duty to retreat

[4x4kayak2112]

let say...im at a pizza place, and i become in between the door and a shooter.....do i have to retreat??? i was told that i should retreat and not fire because "you have a way to escape"

i know that i cant outrun a bullet.

 

[KAK]

let say...im at a pizza place, and i become in between the door and a shooter.....do i have to retreat??? i was told that i should retreat and not fire because "you have a way to escape"

i know that i cant outrun a bullet.

I don't know about your morals but if I was the only armed good guy there I wouldn't let a bunch of innocent people get killed.

 

[4x4kayak2112]

I don't know about your morals but if I was the only armed good guy there I wouldn't let a bunch of innocent people get killed.

well see i have 3 kids and wife with me.....but lets just say that its just me, him, and the legal system

 

[Dawico]

You do not have to legally retreat anymore. The law has changed. Now you can stand your ground. The decision to do so is entirely up to you.

 

[Medic218]

If possible have the wife safely get the kids out of there and if safe to engage the BG then do so.
What good are you to your family if you are dead? If you can't safely engage then I say high-tale it out of there to safety and call 911.

 

[45tex]

When did the "law" change? Last I heard only the Police have no duty to retreat. You're not at home so the Castle doctrine does not apply. If you can retreat and by doing so you do not have a reasonable belief that you or another is in imminent danger of having deadly force applied, you have a duty not to get involved in a gun battle. Standing in the doorway could cause the BG to feel trapped, if you do nothing else, clear he doorway. The what if game can go on forever.

 

[KAK]

Here is the question you should ask yourself. What is the best chance for me and my family getting out of danger? Even if the door is right there, your best bet may still be to excecute the gunman while he is looking away, after all since we CC in TX he will have no idea you are armed.

I would have to say a 40 to the back of the head will stop a threat pretty damn quick, not only to you but everyone else in the pizza joint. Everyone will be ducking, he will be standing up. A headshot will stop him in his tracks and likely be the safest option considering the bystanders.

 

[matefrio]

2007 was a good year. These laws are more commonly referred to as "stand your ground" laws in the states covering locations you have a "right to be present at". "Castle Doctrine" covers places of work, home and has been extended to cars in some cases where you have even more rights.

80(R) SB 378 - Enrolled version - Bill Text

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

[West Texas]

Here is the question you should ask yourself. What is the best chance for me and my family getting out of danger? Even if the door is right there, your best bet may still be to excecute the gunman while he is looking away, after all since we CC in TX he will have no idea you are armed.

I would have to say a 40 to the back of the head will stop a threat pretty damn quick, not only to you but everyone else in the pizza joint. Everyone will be ducking, he will be standing up. A head shot will stop him in his tracks and likely be the safest option considering the bystanders.

Please tell me you wouldn't walk up and shoot the unsuspecting BG in the back of the head. As was mentioned in another post, anyone killing someone else, rather justified or not, gets the case presented before a Grand Jury, and if you have an anti-gun DA, you ARE going to be indicted, not BECAUSE you killed the BG, but because of the WAY you did it.

Keep in mind guys that MOST BG's that are robbing someone, rather a clerk or someone on the street, probably have LITTLE to NO training, and limited experience in even using the weapon they have in their hand. Most of people think it's easy "point, pull trigger, goes bang, game over" with no idea what it takes to put a bullet on target. The OTHER thing to remember is that getting hit HURTS! It is GOING to leave a mark...inside and out...and unless you are dealing with a heartless, drugged up zombie, a well placed shot in the buttocks can do as much to stop the guy as a shot to the head, and make for a great story later...one you can laugh at, and one that will cause him grief over the next 5-10 as he sits (or stands) around in TDC explaining to people how he was caught because some guy shot him in the buttocks! And liberals, DA's and LIBERAL DA's have a harder time making YOU in to the cold blooded killer out of the deal!

