Armed Citizen

[chiefglocker]

Please go through the following story. Most of you might have heard it already.

Fort Worth (WBAP) - Fort Worth police on were searching for one of two men who tried to run over an officer investigating reports of drug use in an alley in the Stockyards district. One of the suspects was being treated for a gunshot wound inflicted by the officer or by an armed civilian who came to his aid.

At around 3 a.m. Thursday, a patrol officer investigating reports that two men were smoking drugs in a Mercedes Benz parked in an alley off North Main Street and West Exchange Avenue was nearly run over as the car sped away. He was not injured, but fired several shots at the car.

As the suspects drove out onto West Exchange, a bystander who thought the officer had been killed drew his own gun and fired at the passing Mercedes.

A few minutes later, a car matching the description of the Mercedes Benz pulled into a convenience store parking lot at I-35 and Yucca. The passenger, suffering a gunshot wound to the upper arm, got out of the car before the driver sped away. The injured man was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital, where he told investigators that the other man may have been hit in the leg.

Because the vehicle was being used as a weapon against a peace officer, the suspects may face charges of Criminal Attempted Capital Murder, said FW Police Sgt. Chad Mahaffey.

Now my question is what will happen to this Armed Citizen ? Was he supposed to shoot the guy in the Mercedes ? Was not he interfering into the police business ?

 

[txinvestigator]

It appears the police believe the man was justified. I have read many conflicting reports in the media, but I believe he was justified.

 

[chiefglocker]

I am so relieved to hear it. God Bless America !!!

 

[APatriot]

Please go through the following story. Most of you might have heard it already.

Fort Worth (WBAP) - Fort Worth police on were searching for one of two men who tried to run over an officer investigating reports of drug use in an alley in the Stockyards district. One of the suspects was being treated for a gunshot wound inflicted by the officer or by an armed civilian who came to his aid.

At around 3 a.m. Thursday, a patrol officer investigating reports that two men were smoking drugs in a Mercedes Benz parked in an alley off North Main Street and West Exchange Avenue was nearly run over as the car sped away. He was not injured, but fired several shots at the car.

As the suspects drove out onto West Exchange, a bystander who thought the officer had been killed drew his own gun and fired at the passing Mercedes.

A few minutes later, a car matching the description of the Mercedes Benz pulled into a convenience store parking lot at I-35 and Yucca. The passenger, suffering a gunshot wound to the upper arm, got out of the car before the driver sped away. The injured man was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital, where he told investigators that the other man may have been hit in the leg.

Because the vehicle was being used as a weapon against a peace officer, the suspects may face charges of Criminal Attempted Capital Murder, said FW Police Sgt. Chad Mahaffey.

Now my question is what will happen to this Armed Citizen ? Was he supposed to shoot the guy in the Mercedes ? Was not he interfering into the police business ?

It certainly appears without any qualification that the FW police feel the use of deadly force by the citizen was justified. However, it will most likely be reviewed by the district attorney for a final disposition. Hopefully we can "chalk" one up for the good guys!!

 

[Moss_Berg5150]

This will be up to the PD for the most part, I just hoped he excercised more restraint than that yahoo that shot up the street trying to catch the iPhone thieves a few weeks ago!

 

[Medic218]

I wanna say I heard on another forum that the police were commending him for a job well done as far as
coming to the officers aid.
If that's the case I doubt the DA will so anything, unless it's just a legal formality
that they have to go through.

 

[chiefglocker]

In this case Armed Citizen came to the aid of a police officer so the FWPD is commending him. But how the police officers react to when a citizen has to shoot in self defence ?
I know there are several officer ( active or retired) in this forum so I want thier sincere comments.

Was not a citizen supposed to be put under arrest or some sort of detention under the circumtances ?

 

[APatriot]

In this case Armed Citizen came to the aid of a police officer so the FWPD is commending him. But how the police officers react to when a citizen has to shoot in self defence ?
I know there are several officer ( active or retired) in this forum so I want thier sincere comments.

Was not a citizen supposed to be put under arrest or some sort of detention under the circumtances ?

Obviously I can't speak for every DA office, but I do know that generally speaking DAs review all officer involved shootings, and most definitely, citizen shootings even in self defense and defense of others. As to whether or not a citizen is detained on the spot is dependent upon the circumstances I suspect. I am not an attorney.

 

[Texas42]

This will be up to the PD for the most part, I just hoped he excercised more restraint than that yahoo that shot up the street trying to catch the iPhone thieves a few weeks ago!

It doesn't appear that he shot at the tires. : P

So it seems that a couple of gange bangers tried to run over a cop. A bystander (assuming wh has his CHL) drew and fired at the gange bangers as they drove off. Seems reasonable to me, though I'm not a LEO or anything.

 

[Seabear1500]

Here's a couple angles...The way I see it he's justified.

