TexasCHLforum.com

Was at a range watching a group qualify for CHLs. The spouse of a man qualifying said her husband was in the group with a friend who wanted his CHL because of an incident that happened to him.

Seems that the man was at a Sonic and a BG walked up to his window and shot him in or near the neck and took off running. The strange thing was that her husband who was with the man, flagged down an LEO and pointed to the BG running and briefly described what happened. The LEO's response (after seeing the masked BG running) was something like, "I can't go after him until I get a lot of paperwork done first." BG got away and was never found. All I have on the details is her word of what happened.

Her question to me was, "With the laws as such, if my husband had been armed, could he have shot the BG?" My initial response was, "Of course." But then she added, "It happened so fast, that by the time my husband could react, the BG was running away."

This caused me to pause. During the assault - Sure. But now the immediate threat is over, there was Intent, Opportunity, and Ability, but now that he has turned to run and it is not my car, home, or business.....?

My rational side says - may not be justified. My emotional side says

Aside from the fact that shooting a running target in a populated area where a Sonic is likely to be is a bad idea, what is the legality?

Opinions please.

No immediate threat to you(or others) = don't shoot

One thing I have noticed time and time again on this site is that OPINIONS are given without stating what the law is and also posting the law. Do you have justification for a use of deadly force in this situation...short answer is YES! In the situation described it does not matter if the perp is acting or running away form the act. Long answer is legal...Yes if you can prove it and those you are proving it to agree...should you...depends on the "totality of the circumstances!

To ALL PLEASE go to the newly posted "updated" Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and selected statutes.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... sindex.htm

ctxpta wrote:One thing I have noticed time and time again on this site is that OPINIONS are given without stating what the law is and also posting the law. Do you have justification for a use of deadly force in this situation...short answer is YES! In the situation described it does not matter if the perp is acting or running away form the act. Long answer is legal...Yes if you can prove it and those you are proving it to agree...should you...depends on the "totality of the circumstances!

To ALL PLEASE go to the newly posted "updated" Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and selected statutes.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... sindex.htm

Hi Matt,

On your good advice concerning opinions and the law, would you please post the relevant law to support your own statement.

Thanks, Flint.

That is why I posted the link for someone to go to and read for themselves. Those that are really concerned about staying out of jail in a use of force situation will research for themselves.

ctxpta wrote:One thing I have noticed time and time again on this site is that OPINIONS are given without stating what the law is and also posting the law. Do you have justification for a use of deadly force in this situation...short answer is YES! In the situation described it does not matter if the perp is acting or running away form the act. Long answer is legal...Yes if you can prove it and those you are proving it to agree...should you...depends on the "totality of the circumstances!

To ALL PLEASE go to the newly posted "updated" Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and selected statutes.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... sindex.htm

Flint has a point.
This would be a boring forum is all the answers were just quoted law. Much of the law anyway is just opinion. At anyrate its hard to point a law when the absence of the law makes the shooting illegal.

It is generally illegal to shoot someone. There are exceptions that legally justify a shoot (deadly force) If there are no exceptions spelled out its pretty tough to quote the missing exception.

That being said I don't know of any exception where there is no property to reclaim. At this point no threat of force or deadly force to stop. If one will abide by biblical verse (vengance is mine thus saith the lord) there is no good reason to go after the guy and there is a lot of potential for some very bad things to happen as the result of pursuing this.

I wish weren't restricted to being critical of police, but the cop in this story sure deserves a heaping dose. I wouldn't mind calling him a few cuss word names at him either.

Here is one relevant statute:

Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 14.04. WHEN FELONY HAS BEEN COMMITTED. Where it is shown by satisfactory proof to a peace officer, upon the representation of a credible person, that a felony has been committed, and that the offender is about to escape, so that there is no time to procure a warrant, such peace officer may, without warrant, pursue and arrest the accused.

IMHO, the officer in the scenario given above should have persued the man who was running away.

Now we also have

Penal Code § 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH.
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.

The law would justify a peace officer shooting a fleeing, armed suspect -- but not a citizen who is not a peace officer.

Again IMHO, none of the other justifications for use of deadly force apply in this scenario. The element "when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary" is not met when someone is fleeing (not running for cover).

- Jim

§ 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH. (a) A peace officer, or a
person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or
assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search
is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he
reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and
(2) before using force, the actor manifests his
purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace
officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he
reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by
or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.
(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his
direction) is justified in using force against another when and to
the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent
or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using
force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the
arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are
already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to
be arrested.
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force
against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an
arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would
have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for
which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of
deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or
serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is
delayed.
(d) A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using
deadly force against another when and to the degree the person
reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to
make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if
the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (b) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the felony or
offense against the public peace for which arrest is authorized
included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or
serious bodily injury to another if the arrest is delayed.
(e) There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force
justified by Subsection (c) or (d).
(f) Nothing in this section relating to the actor's
manifestation of purpose or identity shall be construed as
conflicting with any other law relating to the issuance, service,
and execution of an arrest or search warrant either under the laws
of this state or the United States.
(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances
enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).

Oops. I stopped reading too soon.

- Jim

As I said, as much as I would want to, I do not see where the shoot is justified. Just don't know how I would react if it were a family member of mine.

