Took CHL class this weekend. Want to be "Crystal" clear so let's discuss please.

[picasso]

1. Walk outside during the day and see someone walking off with my property. Not OK to shoot but can draw gun and make citizens arrest and or call police.

2. Walk outside at night see someone walking away with my property and can shoot but unless I feel threatened best not to because of possible civil penalties as well has having the case go before DA and attorneys expenses. It's best to just let them have whatever it is.

3. Catch someone in my house and they run out the door. I can't shoot unless they are running out w/property. They are fleeing the seen. If they have property I can shoot.

4. Someone comes into my house w/out permission day or night I can shoot. Which brings up the question how do you prove you didn't invite them in?

5. Someone tries to pull me out of my car and I am scared for my life I can shoot.

6. Someone pulls a gun or knife on me I can shoot.

7. Someone tried to pick a fight and hits me in the jaw I can't shoot but if it continues and they keep hitting me over and over doing serious damage I can shoot. I believe the law say's I just have to be in fear of serious injury but if the guy is just using his fist then I would think there is no way I would know until he got the upper hand and started beating the crap out of me. Then I can shoot.

I'm sure there are things I missed and possible some I don't fully understand but I'm sure there is more than enough her to start some good discussion.

 

[Mikewood]

You did take the class right? Everything should have been covered in the deadly force statutes.
Please reread them if they seem unclear to you.
Don't trust people on a gun board to instruct you on the law.

 

[cseale86]

You did take the class right? Everything should have been covered in the deadly force statutes.
Please reread them if they seem unclear to you.
Don't trust people on a gun board to instruct you on the law.

Read the revised castle doctrine for 1-4

as far as the rest of the questions your CHL packet is the best bet.

As for people on the gun board knowing or not knowing laws, a'lot of gentlemen on here are active or retired law enforcement and do know what they are talking about.However it is best to get answers from the horse's mouth.

 

[txinvestigator]

I am a CHL instructor and will answer your questions only as to the legal point. I will save the moral, good idea, etc, comments for others.

1. Walk outside during the day and see someone walking off with my property. Not OK to shoot but can draw gun and make citizens arrest and or call police.

Correct

2. Walk outside at night see someone walking away with my property and can shoot but unless I feel threatened best not to because of possible civil penalties as well has having the case go before DA and attorneys expenses. It's best to just let them have whatever it is.

You MAY be justified. Did you reasonably believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the other from escaping with your property, AND did one of these two apply; you reasonably believed there was not other way to recover the property, or would using force less than deadly force expose you or another to a substantial
risk of serious bodily injudy or death. See penal code 9.42

3. Catch someone in my house and they run out the door. I can't shoot unless they are running out w/property. They are fleeing the seen. If they have property I can shoot.

You MAY be justified, again, under section 9.42. Ask yourself the same questions as my answer above.

4. Someone comes into my house w/out permission day or night I can shoot. Which brings up the question how do you prove you didn't invite them in?

Completely wrong.

5. Someone tries to pull me out of my car and I am scared for my life I can shoot.

No. As an asidee, nowhere in the code does it allow a justification if you are "scared for your life".

6. Someone pulls a gun or knife on me I can shoot.

Maybe. Was it reasonable for you to believe that it was immediately necessary to use deadly force against the others use or attempted force, or to precent Aggravated Kidnapping, Robbery, Aggravated Robbery, Sexual Assault, aggravated sexual assault, or murder? There are more questions that need to be addressed to.

7. Someone tried to pick a fight and hits me in the jaw I can't shoot but if it continues and they keep hitting me over and over doing serious damage I can shoot. I believe the law say's I just have to be in fear of serious injury but if the guy is just using his fist then I would think there is no way I would know until he got the upper hand and started beating the crap out of me. Then I can shoot.

Take out the word fear and replace with reasonable belief and you have a good grasp in this.

I'm sure there are things I missed and possible some I don't fully understand but I'm sure there is more than enough her to start some good discussion.

I don't like scenario questions because they are usually not specific enough to give a good answer. If you would like, pick one at a time and I'll try to help with the answers.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

It's as simple as this. Did you fear for your life or feel your life was threatened, or the lives of others (family, loved ones) were threatened? I would try not to get caught up in complicating the matter. I mean, on the one hand it can be good to brainstorm in your mind about possible defensive situations you may find yourself in, so that you are better prepared if they ever do occur. However, think about that one sentence above and use that as your litmus test. In general, if you are put into one of these situations, if you really have to think about it and whether it's justified, it most likely isn't. If someone breaks into your house and is charging you with a knife, you don't have time to think, you are just going to react and hopefully shoot the threat to the ground. If an unarmed teenager up to no good breaks into your car at night and is stealing your stereo, if you honestly are asking yourself, "Hey, can I shoot this kid, is it justified?" there is something wrong with you (speaking generally, no one specific). Wherever possible, use other means to bypass a potential shooting as you don't want to throw all your money away in court trying to prove your innocence.

