TexasCHLforum.com

I think some of it comes from not having a plan for certain situations.
I also think that without a plan a person's anger and emotions may, in the heat of the moment, cause them to react in a certain way that they will regret.
That is one reason I think that discussing these types of scenarios on the forum can be useful.

Visualization / playing the what-if game is a great tool for anyone who chooses to carry a deadly force option. Not only can it help reduce impulsively acting when we shouldn't, it can also help us move more quickly to a sound decision and act when we need to.

Middle Age Russ wrote:

I think some of it comes from not having a plan for certain situations.
I also think that without a plan a person's anger and emotions may, in the heat of the moment, cause them to react in a certain way that they will regret.
That is one reason I think that discussing these types of scenarios on the forum can be useful.

Visualization / playing the what-if game is a great tool for anyone who chooses to carry a deadly force option. Not only can it help reduce impulsively acting when we shouldn't, it can also help us move more quickly to a sound decision and act when we need to.

Visualization is a great way to "role play" and carry out scenarios in your head.

I really hope that it comes out that the LTC holder had a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety. Irresponsible decisions are something the other side would love to be able to lob at us...and absent an obvious and legitimate threat, this can be nothing but a bad choice.

RockinU wrote:I really hope that it comes out that the LTC holder had a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety. Irresponsible decisions are something the other side would love to be able to lob at us...and absent an obvious and legitimate threat, this can be nothing but a bad choice.

RE: "a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety". That is not the legal standard for defense of property.

The person was clearly was justified in using force, per TPC Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. However, simple shoplifting during daylight hours would not, in my opinion justify deadly force.

But if the perpetrators pushed or touched anyone during the incident, or targeted any person in the parking lot while fleeing in the car, or even said "Get out of my way" (with the implicit "or else"), then a theft can become robbery pretty darn quickly. Deadly force is authorized if the actor believes the person is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property and it cannot be protected or recovered by any other means in TPC Sec. 9.42.

Jumping Frog wrote:

RockinU wrote:I really hope that it comes out that the LTC holder had a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety. Irresponsible decisions are something the other side would love to be able to lob at us...and absent an obvious and legitimate threat, this can be nothing but a bad choice.

RE: "a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety". That is not the legal standard for defense of property.

The person was clearly was justified in using force, per TPC Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. However, simple shoplifting during daylight hours would not, in my opinion justify deadly force.

But if the perpetrators pushed or touched anyone during the incident, or targeted any person in the parking lot while fleeing in the car, or even said "Get out of my way" (with the implicit "or else"), then a theft can become robbery pretty darn quickly. Deadly force is authorized if the actor believes the person is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property and it cannot be protected or recovered by any other means in TPC Sec. 9.42.

9.43. does not justify the shooter in the use of force unless one of three criteria are met:

(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.

I also see problems with the qualifiers in 9.42., seeing as how it was a bunch of t shirts, and around noon.


I understand acting if a threat to self or others is obvious, but shooting at tires in a crowded parking lot creates dangers of its own, dangers that would have to be weighed against the potential consequences of not acting.

Obviously there is a lot of info we don't have, which is why I said I hope the final analysis shows this to be a justified use of DF, because otherwise it looks pretty irresponsible.

You only partially quoted 9.43.

You did not quote para (1) which is on point:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

No third party permission is required.

I am not saying shooting tires is a good idea. My original point was you were using the wrong legal standard in terms of fear for your life or serious injury. Defense of property does not use that legal standard, it has its own criteria.

Jumping Frog wrote:

RockinU wrote:I really hope that it comes out that the LTC holder had a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety. Irresponsible decisions are something the other side would love to be able to lob at us...and absent an obvious and legitimate threat, this can be nothing but a bad choice.

RE: "a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety". That is not the legal standard for defense of property.

The person was clearly was justified in using force, per TPC Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. However, simple shoplifting during daylight hours would not, in my opinion justify deadly force.

But if the perpetrators pushed or touched anyone during the incident, or targeted any person in the parking lot while fleeing in the car, or even said "Get out of my way" (with the implicit "or else"), then a theft can become robbery pretty darn quickly. Deadly force is authorized if the actor believes the person is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property and it cannot be protected or recovered by any other means in TPC Sec. 9.42.

What would you call ramming into cars by the fleeing vehicle which was reported?

If I was him I would call Charles Cotton! Lol just sayin!

rotor wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

RockinU wrote:I really hope that it comes out that the LTC holder had a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety. Irresponsible decisions are something the other side would love to be able to lob at us...and absent an obvious and legitimate threat, this can be nothing but a bad choice.

RE: "a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety". That is not the legal standard for defense of property.

The person was clearly was justified in using force, per TPC Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. However, simple shoplifting during daylight hours would not, in my opinion justify deadly force.

