duty to retreat

[Bithabus]

ONLY once you've been Mirandized....

Or before you are under arrest

 

[Philo Beddoe]

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!

I like it! What jury wouldn't look at you favorably if you shot the guy in the butt when you could have killed him? Course, you better be sure that will handle the situation and you're not dealing with some doped-up crackhead who's temporarily impervious to pain.

Given that there wouldn't likely be time to determine the BG's intent, and the fact that other lives are in the balance, I'd probably shoot to kill him.

 

[Bithabus]

Sorry WT - buy you're wrong. The use of deadly force is narrowly justified by the legal system. If you intentionally shoot someone to "stop" them, making that shot less than potentially lethal WILL open you up for prosecution - and it will likely be successful. Period. Don't believe me, then ask any attorney - but PLEASE ask them BEFORE you get yourself in such a situation!!
Deadly force is to be used only when there is no other option (paraphrasing the law here) - where your failure to act will result in death of another, or loss of property with no reasonable expectation of recovery. The law does NOT allow for any intentional wounding - which intentionally shooting someone in the butt/hand/wherever is - and as such, is indefensible under the law. If you EVER use a gun, and they ask why he's shot and still alive, you BEST be ready to say that you WERE INTENDING TO KILL - under the law, that's the ONLY "shooting to stop" scenario allowed. Otherwise, the prosecution will be under the basis that you were NOT in fear of your life, etc. It may make on sense to you, but as I said - talk to an attorney about it before you get yourself in trouble.
There's one other arguement I'll present you with - if the day ever comes that you have to use Deadly Force against a BG, trust me when I say instinct/training WILL take over. That is why most tactical targets emphasize Center Mass - because THAT is where you want to put EVERY round. If you routinely practice less-than-lethal shot placement, you just might make that shot under stress at a time when you needed to put him down HARD.

QFT. They should put this in the CHL handbook.

 

[smschulz]

Sorry WT - buy you're wrong. The use of deadly force is narrowly justified by the legal system. If you intentionally shoot someone to "stop" them, making that shot less than potentially lethal WILL open you up for prosecution - and it will likely be successful. Period. Don't believe me, then ask any attorney - but PLEASE ask them BEFORE you get yourself in such a situation!!
Deadly force is to be used only when there is no other option (paraphrasing the law here) - where your failure to act will result in death of another, or loss of property with no reasonable expectation of recovery. The law does NOT allow for any intentional wounding - which intentionally shooting someone in the butt/hand/wherever is - and as such, is indefensible under the law. If you EVER use a gun, and they ask why he's shot and still alive, you BEST be ready to say that you WERE INTENDING TO KILL - under the law, that's the ONLY "shooting to stop" scenario allowed. Otherwise, the prosecution will be under the basis that you were NOT in fear of your life, etc. It may make on sense to you, but as I said - talk to an attorney about it before you get yourself in trouble.
There's one other arguement I'll present you with - if the day ever comes that you have to use Deadly Force against a BG, trust me when I say instinct/training WILL take over. That is why most tactical targets emphasize Center Mass - because THAT is where you want to put EVERY round. If you routinely practice less-than-lethal shot placement, you just might make that shot under stress at a time when you needed to put him down HARD.

Dead men tell no tales, eh?

 

[DubiousDan]

I like it! What jury wouldn't look at you favorably if you shot the guy in the butt when you could have killed him? Course, you better be sure that will handle the situation and you're not dealing with some doped-up crackhead who's temporarily impervious to pain.

Given that there wouldn't likely be time to determine the BG's intent, and the fact that other lives are in the balance, I'd probably shoot to kill him.

The other issue is that you can't guarantee that a shot to the buttocks won't be fatal. Imagine a scenario where someone shoots someone in the buttocks and he tells the investigating officer that he shot him there to wound him and he dies a short time later.

 

[Fisherman777]

Dead men tell no tales, eh?