 

[majormadmax]

Learn it, know it, live it!

Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and Select Statutes

Cheers! M2

 

[picasso]

I am a CHL instructor and will answer your questions only as to the legal point. I will save the moral, good idea, etc, comments for others.


If you would like, pick one at a time and I'll try to help with the answers.

OK, so let's take #4 where you said absolutely not. What I understood was anyone that makes an unauthorized entry into my house is in trouble. I don't have to stop and ask them what they are doing etc.. I only have to be in fear of my life and don't have to question them etc..

Also, please don't misunderstand why I ask these questions. I don't want to shoot anyone but I want to make darn sure if I do shoot someone I'm in the right and the law is not black in white. The word "reasonable" is subjective. My reasonable may not be the DA's reasonable or the police officer that came to the scene's reasonable. So, I'm just trying to have as much clarity as possible.

Not to mention my SUV has been broken into once in the last year and 4 or 5 Tahoes have come up missing wheels and tires and put on cinder blocks in our neighborhood. I have wondered what would happen if I walked out and this was occurring in my driveway. I live in a good part of town also.

 

[cseale86]

I caught a group of guys with my truck up on two jacks with the blocks already place. I gave chase and the guy tried to hit me with a tire tool so i fired on him.Since it was the end of my driveway where it took place the responding officer said I was covered under the castle doctrine.

The officer seemed to be pro-gun but did have to call to find out if charges needed to be filed against me for discharging my firearm in the city limits.

So here a year later i've never heard anything more of it no arrests were made and the rims are still getting stolen in my neighborhood. However mine are still very much where they belong.

I had no intention of firing a single shot i was simply trying to get a license plate number but one of the thieves im assuming was greedy and was trying to get at least one rim and fell behind. He swung i shot they all sped away picked up a guy down the road(Police said most likely a lookout.) and that was that

Moral of the story do what you know is right.I personally feel i was lucky i could have been arrested simply for firing a shot but the officer seemed to understand and fully believe i was doing what i felt i had to.

 

[majormadmax]

I think the cseale86's post describes how most of us feel about lethal force, we hope never to have to use it, but know the importance of knowing the proper way to employ it if we have to!

Much like a parachute it is better to have and not need, than need and not have!

But to be honest if I feel that my life or the lives of my family is being threatened, I am not going to worry about the legality of my use of lethal force to stop the threat. I will use ever means at my disposal to do so, and will deal with the legal consequences after they bag and tag the bad guy and haul his cold dead carcass away.

But by no means do I have any desire to be put in such a situation. However, as most of us know, it is not our decision but the bad decisions of others that cause it to happen.

I am glad everything worked out for you, cseale86; I hope the guy who swung at you had to buy some new underpants afterward!

Cheers! M2

 

[cseale86]

I just really consider myself lucky. On one side the guy could have killed me and on the other i could have been arrested and charged.The reason i decided to include this story with my post was because this truly shows how many factors are involved once you pull the trigger.

Simply stated what happened to me is just one of the hypothetical situations that can happen and the amount of what-if's cannot be calculated.

So all i can say is the same as Majormadmax "Learn it,know it and live it!"

 

[txinvestigator]

OK, so let's take #4 where you said absolutely not. What I understood was anyone that makes an unauthorized entry into my house is in trouble. I don't have to stop and ask them what they are doing etc.. I only have to be in fear of my life and don't have to question them etc..

Also, please don't misunderstand why I ask these questions. I don't want to shoot anyone but I want to make darn sure if I do shoot someone I'm in the right and the law is not black in white. The word "reasonable" is subjective. My reasonable may not be the DA's reasonable or the police officer that came to the scene's reasonable. So, I'm just trying to have as much clarity as possible.

Certainly not. It is refreshing to see someone wanting to be clear.

I don't have time tonight for a detailed explanation, but will make one tomorrow. Many folks get confused about this issue.

 

[txinvestigator]

I caught a group of guys with my truck up on two jacks with the blocks already place. I gave chase and the guy tried to hit me with a tire tool so i fired on him.Since it was the end of my driveway where it took place the responding officer said I was covered under the castle doctrine.

The part of the Castle Doctrine that applied to you some states call the "stand your ground law". It is the part that precents you from having to retreat from any place you have a right to be. Good law

 

[Texan2]

The part of the Castle Doctrine that applied to you some states call the "stand your ground law". It is the part that precents you from having to retreat from any place you have a right to be. Good law

Recent Florida case is putting this to the test.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Recent Florida case is putting this to the test.