All could change if he were to have taken something from the car, or appear to be endangering others (shooting spree)

I certainly do not intend to be critical of LEO's. I thank God for those who choose the profession to protect and serve, but given what the lady told me, this one needs to be raked over the coals. A bit I left out was that the LEO was female, and the lady I talked to felt she was afraid to pursue. I left that out because it is pure speculation.

seamusTX wrote:Oops. I stopped reading too soon.

- Jim

I still think you got it right.

Section b which describes a citizens arrest does allow for use of force not deadly force.

Section c allows for deadly force only under an LEOs presence and direction.

Section g makes it real clear that deadly force is not authorized under section b.


There was no property to recover. There was no threat to the attacked once th BG took off running. If one chases the said perp. and the Perp turns around towards the chaser. The Chaser has a right to shoot because he has a reasonable belief that he is about to die. Until the shooter again presents a threat there wouldn't be justification to shoot.

Wait a minute!!!!!! Not so fast. Hey Matt read the statute again, because we had a discussion on here recently along these lines.
Your first highlight is kinda correct §9.51 Sec2 (b) where a person other than a peace officer can use FORCE to make an arrest; but this is generally called a CITIZENS ARREST and usually LEGAL if a felony has been committed.

But the second highlight §9.51 Sec 2(d) is NOT CORRECT. I think you miss the part that says,

"A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to
make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest."

I think that is the critical part of the law, because they don't want the general public running around trying to make arrest and forming posse and being vigilantes. So a peace officer has to be present and giving directions. You see it all the time in dash cam videos where the LEO gets into to difficulties with suspects and citizens come over give them a hand. You are legally justified to lay hands on the suspect then, and up to deadly force if necessary.

Liberty wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Oops. I stopped reading too soon.

- Jim

I still think you got it right.

Section b which describes a citizens arrest does allow for use of force not deadly force.

Section c allows for deadly force only under an LEOs presence and direction.

Section g makes it real clear that deadly force is not authorized under section b.


There was no property to recover. There was no threat to the attacked once th BG took off running. If one chases the said perp. and the Perp turns around towards the chaser. The Chaser has a right to shoot because he has a reasonable belief that he is about to die. Until the shooter again presents a threat there wouldn't be justification to shoot.

+1
This is correct per my understanding of the law.

ctxpta wrote:§ 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH. (a) A peace officer, or a
person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or
assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search
is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he
reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and
(2) before using force, the actor manifests his
purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace
officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he
reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by
or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.
(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his
direction) is justified in using force against another when and to
the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent
or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using
force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the
arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are
already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to
be arrested.
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force
against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an
arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would
have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for
which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of
deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or
serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is
delayed.
(d) A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using
deadly force against another when and to the degree the person
reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to
make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if
the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (b) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the felony or
offense against the public peace for which arrest is authorized
included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or
serious bodily injury to another if the arrest is delayed.
(e) There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force
justified by Subsection (c) or (d).
(f) Nothing in this section relating to the actor's
manifestation of purpose or identity shall be construed as
conflicting with any other law relating to the issuance, service,
and execution of an arrest or search warrant either under the laws
of this state or the United States.
(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances
enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).

Well over the life of this forum there have been many, and there is a continued cutting and pasting of relevant penal code sections including your own here...So along with opinions, there are postings of applicable law in many threads...

But...

I would like to point out here that the majority of participants in this forum are NOT Law Enforcement...

And with that fact, it is my continued opinion that the majority of us are not going to act in any capacity regardless of "§ 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH." states and or could be determined to apply to those of us who do not have a commission to uphold and enforce the laws of this state...

We will certainly do our best to keep our "self-defense" mindset "tight" and to the point and purpose for which it is intended for...

Liberty wrote:I still think you got it right.

Section b which describes a citizens arrest does allow for use of force not deadly force.

Section c allows for deadly force only under an LEOs presence and direction.

Section g makes it real clear that deadly force is not authorized under section b.


There was no property to recover. There was no threat to the attacked once th BG took off running. If one chases the said perp. and the Perp turns around towards the chaser. The Chaser has a right to shoot because he has a reasonable belief that he is about to die. Until the shooter again presents a threat there wouldn't be justification to shoot.

Just a technical correction, but section G says deadly force is not authorized under C and D. It does not show that it is not authorized under B.

But I agree with your conclusion that the law does not generally authorize a citizen to shoot the bad guy running from an attempted murder as was described.

stevie_d_64 wrote: I would like to point out here that the majority of participants in this forum are NOT Law Enforcement...

And with that fact, it is my continued opinion that the majority of us are not going to act in any capacity regardless of "§ 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH." states and or could be determined to apply to those of us who do not have a commission to uphold and enforce the laws of this state...

We will certainly do our best to keep our "self-defense" mindset "tight" and to the point and purpose for which it is intended for...

I am not as sure as you that most of you don't need to be aware of this section. This is why I posted the question about what to do with a suspect when you catch him in the handcuffing thread. If we are going to shoot or chase him off, you don't need to know this section. But if you do hold him for the police (like the guy in Houston with the shotgun in today's news), you really need to know. That is an arrest legally and you should know when you can legally make a citizen's arrest and what force you can use. It is as important as the tactical question of what do do when you do catch them.