I keep saying, that's what the backhoe is for. Dig it deep and remember to take his ammo first. <smiley face here>

 

[tweek]

I'm about to do my CHL so I suspect a lot of this will be done over in depth. At least I hope it is.

In regard to chatting with the investigators I sorta go with this:


Basically, be real nice and polite, talk about the weather and how well polished the investigators shoes are until you have legal counsel. Be up front with the officer, not that you don't trust him, but that you don't know the law well enough to answer his questions properly without the assistance of an ambulance chaser.

In regard to this scenario: armed robber in a pizza place....in that scenario, he is 'just' robbing the place, let him go at let the police deal with him. However, the instant he actually threatens harm to anybody: you unload the entire magazine in to his chest before he hits the ground. No questions, no doubts. However, I'm not all the confident about waiting to determine his actual intentions. How long does it take for a simple 'give me the money' situation turn in to the robber shooting people?

So much of this stuff reveals what a sheltered life I lead.

 

[Sid]

I'm about to do my CHL so I suspect a lot of this will be done over in depth. At least I hope it is.

In regard to chatting with the investigators I sorta go with this:
-video-

Basically, be real nice and polite, talk about the weather and how well polished the investigators shoes are until you have legal counsel. Be up front with the officer, not that you don't trust him, but that you don't know the law well enough to answer his questions properly without the assistance of an ambulance chaser.

In regard to this scenario: armed robber in a pizza place....in that scenario, he is 'just' robbing the place, let him go at let the police deal with him. However, the instant he actually threatens harm to anybody: you unload the entire magazine in to his chest before he hits the ground. No questions, no doubts. However, I'm not all the confident about waiting to determine his actual intentions. How long does it take for a simple 'give me the money' situation turn in to the robber shooting people?

So much of this stuff reveals what a sheltered life I lead.

Thanks for the vid.

I think the moment they present a firearm and points it at someone, its a threat to harm, even if he/she doesn't verbalize it. And, as you said, it only takes as long as a trigger pull to go from a "give me the money" to a gun shot wound.

 

[cuate]

Retreat Hell ! Lock and Load ! Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes ! Second thought fire when you get a good sight picture.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

The Castle Doctrine, as we call it, was not designed so you can stand your ground with impunity. Its purpose was to protect you from judges and juries suffering from unrealistic expectations. The folks judging you will undoubtedly see the situation differently than did you, and you might find yourself in deep poop as a result of their armchair quarterbacking. This legislation simply protects you from the court asking if a reasonable person could or would have retreated before using deadly force in your situation.

This is NOT a "stand your ground and shoot" law, as the states who abhor such reasonable legislation claim. There are no guarantees that you will win that gunfight. If your choices are "stand and fight" and "retreat," and the "retreat" option increases your choices of living to tell the tale, which do you think you should choose?

 

[tweek]

As previously mentioned: I know jack in regard to what the laws says and I hope the CHL class covers it in detail. I'll end up reading the stuff on my own anyway.

But in regard to retreating: If I'm on my own, hell yeah call me Frenchie because I'm making tracks for the cheese buffet 5 miles that way and as far from that as I can get. But what about other people that happen to be there or possibly my family? Sinse this is all make believe, what if? I'm supposed to ditch them and hope? What about the poor old lady over by the buffet, the dude with the gun is between her and the door and she just took the last piece of supreme that he wanted. I'm supposed to make like Sir Robbin and bravely run away when I have a nice bit of confidence tucked away inside my jacket? Hopefully nobody here will ever have to run through these questions, but I wonder what answers can be offered.

My own feelings are: if there are other people in danger because of some jackass who thinks using a gun is the answer - **** him. keep squezing the trigger until the slide locks back.

 

[codeman]

I'm about to do my CHL so I suspect a lot of this will be done over in depth. At least I hope it is.

In regard to chatting with the investigators I sorta go with this:


Basically, be real nice and polite, talk about the weather and how well polished the investigators shoes are until you have legal counsel. Be up front with the officer, not that you don't trust him, but that you don't know the law well enough to answer his questions properly without the assistance of an ambulance chaser.

