leave because he didn't have identification or money for admission.

After Saustrup aimed his pistol at Smith and told him to keep his hands visible, he and Smith tussled briefly, and Smith's shirt came off.

In his opening statement, Turner said Smith pointed at his gang tattoos at that point and said, "You see this, (expletive)? This means you're dead." He then told Saustrup that he knew where he and Sessums lived, Turner said.

Sessums, however, said she could never understand what Smith was saying, even as he began walking and sometimes running away, pursued by Saustrup and Sessums as she relayed their location to a 911 operator.

As Sessums turned the corner into an alley, Smith made a sidestep while turning his head the other way and lowering his hands to his waist, she testified.

On the 911 tape that O'Connell played in court, Sessums said, gasping, "That guy turned around to attack him."

Prosecutor Buddy Meyer also questioned a witness who saw the three walking quickly down Trinity Boulevard.

"The black male looked scared," said Michael Hamilton, a roofer who at the time lived in an alley nearby. "He wanted to run."

At the end of the first day of testimony, Turner cross-examined the first police officer at the scene, who said Saustrup laid down the gun immediately, obeyed all instructions and told him that Smith had turned to attack him.

"Sounds like self-defense, doesn't it?" Turner said, prompting Meyer to object forcefully because self-defense is an issue the lawyers have agreed to confer on before such a question is asked. Turner withdrew the question.

Testimony is expected to last throughout the week in State District Judge Bob Perkins' court.

TX_Jim wrote:
Coorelations...to this thread's scenario
1. nothing was stolen...as in thread...
2. Saustrup gave chase when smith fled trying to execute a lawful citizens arrest.
3. Saustrup acted in self defense when smith turned...

When applied to this threads scenario....what I said holds true in the eyes of at least one jury. A felony took place...one could give chase and still have a self-defense aquital if one must shoot the BG.

A jury is a funny thing. If I were on the Jury I would probably feel that this guy broke the law. I probably wouldn't vote guilty either. Just like if I were on a jury for a speeding ticket. I would never find the defendent guilty of a simple speeding ticket(no accident, nothing else going on) Just because a jury found him sympathetic doesn't have all that much to do with whether he actually broke the law.

TX_Jim wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Deadly Force would not be justified. Even the section that Matt quoted in defense of his argument states that the deadly force would have to be used a a peace officers direction.

To clarify, here are the facts to which I am referring.

1) Bad Guy approaches a man sitting in a car.

2) Bad Guy produces weapon and shoots man in car.

3) Bad Guy runs away.

4) It is not assumed that the BG stole anything or attempted to.

Riddle me this bat man..."It is not assumed that the BG stole anything or attempted to"...who made this assumption? You....based on what? Do you make this assumption on the fact that it was not said in the original post?

Well Riddler, to have an intelligent discussion the facts must be either agreed on or assumed. Since none of us were there, I made some assumed facts and based a response on that. If you would like to discuss the legality of using deadly force with other facts, I am happy to dicuss those too.

Are we to believe that someone simply walked up to the car....said and did absolutley nothig and then opened fire? I suppose that is possible...however...it is more likely that something was said or done.

I don't have a clue.

For the sake of argument, lets suppose it did occur the way you guys think it did...completely random or hit for hire. Nothing was said and nothing was done...just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Suppose we witness this felony (can we at least agree that it is a felony?) and as joe witness I want to execute a lawful citizens arrest...can you show me in code where is says that I can not give fresh pursuit to effect a lawful arrest as such?

You could give pursuit to make an arrest.

If I am in the middle of a lawful act (as in the case of a citizens arrest) and the BG gets the upper hand....am I not allowed to defend my self to the degree which is necessary to protect my life...up to and including the use of deadly force? Or does all the self-defense stuff go out the window when executeing a lawful citizens arrest.

It does not go out the window. If, while you were effecting the arrest, the BG did something to make deadly force otherwise justifiable for you, then it would then be justified. However, you would not be justified to use deadly force against his simply running away.

Lets use the VA Tech scenario. Random shooter killing people...you are a CHL holder and draw your weapon. The shooter sets his weapon down and begins to walk away...you walk over to keep him at bay/confinement (essentially a citizens arrest as you are not allowing him to leave the sceen) he suddenly changes his mind and pulls a pocket weapon and turns on you. Are you saying that in this case you are not justified simply because you were executing a lawful citizens arrest? Does that honestly make sense to anyone?

See above paragraph and my response.

IMHO if i am in the middle of a lawful act....whether it be executing a lawful citizens arrest or sitting at a rest stop smoking a cigar....if I am threatened with deadly force....then I should be allowed to match the deadly force.

ANd you can.

Debate is good…hopefully we all have a better understanding of some of the issues mentioned or at least we can begin to think about these things.

So what have we learned…

Back to the original post:

Shooting the BG while in the commission of the crime…use of deadly force is justified under 9.31 and 9.32.

Shooting a fleeing suspect…Bad news and use of deadly force not justified (please note that I said in a much earlier post that I did not advocate this).

Witnessing a felony and choosing to exercise a lawful citizen’s arrest and giving fresh pursuit to do so…fresh pursuit is not expressly allowed but not expressly forbidden either. There is no requirement to have a LEO present to exercise a citizen’s arrest...the only requirement is that it is a felony and personally witnessed.

If at any time the BG turns and poses an immediate threat while exercising a citizen’s arrest…use of deadly force is justified if it rises to the criteria in 9.31.

My personal opinion: Had I had a shot during the commission of the crime… I would do what I could do. Once the immediate threat was over…I personally believe that the responsible and most important thing to do is render first aid as those first golden minutes are precious. While first aid is rendered…someone should secure the scene to ensure the BG does not come back to finish the job.

I personally do not advocate a citizen’s arrest…I was making the argument/playing devil’s advocate for the sole purpose of learning and exploring the issues.