But if the perpetrators pushed or touched anyone during the incident, or targeted any person in the parking lot while fleeing in the car, or even said "Get out of my way" (with the implicit "or else"), then a theft can become robbery pretty darn quickly. Deadly force is authorized if the actor believes the person is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property and it cannot be protected or recovered by any other means in TPC Sec. 9.42.

What would you call ramming into cars by the fleeing vehicle which was reported?

That would depend on whether the cars being rammed were occupied or not, and whether ramming happened before or after being shot at.

Excaliber wrote:

rotor wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

RockinU wrote:I really hope that it comes out that the LTC holder had a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety. Irresponsible decisions are something the other side would love to be able to lob at us...and absent an obvious and legitimate threat, this can be nothing but a bad choice.

RE: "a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety". That is not the legal standard for defense of property.

The person was clearly was justified in using force, per TPC Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. However, simple shoplifting during daylight hours would not, in my opinion justify deadly force.

But if the perpetrators pushed or touched anyone during the incident, or targeted any person in the parking lot while fleeing in the car, or even said "Get out of my way" (with the implicit "or else"), then a theft can become robbery pretty darn quickly. Deadly force is authorized if the actor believes the person is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property and it cannot be protected or recovered by any other means in TPC Sec. 9.42.

What would you call ramming into cars by the fleeing vehicle which was reported?

That would depend on whether the cars being rammed were occupied or not, and whether ramming happened before or after being shot at.

From another site
"The suspects entered a gold Ford mini-van (LP# DMH0999), which had been reported stolen from Harris County," the release said. "While attempting to flee, the suspects crashed into numerous vehicles and struck a tree in the parking lot. The armed citizen discharged a single round into the rear tire of the suspect’s vehicle in an attempt to stop the suspects and prevent further damage or injury to pedestrians. The suspect were able to evade and drove away at a high rate of speed and is still at large."

Who knows the exact sequence. The theft itself doesn't seem to me to be an issue as much as the crashing into cars and a tree in a wild attempt to flee. A mini-van is a powerful weapon.

Jumping Frog wrote:You only partially quoted 9.43.

You did not quote para (1) which is on point:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

No third party permission is required.

I am not saying shooting tires is a good idea. My original point was you were using the wrong legal standard in terms of fear for your life or serious injury. Defense of property does not use that legal standard, it has its own criteria.

Ok, but 9.43. Refers back to 9.41. and 9.42. where the following requirements must be met:

(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.

Could be some hang up with deadly force to protect t-shirts. Regardless, while discussing the relevant laws is interesting, the reason I hope that the shooter was acting in protection of self or others, is it would seem to me that shooting in a crowded parking lot in defense of someone elses's clothes is a bad idea. I certainly wouldn't want to risk all the potential consequences over Academy's merchandise. Don't get me wrong, I like Academy as much as the next guy, just not enough to,spend my money or time in defense of shooting on their behalf, but that's just me.

Whether the cars were occupied or not isn't the only issue at hand. If there were people in the parking lot, they are at greater risk of harm and/or death than people in a vehicle. Being on foot and having an unoccupied vehicle knocked into you will do serious damage.

NTexCopRetired wrote:Whether the cars were occupied or not isn't the only issue at hand. If there were people in the parking lot, they are at greater risk of harm and/or death than people in a vehicle. Being on foot and having an unoccupied vehicle knocked into you will do serious damage.

There are two questions here:

1. Was shooting at a tire a smart thing to do in a public parking lot with people around?

Answer: As you point out, almost certainly not.

2. Could the shot be justified by a lenient reading of the law under that particular set of circumstances?

This would require a detailed analysis of more facts than we have available from news reports. Although it hasn't been reported that the citizen has been charged, it hasn't been reported that he has been cleared either.

In cases like this where no one was hit by the citizen's shot and the guys in the vehicle that was shot at apparently aren't in a hurry to present themselves to sign a complaint (and may even be reconsidering the wisdom of a life of crime), the interests of justice are often best served by letting the citizen go with a really stern "don't even think about doing that again" lecture from the investigating officers. I suspect that will end up to be the resolution for this part of the case.

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

Don't bet on that. It could cost you your life. That you would no longer be threatened would depend on the intent of the driver. I would bet that you cannot read the driver's mind.

Think about it.

Reminds me of an incident a few years ago at a big mall parking lot. Some criminal (shoplifter, maybe a car thief) was blasting down between the rows of parked cars and slammed right over a woman who stepped out at the wrong moment. She was killed instantly, of course; he didn't even slow down or try to avoid hitting her. So if you see somebody smoking the tires and then you look down the row and there's an elderly person or a woman pushing a baby carriage.... well, that would be a split-second decision.

In any case, a lot of these incidents are (IMHO) prime examples of why the idea of unlicensed carry scares me.