I was thinking a bit about the use of deadly force in Texas, and for my own benefit I started to think about situations in which deadly force might or might not be legal, and might or might not be appropriate.  We did cover this in my CHL class, but there's obviously not time to go through every single possible scenario in the class.  I'd be interested in hearing opinions on the following situations.

In your opinion, in which situations is deadly force justified.  Are some of them situations in which you are likely to lose a civil suit even if the shooting is considered justified?  I realize that there is no clear cut answer in many of these.

1.  You are at home, in bed, at night.  You hear glass breaking in your living room.  You arm yourself and find an intruder in your living room.  As you enter the room, the intruder puts his hands up and says "don't shoot!".

2.  Same situation as #1, but during daylight hours.
2a.  Same as #1, but the intruder is perhaps 12 years old.

3.  Same situation as #1, but by the time you reach the living room, the intruder is leaving your home through the front door.

4.  Same as situation #3, but the intruder has made it to your front yard.

5.  Same as situation #4, but it is daylight.

6.  At noon, you are directly behind a truck that is stopped at a light.  There are no other cars around you.  The light turns green, and the truck does not move.
You honk your horn.  Immediately, a large man jumps out of the truck and starts walking up to your vehicle shouting profanity at you.

7.  Same as #6, but the man is carrying a tire iron.

8.  Same as #6 and #7, but assume there are other cars, and you have no means of driving off.

9.  Same as #6, 7, 8, but it is at night.

10.  Someone is toilet papering a tree in your back yard at noon.

11.  Someone is toilet papering a tree in your back yard at night.

12.  Someone is burning a cross on your lawn at night.

13.  You are returning to your car after watching a movie.  You are approached by two youths who demand money.  No weapons are visible.

14.  Same as #13, but one youth pulls aside a jacket to show you a pistol in his waistband.

15.  Same as #13, but one youth has a knife in hand.

16.  You hear screaming in your neighbor's house at noon.  You go to investigate, and from the front yard, you can see someone you don't know fighting with your neighbor.  Your neighbor appears to be fighting back.

17.  Same as #16, but the person you don't know seems to be beating your neighbor, and your neighbor is not fighting back (simply covering up to avoid blows).

18.  It's noon, and you know that your neighbors are on vacation, and you see someone walking out of their front door carrying a TV.

19.  Same as #18, but you confront the person, and the person drops the TV and runs.

20.  Same as #18 & 19, but it is night time.

21.  You open your door at noon to see someone breaking into your car.

22.  Same as #21 but at night.

23.  You open your door to see someone sitting in your car.

24.  Same as #23 but at night.

25.  You are driving home, and see 5 youths fighting with 1 youth.

26.  You are driving home, and see 5 youths fighting with someone who looks like an old homeless guy.

27.  You are driving home, and see 5 youths kicking someone who is curled up on the ground.

28.  Same as #27, but the youths in the scenario have had a run-in with your own child, who claims they are bullies.

29.  You are in a convenience store, and witness someone at the cashier pointing a gun at the clerk.

30.  You are in a convenience store, and while the clerk is distracted, you see someone pop the register and grab money from the drawer.

31.  You are in a convenience store, and you see a terrified looking clerk handing the contents of the register to someone.  No weapon is visible, and you have not heard what words were exchanged between the clerk and the person who is receiving the money.

32.  You walk outside at night to find two people throwing large rocks at your dog.

33.  You walk outside at night to find someone pointing a gun at your dog.

For obvious reasons, I will not even read or answer these questions.

It is shorter to read Penal Code 9X "Deadly Force". But a quick scan of those scenarios suggests most (not all) do no allow for DF.

I wouldn't rely on any responses you get here (mine included).  Ask a lawyer.  Chances are even if you are 100% legal in killing another person, you will be tried for manslaughter and there will be a civil case as well.  Unless you or a family member are going to die deadly force is probably not a good idea.  Do not trust your interpretation of state statues to protect you.  For obvious reasons not every situation can be foreseen by legislators.  Frequently there are gray areas, and frequently jurors are stupid and impressionable, especially is they share characteristics in common with the deceased.  If you do shoot someone you had better kill them, otherwise they can and will claim that they were fleeing and unarmed.  

yep-- even if you are justified, they will find a "gray area" and you will still face trial and may go to jail...

However, by answering these questions, that could set you up for later, should you ever find yourself in a situation, your answers could be used against you...

I wonder if the same applies at night if you have your car parked in the street by your house and not in your driveway, yet someone is still breaking into it. I wonder if you can legally open fire on them

Quoted: I wonder if the same applies at night if you have your car parked in the street by your house and not in your driveway, yet someone is still breaking into it. I wonder if you can legally open fire on them

Yes. Deadly force can be used on a person if they are committing a felony ($X amount of property loss or damage, check local laws re: felonies), especially after dusk. If breaking into your car, you can assume (gray area) they are stealing it-- Grand Theft Auto.



However, LT is wrong on some of his answers... and you also have the right to protect someone else's life and/or property if you believe they would like your assistance...

Read the laws, they aren't too difficult to understand.