But - if it's in regard to a Florida state law, only Florida will be directly affected. Other courts *might* refer to it, but it won't have direct immediate impact on our own state law.

 

[Bithabus]

OK, so let's take #4 where you said absolutely not. What I understood was anyone that makes an unauthorized entry into my house is in trouble. I don't have to stop and ask them what they are doing etc.. I only have to be in fear of my life and don't have to question them etc..

You don't have to be in fear of your life. That may be a good "litmus test" but it has nothing to do with the legal justification.

To answer the rest of the above this is the relevant section of chapter 9:

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.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

If you are home and someone forces their way in or attempts to force their way in, you are justified in using deadly force to stop them, and your belief that the force is immediately necessary will be presumed by the court.

So, it can't be any unauthorized entry (must be a forced entry) and you don't have to be in fear of your life. You are correct that you don't have to question them etc and can use immediate deadly force to stop them.

 

[Texan2]

But - if it's in regard to a Florida state law, only Florida will be directly affected. Other courts *might* refer to it, but it won't have direct immediate impact on our own state law.

At this point that would be true and may not ever be an issue as Florida is pretty conservative as far as guns go.
If it got appealled high enough, (this case wont) it could eventually make it on to the radar.

 

[txinvestigator]

To answer the rest of the above this is the relevant section of chapter 9:
If you are home and someone forces their way in or attempts to force their way in, you are justified in using deadly force to stop them, and your belief that the force is immediately necessary will be presumed by the court.

So, it can't be any unauthorized entry (must be a forced entry) and you don't have to be in fear of your life. You are correct that you don't have to question them etc and can use immediate deadly force to stop them.

That is a pretty good explanation, but not exactly true.

That section requires that you reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to from the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent one of the listed crimes.

If the person unlawfully and with force entered your home (in Picasso's example) the presumption of reasonable belief is only valid if you were protecting yourself from the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, or to prevent on of the listed crimes.

If simply kicking in your door and stepping one foot inside were enough, the law would read like this;

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, or
(C) if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;



See the difference? The presumption does not replace ALL of 9.32 (A) and (B). It only replaces the words "reasonable belief".

 

[picasso]

You don't have to be in fear of your life. That may be a good "litmus test" but it has nothing to do with the legal justification.

To answer the rest of the above this is the relevant section of chapter 9:
If you are home and someone forces their way in or attempts to force their way in, you are justified in using deadly force to stop them, and your belief that the force is immediately necessary will be presumed by the court.

So, it can't be any unauthorized entry (must be a forced entry) and you don't have to be in fear of your life. You are correct that you don't have to question them etc and can use immediate deadly force to stop them.

OK, so to play devils advocate say I forget to lock my door one night and the guy just walks in. That's not forced but he is certainly not authorized to be there. I can't shoot him?

Also please don't think I'm just looking for reasons to shoot someone. I probably would not unless he was armed or tried to attack me but I'm just curious and would like to know the different scenarios.

 

[picasso]

That is a pretty good explanation, but not exactly true.

That section requires that you reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to from the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent one of the listed crimes.

If the person unlawfully and with force entered your home (in Picasso's example) the presumption of reasonable belief is only valid if you were protecting yourself from the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, or to prevent on of the listed crimes.

If simply kicking in your door and stepping one foot inside were enough, the law would read like this;

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, or
(C) if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;



See the difference? The presumption does not replace ALL of 9.32 (A) and (B). It only replaces the words "reasonable belief".

This was not what I understood in the course. The instructor pretty much said that anyone that came into my house at night w/out my consent was pretty much toast if I decided to shoot him as far as the law was concerned. (Assuming I used the correct amount of force to stop him)

 

[txinvestigator]

This was not what I understood in the course. The instructor pretty much said that anyone that came into my house at night w/out my consent was pretty much toast if I decided to shoot him as far as the law was concerned. (Assuming I used the correct amount of force to stop him)

I tend to be pretty blunt, so please don't take this as hostile; but read what the real law has written and you tell me what YOU think.

If that is what the law means why does it not say that?

I will also bet that your instructor has not received ANY training on the Castle Doctrine from DPS. I know I have not. As an instructor I have to read changes in the law and apply common sense, my experience from dealing with the courts as a LEO, and many conversations about these laws with other instructors amd a couple of attorneys.

I also am not trying to convince you. You were not my student and I have nothing invested in how you may respond to such an event. However, as someone who cares about my fellow CHLer I try to help.

It's your life, and your freedom. Protect your family, and be reasonable about it and you should be fine.