 

[MR Redneck]

Please tell me you wouldn't walk up and shoot the unsuspecting BG in the back of the head. As was mentioned in another post, anyone killing someone else, rather justified or not, gets the case presented before a Grand Jury, and if you have an anti-gun DA, you ARE going to be indicted, not BECAUSE you killed the BG, but because of the WAY you did it.

Keep in mind guys that MOST BG's that are robbing someone, rather a clerk or someone on the street, probably have LITTLE to NO training, and limited experience in even using the weapon they have in their hand. Most of people think it's easy "point, pull trigger, goes bang, game over" with no idea what it takes to put a bullet on target. The OTHER thing to remember is that getting hit HURTS! It is GOING to leave a mark...inside and out...and unless you are dealing with a heartless, drugged up zombie, a well placed shot in the buttocks can do as much to stop the guy as a shot to the head, and make for a great story later...one you can laugh at, and one that will cause him grief over the next 5-10 as he sits (or stands) around in TDC explaining to people how he was caught because some guy shot him in the buttocks! And liberals, DA's and LIBERAL DA's have a harder time making YOU in to the cold blooded killer out of the deal!

About 3 or 4 years ago, an Odessa man shot a punk in the " Upper Thigh" the news said. The man had been having problem with his vehicles getting broken into. That night he heard his window get broke. He went outside and found some punk reaching through his broken out window. He shot the punk right in the ass!!! The cops found the kid a few blocks down the road laying on the side walk. He lived but has a story to tell for the rest of his life.
I dont know what the turn out for the shooter was, but for a while he was having trouble with the courts.
I would love to see the property laws changed so a man can defend his stuff with whatever force he decides. I dont feel sorry for any trespasser because they made the decision to violate the mans property. IF you dont want to get shot in the ass, then dont mess with my Shit!!! Simple as that!

 

[West Texas]

In a ssituation like that, it is VERY important to WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! There has been a LOT of discussion over saying NOTHING to saying something like "I'm sorry, but this has really shaken me, and would it be ok if I took some time to settle down? I would be more than happy to meet with the investigators later in the day."

 

[majormadmax]

This is very scenario dependent, but I would like to think that after I am assured that my family is safe, I would take action against the bad guy in defense of other innocent lives.

And where does it say one must "humanely" shoot a criminal? That has to be one of the stupidest things I have heard. “Excuse me, Mr. Killer, would you mind turning around so I can endanger myself and others more just so you can see who is trying to stop you?” So you are telling me that you are behind someone who is standing over his next victim ala the Luby’s shooting in Killeen and you wouldn’t pump several rounds into him because he has his back to you? Forget that, as long as I have a clear and safe shot, I am going to fill with enough lead that the last thing that goes through his mind will be a .45ACP round!

That said, as civilians we have no legal requirement to come to the aid of others; but I do believe we have a moral one to do so when and if possible. However, my first priority will always be the safety of my family…

Cheers! M2

 

[West Texas]

This is very scenario dependent, but I would like to think that after I am assured that my family is safe, I would take action against the bad guy in defense of other innocent lives.

And where does it say one must "humanely" shoot a criminal? That has to be one of the stupidest things I have heard. “Excuse me, Mr. Killer, would you mind turning around so I can endanger myself and others more just so you can see who is trying to stop you?” So you are telling me that you are behind someone who is standing over his next victim ala the Luby’s shooting in Killeen and you wouldn’t pump several rounds into him because he has his back to you? Forget that, as long as I have a clear and safe shot, I am going to fill with enough lead that the last thing that goes through his mind will be a .45ACP round!

That said, as civilians we have no legal requirement to come to the aid of others; but I do believe we have a moral one to do so when and if possible. However, my first priority will always be the safety of my family…

Cheers! M2

As with MOST of theses discussions, there are way to many variants to even begin to talk about....and the situation as outlined was NOT about a Luby's style shootout, it was one guy in a pizza joint who hadn't done anything but pull a gun, no shots fired as of yet, just robing the place...but when a poster uses the term "back of the head" and "execute the gunman" in the same post, THAT kind of shot will get you in front of a pissed off grand jury, when a shot to the back, or leg, or butt will seem a WHOLE lot more "humane" to the gun haters that you are VERY likely to run across in the DA's office or the Grand Jury room....and once you have shot someone, regardless of the "Why/how/where" you are GOING to be seeing the DA and the Grand Jury. Proportional Response.

