TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6357126.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even when he is leaving after his"withdrawl" with no warning?

Threateded with firearm
Robbed Bank
Left

Nope! Not even with a warning.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm
See subchapter C.

tfrazier wrote:Nope! Not even with a warning.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm
See subchapter C.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

I'm of the thought that while they are fleeing, they are still in the act of committing the crime.

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:


I don't think I would shoot this guy in the back. I'd get a real good discription for the LEO's.

I'm not saying I would, or should...

but, you KNOW without a doubt, he isn't going to cap someone on his way out just to show "he's serious?"
he already produced a black pistol (EBP) and had to have pointed it, or displayed it in a threatening manner.

what's legal and what's prudent are not always the same things. that's all I'm saying.

No, I would not shot him in the back as he is withdrawing. I know we all have opinions and this is all this is. If he has turned toward the door and is earnestly leaving, I believe the threat would be over at that point. I realize that there many different scenarios to this that would change the situation in a heart beat. However, in this case I just don't reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary at that time...and would not shoot.

-geo

After perusing the law quoted in a post above it seems that a CHL customer of the bank
would not be justified in shooting this perp since:
1. The robbery happened in the daytime, not the nighttime. We have more leeway if it's night.
2. Although we might be justified in shooting him to stop his escaping with the loot,
the loot belongs to the bank, not us as a customer in line.
3. The bank, as a 3rd party, did not commission us to guard their property.

Comments from the peanut gallery welcomed.

How about we stop being so eager to shoot people? It looks bad.

I believe the best i can answer this is with a poorly drawn venn diagram.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:After perusing the law quoted in a post above it seems that a CHL customer of the bank
would not be justified in shooting this perp since:
1. The robbery happened in the daytime, not the nighttime. We have more leeway if it's night.

Day vs night is only relevant to theft. Burglary, robbery, and aggravated robbery are all justifications for force at anytime.

Look closely at the wording of 9.42(2)(B) and compare it with the wording of (A). "During the nighttime" clearly modifies only theft and criminal mischief (hence the need to restate it after each of those items) in (A), and the similarity of (B) indicates that it only modifies theft there.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(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; 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;

nitrogen wrote:How about we stop being so eager to shoot people? It looks bad.

I think it's a good discussion and I don't think the question was asked out of eagerness to shoot anyone. The thread is educational, and I believe it shows that the law can be misinterpreted due to the complicated way it is written. Even a comment like yours is good, because it demonstrates that CHL holders tend to be common sense, moral people who are not eager to shoot people.

Examining a typical case and thinking about the most prudent reaction/non-reaction is a great way to make people get mentally prepared to make the correct decisions should they ever find themselves in a similar situation.

nitrogen wrote:How about we stop being so eager to shoot people? It looks bad.

How about people stop being so eager to do things that get them shot?

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:After perusing the law quoted in a post above it seems that a CHL customer of the bank
would not be justified in shooting this perp since:
1. The robbery happened in the daytime, not the nighttime. We have more leeway if it's night.
2. Although we might be justified in shooting him to stop his escaping with the loot,
the loot belongs to the bank, not us as a customer in line.
3. The bank, as a 3rd party, did not commission us to guard their property.

Comments from the peanut gallery welcomed.

I agree that the "defense of property" provisions do not appear to apply. The property neither belongs to us nor were we commissioned to guard it, so these provisions would not justify deadly force.

It does seem, however, that intervening with deadly force would be justified while the gun is being "brandished" and the crime of aggravated robbery is imminent. At this point, the threat to both yourself and to other people would seem to justify deadly force under either "defense of person" or "defense of third person".

The closer the guy gets to the door and the more obvious that he is retreating, however, the more shaky the grounds for intervening with deadly force would seem to become. That is, it would be harder to demonstrate that the force was "immediately necessary" to prevent the criminal's use of deadly force (because he is leaving) or to prevent the "imminent commission" of aggravated robbery (the robbery is no longer imminent but rather progressing quickly toward being completed.) Once again, defense of property would not seem to be applicable at this point as it is not our property being stolen nor are we commissioned to guard the property.

Of course, IANAL and am just reading the quoted statutes.

KD5NRH wrote:

nitrogen wrote:How about we stop being so eager to shoot people? It looks bad.

How about people stop being so eager to do things that get them shot?

No kidding!

Let me take a drastic sharp corner at speed here and pose this
question:

The above quoted statutes refer to the protection of "land". No trespasser can
steal your land by trespassing upon it.

So just what the heck is the intent of the clauses representing land?
Would a landowner be justified in using deadly force against a rogue trucker with a Bobcat
who stole some gravel?

This defense of land clause always leaves me scratching my head as to what an applicable
scenario would be.