TexasCHLforum.com

Renegade wrote:Texas law allows you to use deadly force to prevent the perp from fleeing, not that that is what happened, I imagine the perp was threatening deadly force as he was fleeing....

§ 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;
[blue] 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.

§ 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.

Does not appear to apply to protecting someone else's property. IANAL ext.

Good Guy: 1

Bad Guy: 0

This sounds a lot like the Waffle House robbery Txinvestigator told us about last week.

I know that if something like this occured to my wife I would be in an uncontrollable rage inside and dead cold on the outside. I would enter the store and act accordingly.

Things change when its your wife and kids.

If a man does not leap to the aid of his family, then he is not a man and should be ashamed of his weakness.

I saw it on 21 "first in prime!" Anyway, the story I got was that he heard his wife say that she didn't have any money to one of the BG's. I didn't hear whether she was on the phone with him or not, but then he got his gun and charged the store. One of the guys pointed a gun at him and he shot several times, hitting the scum. Too bad he didn't get the other ones as well...

Seburiel wrote:And, typically, the Police say that they would rather someone call them instead of protecting themselves and their loved-ones...
Why?
So that they can get some sort of 'glory' out of it?
Do police departments' budgets suffer if they aren't the ones protecting the populace?
I'm not a police hater by any means, but it's getting ridiculous, in my opinion, whenever a justified shooting takes place, it seems that the police say they'd rather everyone just 'roll over and take it' instead of providing for their own defense.

I'm sorry, I know that this isn't a rant forum, but it just chaps my hide, I guess.

I'd pay $1 to see that in store security video??

From reading the FWST article it sounds like the CHL Holder was very much justified to shoot. Another thumbs up for him calling 911.

Police praise man who shot at robber

08:19 AM CDT on Thursday, July 5, 2007
By MARISSA ALANIS / The Dallas Morning News
malanis@dallasnews.com

A Fort Worth man who only wanted to protect his wife stuck in an Albertsons store during a robbery is being hailed for his heroics by police.

3500 block of Sycamore School Road, Fort Worth The retired man may have shot one of the robbery suspects early Wednesday at the store in the 3500 block of Sycamore School Road.

Three men armed with guns robbed the store shortly after midnight and stole wallets and purses belonging to customers, said Lt. Dean Sullivan, a Fort Worth police spokesman.

The man, whom police didn't identify because he is a witness, saw two of the men walking around nervously before they entered the store. The witness said he called 911 when one of the men pulled out a gun and fired as he walked into the store.

About 20 seconds later, the witness's wife tried to call him from her cellphone inside the store. But he never got to talk to her.

"I just heard her saying, 'There is nothing in my purse,' " he recalled. "And there was a 'pow.' The phone went dead."

The man, who has a concealed handgun license, sprang into action. He walked into the store with his .45-caliber pistol under his shirt.

"I really thought I'd find her in the store shopping and get her out the back door," he said. "That was my intention. ... I had no intention of confronting these armed bandits."

But in the store, one of the robbers pointed the gun at the man. The man then fired twice. The robber ran away, and it's unknown whether he returned fire, Lt. Sullivan said. Outside the store, the retired man fired again.

Lt. Sullivan said Rayshaun Johnson was possibly hit during the robbery. Mr. Johnson, 17, was injured on his backside and foot. He was dropped off in the parking lot of Huguley Memorial Medical Center in Fort Worth.

Lt. Sullivan said Mr. Johnson faces a charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon once he's released from the hospital. Police continue to search for the other two suspects. Suspect descriptions were unavailable.

The man said he does not feel like a hero.

"I don't feel good at all that there is an 18-year-old guy who's been injured and is going to go to some terrible place because it was a horrible mistake that somebody talked him into," he said. "I was worried about my wife. I just wanted to get her out of there."

as said in several of the stories police are also investigating a smash and grab robbery at Military Gun Supply, where the BG's drove a stolen Suburban through the front window and made off with 10 assault weapons. These types of smash and grab have been done at Barber's, Gibson's and Doc's to name a few. The one at Doc's failed since his cinderblock walls are reinforced with rebar.

It will be interesting to see if Mr Johnson rolls over on his buddies and how far this goes, although I think the MGS robbery is probably unrelated.

Frost wrote:Does not appear to apply to protecting someone else's property. IANAL ext.

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON ’S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person ’s land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor ’s spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor ’s care.

Frost wrote:

Renegade wrote:Texas law allows you to use deadly force to prevent the perp from fleeing, not that that is what happened, I imagine the perp was threatening deadly force as he was fleeing....

§ 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;
[blue] 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.

§ 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.

Does not appear to apply to protecting someone else's property. IANAL ext.

"Three men armed with guns robbed the store shortly after midnight and stole wallets and purses belonging to customers, said Lt. Dean Sullivan, a Fort Worth police spokesman."

That seems to be " tangible, movable property"

txinvestigator wrote:

Paladin wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Paladin wrote:Legal shoot on 2 counts:

1. armed robbers (still a threat while exiting)

Someone being a "threat' is not a justification for deadly force.

2. robbery isn't complete till the robber gets away with what they stole, therefore an aggravated robbery was still in progress.

Where is THAT legal precedent? I disagree with your assessment of this issue.

You'll have to figure this stuff out on your own TXI. I know you can do it if you try.

That's what I thought. You HAVE no precedent or other proof that your assessment is correct. I understand that is your opinion, but is NOT fact.

Your facetious attempt to dodge is noted.

Actually you have no proof that your assesment is correct.

Personally I think both my points are painfully obvious. I'm just feeling that I'm wasting my time.

3 armed robbers with guns are still quite a threat even at a distance. Do I really have to point out that firearms are ranged weapons?

As for the second point I see you have no cases to contradict it.

i'm trying not to take sides here, as I think both of you should just get it over with and break out the tape measure.

I would, however, like to point out that the police have ALREADY ruled it as self defense. I think that pretty much says it all.

LedJedi wrote:I would, however, like to point out that the police have ALREADY ruled it as self defense.

Minor point: The police don't "rule" anything. They obviously thought at the time that the CHL holder violated no law (which says a lot).

The DA could still press charges. I consider that extremely unlikely.

- Jim

So, he said, he drew his Berretta and fired first

Beretta makes a 45?

this is all the stuff I thought about the other night. Sure, coulda blasted the DB as he ran across the parking lot. just didn't feel it woulda been right.

in this case, dude woulda got the whole magazine (and Ah don't mean G&A!).

ah, well. hindsight's always twenty/fuzzy.