I had much rather look at them and say "I stopped him with a shot to the butt" than have THEM say "You executed him with a shot to the back of the head"!

Like it or not, that IS the reality of our Laws and of our Legal System, where you're guilt or innocence may hang on the perceived humanity of the shot placement, not on what the other guy was doing and the lives you may have saved by ventilating the SOB....

 

[Texas1911]

You do NOT have to flee if you have the avenue to do so, so long as you can legally enter the premise otherwise. (ie. you aren't tresspassing)

If you shoot someone, you shoot to kill them. Wounding them intentionally is food for the prosecution because in the State of Texas you'd be defended under the defense of a third party. In wounding them the prosecution will argue that you enacted deadly force in a reckless manner. The only reason why you would pull a gun and defend someone else is because you feel that they are in IMMINENT danger of being severely injured or killed via deadly force. If someone is in IMMINENT danger of being murdered, I am going to stack as many rounds into that perps chest or head as I can humanly possible, because that is the last option.

 

[matefrio]

You do NOT have to flee if you have the avenue to do so, so long as you can legally enter the premise otherwise. (ie. you aren't tresspassing)

If you shoot someone, you shoot to kill them. Wounding them intentionally is food for the prosecution because in the State of Texas you'd be defended under the defense of a third party. In wounding them the prosecution will argue that you enacted deadly force in a reckless manner. The only reason why you would pull a gun and defend someone else is because you feel that they are in IMMINENT danger of being severely injured or killed via deadly force. If someone is in IMMINENT danger of being murdered, I am going to stack as many rounds into that perps chest or head as I can humanly possible, because that is the last option.

I disagree. If you shoot someone, you shoot to stop them. Killing is just an unfortunate outcome if it happens.

 

[Texas1911]

I disagree. If you shoot someone, you shoot to stop them. Killing is just an unfortunate outcome if it happens.

Shoot to kill meaning, you aim for vital areas, not just shooting them in the leg because "you don't wanna kill them". Don't execute them, just shoot them to the floor.

 

[matefrio]

Shoot to stop meaning, I aim for vital areas, that will quickly stop the actions of the bad guy.

I do not wish to serve as the judge, jury and executioner to anyone. When I believe my actions have stopped the attack I will stand down. I do so understanding that I am using deadly force in an effective manner and there was no other option.

85% of the people shot with a handgun will come out of it alive.

Look in the NEWS of this forum for a guy who butt stroked a man with a screw driver. He used deadly force to stop his attacker... unfortunately the attacker died most likely as an unanticipated result. The result could have easily been he used the rifle to shoot the attacker and he would have lived.

 

[KAK]

I would owe it to society to kill some mass murdering POS RIGHT THERE. Not only because of his tendency to do harm, but because he deserves to die.

Why burden the taxpayer?

 

[e4for2]

I would direct you to the case in Houston where A man shot 2 burglars outside, not on his property with a shotgun where he told 911 he was gonna go kill them,,the law is the castle doctrine law,,which by the way bars civil action

 

[Texas1911]

I would direct you to the case in Houston where A man shot 2 burglars outside, not on his property with a shotgun where he told 911 he was gonna go kill them,,the law is the castle doctrine law,,which by the way bars civil action

At the point they exited the house he had no right to shoot them. He was no billed because he claimed, and was supported by testimony, that the two thieves ran towards him. At that point it is a disparity of force issue, and consequently he was justified in the shooting.

There was alot of laws involved in the Joe Horn incident. I personally believe that he did society a favor, regardless of what the laws are. It also was a major win for Texas gun owners, not only did it support the Castle Doctrine, but the application of deadly force. It was a win, win, win, situation and it made me glad to see that regardless of all the political bullshit, we still can protect our lives and property from those that wish to take either.