In regard to this scenario: armed robber in a pizza place....in that scenario, he is 'just' robbing the place, let him go at let the police deal with him. However, the instant he actually threatens harm to anybody: you unload the entire magazine in to his chest before he hits the ground. No questions, no doubts. However, I'm not all the confident about waiting to determine his actual intentions. How long does it take for a simple 'give me the money' situation turn in to the robber shooting people?

So much of this stuff reveals what a sheltered life I lead.

Great video. Part 2 was good as well. The cop got up and agreed with the lawyer and he gave many examples of the things they do to trick a suspect during questioning.
I also agree with what Tweek said. If it looks like the BG will take the money and run, let him. You don’t need the legal hassle and the $50 in the register isn’t worth anyone’s life. But if you feel that your life is in jeopardy, shoot him in the chest until he’s not a threat anymore.
Always remember the AOJ. Does he have the ABILITY to kill you, does he have the OPERTUNITY to kill you and are you in JEOPARDY of being killed. If all three are in place, you keep your mouth shut, be polite and do what your lawyer tells you, then you’ll probably be ok.

 

[mtaylor]

ONLY once you've been Mirandized....

Sure. That protects you, just a little bit. But whatever you say can be used to formulate questions after you have been read your rights, and it gives them info to ask witnesses. Once you give them a lead Miranda is not much use.

 

[jg3530]

I think this will answer all the questions I saw raised in this thread. This information is current as of the last legislative session.

Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 States:

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.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.


Sec. 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.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


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:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(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; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

[MR Redneck]

jg3530, I think those sections you listed are out of date.
Im pretty sure Texas no longer requires it to be " nighttime" in order to use lethal force.
These sections are not relevant to the Castle Doctrine.

 

[jg3530]

The law is different for night time on your property. It is current. It's strange that there is a different standard for protection of property at night but that is the way it is.

 

[MR Redneck]

Since Texas has had the Kingdom Law, I thought the sundown law was no longer enforced.
Guess I need to do some reading! I have no tollerence for criminals, and prefer that people be able to defend and protect their stuff 24 hours a day.

 

[Bithabus]

Since Texas has had the Kingdom Law, I thought the sundown law was no longer enforced.
Guess I need to do some reading! I have no tollerence for criminals, and prefer that people be able to defend and protect their stuff 24 hours a day.

The nighttime limitation only applies to deadly force used to stop theft or criminal mischief. You can use deadly force to stop burglary, robbery, or arson anytime.

 

[MR Redneck]

The nighttime limitation only applies to deadly force used to stop theft or criminal mischief. You can use deadly force to stop burglary, robbery, or arson anytime.

OK, so if I were to shoot them during the day, say in the leg and they didnt die, I guess i'll still be within the law?
I have had the chance to shoot theifs and vandals during the nighttime several time but didnt find it necessary.
I really dont see the difference between nighttime and during the day. The way this law is written, the laws cater to the crooks during the day.
I guess you could claim some self defense a part of the reason for shooting criminals during the day.

 

[Bithabus]

OK, so if I were to shoot them during the day, say in the leg and they didnt die, I guess i'll still be within the law?
I have had the chance to shoot theifs and vandals during the nighttime several time but didnt find it necessary.
I really dont see the difference between nighttime and during the day. The way this law is written, the laws cater to the crooks during the day.
I guess you could claim some self defense a part of the reason for shooting criminals during the day.

Remember the thread about shooting people in the ass? Don't shoot them in the leg either. Shooting someone in the leg is still deadly force.

If someone is using unlawful deadly force against you of course you can defend yourself regardless of what time it is. In Texas we can also use deadly force to protect property, and this is where the night time restrictions come in. You can use deadly force to stop burglary, robbery, or arson any time of day even if your life is not in danger. But you can only use deadly force to stop theft or criminal mischief (basically vandalism) during the night.