PC §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​

TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61​

deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether
the actor failed to retreat.​

PC §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.

 

[txinvestigator]

Was not a citizen supposed to be put under arrest or some sort of detention under the circumtances ?

There is no requirement to arrest ever, except for specific circumstances like family violence, violation of protective orders, etc. Especially in the case of what appears to be a clear case of a defense to prosecution arrests are often deferred to the Grand Jury.

 

[Dawico]

Ok, so I have to ask, didn't the bystander shoot at the suspects after the incident with the officer was technically over? The law says to protect the third party and to stop the threat and all that, but the suspects were leaving the scene and nowhere does it state that they were turning around to make a second pass or shooting or anything. Maybe there is more to the story that I am not aware of, but from what is here, the bystander seems to have broken the law. Am I missing something?

Let me go on record as saying good for the bystander, and I am all for helping another citizen and especially LEOs. I would not press charges against him, and would vote to give him a medal. I cannot say I would do the same in these particular circumstances because the officer was not in immediate danger any longer at the time of the bystander shooting. I don't see this case as a legal shooting for defense, more like to stop the suspects from escaping, similiar to the iPhone case. Is there legal ground to stand on here?

 

[Seabear1500]

Could be the conversation went like this. " I saw them hit the officer with their car and they came speeding towards me. I was in fear for my life, I thought they were going to run me down, so I drew my gun and began firing to try and STOP them. I dove out of the way and they drove off."

A "reasonable person" would believe the threat existed, and that the use of deadly force was "immediately necessary".

 

[APatriot]

Could be the conversation went like this. " I saw them hit the officer with their car and they came speeding towards me. I was in fear for my life, I thought they were going to run me down, so I drew my gun and began firing to try and STOP them. I dove out of the way and they drove off."

A "reasonable person" would believe the threat existed, and that the use of deadly force was "immediately necessary".

Excellent!! I like simplicity!!

 

[Dawico]

Could be the conversation went like this. " I saw them hit the officer with their car and they came speeding towards me. I was in fear for my life, I thought they were going to run me down, so I drew my gun and began firing to try and STOP them. I dove out of the way and they drove off."

A "reasonable person" would believe the threat existed, and that the use of deadly force was "immediately necessary".

As the suspects drove out onto West Exchange, a bystander who thought the officer had been killed drew his own gun and fired at the passing Mercedes.

I could buy that response, if not for the above line. He fire at the car as it passed by, not as it drove toward him. Like I said, I am all for the bystander shooting the suspects, but this case just doesn't fit what I take as justifiable use of deadly force. The threat was over at the time he fired. I didn't think you could shoot at someone to keep them from leaving the scene of a crime, after the crime had occured. The bystander shot because he thought the officer had been killed. He himself was in no immediate danger, and the officer had already been hit, and the suspects were fleeing. It seems like he got off because the suspects had attacked an officer, not stolen an iPhone. I am just not seeing his legal defense, but understand his reasoning.

 

[chiefglocker]

Here's a couple angles...The way I see it he's justified.

PC §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​

TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61​

deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether
the actor failed to retreat.​

PC §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.

May I know where can I get this information from ?

Is it in Texas Conceal Handgun Law ( revised version) ?

 

[Texan2]

May I know where can I get this information from ?

Is it in Texas Conceal Handgun Law ( revised version) ?

It is in the Texas Penal Code....
Ultimately it IS up to the DA, not the police. But it is unlikely you will find a DA that will prosecute if the police are backing the guy.

 

[Texan2]

Could be the conversation went like this. " I saw them hit the officer with their car and they came speeding towards me. I was in fear for my life, I thought they were going to run me down, so I drew my gun and began firing to try and STOP them. I dove out of the way and they drove off."

A "reasonable person" would believe the threat existed, and that the use of deadly force was "immediately necessary".

You dont have to lie about what happened. You have a fleeing suspect that has already shot a police officer, justification to return fire exists. No doubt the officer would have shot back if he could have.

 

[Dawico]

You have a fleeing suspect that has already shot a police officer, justification to return fire exists.

The story didn't say anything about the suspects having a gun or firing, but they did have a deadly weapon, the car. So if the police are shooting at a suspect, then you have the right to shoot at them also, even if you or the officer are no longer in immediate danger? So you have the right to use deadly force to keep a suspect from fleeing? I am not arguing or questioning anyones knowledge, but this does not make sense to me. Any specific law references here? Not that it is likely, but I'd like to know if this situation ever happens to me. I know about deadly force and immediate danger to me or a third party, but this case is different. Is this case one of those gray areas that the local prosecutor must decide?

On a side note, how could the bystander think the cop was dead if the cop was shooting?

 

[Seabear1500]

May I know where can I get this information from ?

Is it in Texas Conceal Handgun Law ( revised version) ?

Here's a link , you can print it or simply send a request for a packet to DPS.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/chl-16.pdf