Page 1 of 1
Would this be justified?
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:55 pm
by pbwalker
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.as ... 8134ad93f3
Say I am enjoying a nice afternoon with my family down by the Tower of the Americas and this happens...Would I be justified in neutralizing this BG if I was nearby (say, within 20 or 30 feet) of him?
-bw
Re: Would this be justified?
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:58 pm
by SCone
protecting a 3rd party..... fire away
Re: Would this be justified?
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:01 pm
by Wildscar
pbwalker wrote:http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.as ... 8134ad93f3
Say I am enjoying a nice afternoon with my family down by the Tower of the Americas and this happens...Would I be justified in neutralizing this BG if I was nearby (say, within 20 or 30 feet) of him?
-bw
IANAL but I think you would be OK.
WOAI wrote: Tower managers told News 4 even after the gun scare, they've decided against more police patrol because the alleged gunman is under arrest.
Yes becasue in cant possiably happen again.
Re: Would this be justified?
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:18 pm
by BigDan
I'm just surprised they're not limiting lawful carrying like every other place seems to do in response to a Bad Guy pulling out a gun and shooting people.
Re: Would this be justified?
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:12 pm
by Mr.Scott
Wildscar wrote:pbwalker wrote:http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.as ... 8134ad93f3
Say I am enjoying a nice afternoon with my family down by the Tower of the Americas and this happens...Would I be justified in neutralizing this BG if I was nearby (say, within 20 or 30 feet) of him?
-bw
IANAL but I think you would be OK.
WOAI wrote: Tower managers told News 4 even after the gun scare, they've decided against more police patrol because the alleged gunman is under arrest.
Yes becasue in cant possiably happen again.
Well relying solely on Police protection is not the answer. They can not be everywhere, especially they can not be everywhere a crime was committed in the past to prevent it from happening in the future. This is in part the reasoning behind CHL and use of deadly force laws. So we can protect ourselves and others in danger from criminals.
Re: Would this be justified?
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:00 am
by DoubleJ
But as the article says, they would "feeeeeeeeeeel" better.
and you know, it's all about the feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.
Re: Would this be justified?
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:33 pm
by Rokyudai
Acosta's girlfriend filed a protective order two months ago, claiming she feared she was in danger.
....and it worked so well.
Re: Would this be justified?
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:52 pm
by LedJedi
just cause nobody's posted it yet..
§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Though you really have to be careful here. Make SURE the situation is exactly what it looks to be. You wanna make sure the person holding the gun isn't defending himself or someone else. That seems pretty obvious in the story but that's something I always keep in mind. If you pull up into Sam's Parking lot and see a guy shooting at someone else and you drop the guy shooting without really looking at the situation you may find out that guy was shooting a robbery suspect who just clubbed his wife and ran off with her purse. If that's the case you just won a free trip to the pokey and a new wardrobe.
Re: Would this be justified?
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:32 pm
by Daltex1
One word "BANG!"
