TexasCHLforum.com

Its night time, I walk to my house, Someone Holds me at gun point, asks for my wallet. I give it to them, they turn to flee, I shot them in the back

Am I covered under the law?

Questionable in the eyes of the jury if you state the Q like that.

However, TX law justify the use of deadly force to protect your property. Your wallet isn't yours? Also, when the BG fleeing wasn't he pointing a gun at you? You feared for you life no?

I think so, but it would be dicey. Let's see what someone wiser than I thinks. You wouldn't be under any further threat, but we're talking about the likelihood of recovering stolen property now, aren't we? That's the part where I think you might be covered.

I wonder how far the fear of coming to your house since the BG now has your address and possible pictures of wife and kids if you keep them in their will get you.

You yell to the mugger that he forgot to get your Rolex .
When he comes back to get it , you shoot him in the front.

How do you know the BG was fleeing? He could be heading to the door to open it for his accomplices - he was just the first one in to check out the goods.

USA1 wrote:You yell to the mugger that he forgot to get your Rolex .
When he comes back to get it , you shoot him in the front.

I like this one.

USA1 wrote:You yell to the mugger that he forgot to get your Rolex .
When he comes back to get it , you shoot him in the front.

like it!

In all seriousness , this is a question that I think about a lot.

I just can't see myself shooting someone in the back if they are fleeing . Things can be replaced .
My personal reason for carrying a gun is to stop an attacker , stop someone from attacking my family , and to stop an intruder in my house.

If someone turns and runs after seeing my gun , I will not shoot .

I'm curious to get others opinions on the subject.

Keep an eye on him -- what if he's just running to his car for HIS gun?
Continue to look for other BGs

I probably wouldn't shoot in the situation as you described, but I wouldn't let my guard down either.

LarryH wrote: but I wouldn't let my guard down either.

Absolutely , I agree .

C-dub wrote:I wonder how far the fear of coming to your house since the BG now has your address and possible pictures of wife and kids if you keep them in their will get you.

use of deadly force must be immediatly necessary to stop imminent attack. "he might come back later" doesn't cut it.

Just a note to say that, lately, we've seen a number of posts talking about fear of one's life as a justification for the use of deadly force.

I'm not a lawyer (one may come around shortly), but I've had it explained to me multiple times that one's subjective, emotional state is not a defense to prosecution. In fact, in telling first-responders what happened, one of the last things you want to do is make it seem your actions were based on emotion, not rational thought.

If you look through all the applicable sections of the Penal Code, you will not find the word "afraid" anywhere, and the only use of the word "fear" appears in PC §42.01. (Disorderly Conduct) in (a)(e) which reads "It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code."

I don't mean to derail the topic, but this has to be the third or fourth one I've read since the beginning of the year that has posts talking about "fear of one's life" as a standard for the use of deadly force. I personally think it's important for all of us to be well-versed in PC §9, and it says nothing at all about your emotional state. PC §9 is pretty clear, and it all centers around what "the actor reasonably believes...was immediately necessary."

Until Charles, a DA, or a criminal attorney comes along to set me straight, I think we all need to wipe the words "fear" and "afraid" from our vocabularies. Not only does that sound like a good motivational speaker line but if you ever, God forbid, need to use your gun, it had better not be because you were merely afraid. It had better be because you believed that it was absolutely necessary for you to do so.

Just my humble opinion. I know it may seem like nitpicking, but we've had a lot of new members sign-up the past few months, and I don't want any of them to get the wrong idea about the "in fear of my life" thing.

A variation on the Rolex theme: "Hey, don't you want this XD?!"

Skiprr wrote:Just my humble opinion. I know it may seem like nitpicking, but we've had a lot of new members sign-up the past few months, and I don't want any of them to get the wrong idea about the "in fear of my life" thing.

Skiprr's wise advice here bears reinforcement. While I have a sense of humor which has gotten me in trouble many times, I sometimes become seriously concerned about some of the wise cracks I see here, realizing that they will be read by newcomers. This thread has brought several of those wise cracks out, each one of which could be read as suggesting ways to, after the fact, justify a clearly unjustified homicide.

If the newcomer has a shiny new CHL in his pocket and he is looking for advice from those more experienced, he could be misled to his regret. If the newcomer is just looking for anecdotal evidence to support his fight against guns in general, he is given good ones here to send to the Brady Bunch to show how we on this forum offer silly justifications for an unjustifiable homicide.

Taking a life is not funny. Goodness knows I like a little humor, but when we are given that shiny new CHL we assume some responsibility not shared by others.

Jim