Also, just drawing a gun on someone, even if you don't shoot, or shoot them in the leg for example, instead of killing them, is still sometimes considered use of deadly force...

§ 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2)  if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated;  and
(3)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)  to protect himself 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 requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.



§ 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.


§ 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Quoted: However, by answering these questions, that could set you up for later, should you ever find yourself in a situation, your answers could be used against you...

My apologies.  I didn't even think about that.

ETA:  I'm interested in two things here.  Not only the "is it legal to shoot" in particular situations, but in which types of situations there is a significant difference in opinion amongst the people here, many of most of whom are CHL holders.   LordTrader's answers were actually pretty interesting, because there were a few questions where I would answer the opposite way.

Is "criminal mischief during the nighttime well defined"?

Quoted: 1.  Depends on how fast he puts his hands up. Could be moving for weapon. Could be a decoy for his partner to flank you. Too many variables left open. Possible. 2.  see #1 2a.  Depends on size of 12 year old. see #1 3.  Depends on the angle. 4.  Like I told the cops in the last time I fired at someone in my house. "If they're outside, they're for the professionals. Figured that you wouldn't want me chasing some guy down dressed with .45 and a smile." 5. see #5 6.  Discreetly get G36 out and have beside you. E&E as possible since you did leave enough space. 7.  E&E if possible. If not possible, time to dance. If you have room, draw and command to lay on the ground until police arrive. If he escalates, then shoot COM. If no room, fire. 8.  see #7 9.  see #7 10.  call police and take pix 11.  call police and take pix 12.  call police and take pix 13.  tell them to FOAD, if they escalate, shoot 14.  shoot 15.  shoot 16.  depends on such circumstances such as your neighbor bragging about being the back door man, etc., call 911, depends on how much whoop ass is being applied 17.  see #16 18.  call 911 & confront 19.  stay put for the cops to respond to the 911 call 20.   see #19 21.  call 911 & confront 22.  shoot 23.  draw, take it from there depends on their reactions 24.  See #22 25.  call 911, intervene to stop violence 26.  See #25 27.  See #25 28.  See #25 29.  back off, draw, be ready to defend yourself, defend clerk depending on how violence escalates 30.  call cos 31.  see #29 32.  call 911, confront to stop injuries to dog 33.  Cower in obedience for it's the JBT's come to visit.

Now let me ask all of you this...........Legally can you actually brandish a fire arm if you really need to. Thats what i want to know is that. And dont leave the smart-ass remarks and answers that most of the people on here give because i dont have time to read that shit. I honestly want to know if you can. Say suppose your truck is being stolen and you run outside in the middle of the night and brandish your firearm and try to stop them, would you get burned for that or would that be prtecting your property. This is one question of the several hundred my crap instructor could not answer because he did not know what in the hell he was talking about. The true answer only please.

Quoted: Now let me ask all of you this...........Legally can you actually brandish a fire arm if you really need to. Thats what i want to know is that. And dont leave the smart-ass remarks and answers that most of the people on here give because i dont have time to read that shit. I honestly want to know if you can. Say suppose your truck is being stolen and you run outside in the middle of the night and brandish your firearm and try to stop them, would you get burned for that or would that be prtecting your property. This is one question of the several hundred my crap instructor could not answer because he did not know what in the hell he was talking about. The true answer only please.

If your truck IS being stolen, AIM AND PULL THE TRIGGER TIL YOU STOP THE BASTARD!

Brandishing a firearm w/o the intent to use it, could backfire on you...

Quoted: Now let me ask all of you this...........Legally can you actually brandish a fire arm if you really need to. Thats what i want to know is that. And dont leave the smart-ass remarks and answers that most of the people on here give because i dont have time to read that shit. I honestly want to know if you can. Say suppose your truck is being stolen and you run outside in the middle of the night and brandish your firearm and try to stop them, would you get burned for that or would that be prtecting your property. This is one question of the several hundred my crap instructor could not answer because he did not know what in the hell he was talking about. The true answer only please.

§ 9.04.  THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.  The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter.  For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

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

See but what does that mean? I've already read that but is it stating that you can brandish or not? I know it doesnt constitute deadly force but if you can use deadly force to protect your own life then can you brandish to save personal property?

Quoted: See but what does that mean? I've already read that but is it stating that you can brandish or not? I know it doesnt constitute deadly force but if you can use deadly force to protect your own life then can you brandish to save personal property?

It means you can brandish to show you are armed if you are in a situation where physical (but not deadly) force is okay.  Say somebody is threatening to do non-lethal harm against you, you could brandish to 'create the apprehension' that you might use deadly force against them if they escalate the situation.

Ok i see. Sorry about that but i wasnt clear on how it was worded. I just pray that neither situation ever happens. But thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: Now let me ask all of you this...........Legally can you actually brandish a fire arm if you really need to. Thats what i want to know is that. And dont leave the smart-ass remarks and answers that most of the people on here give because i dont have time to read that shit. I honestly want to know if you can. Say suppose your truck is being stolen and you run outside in the middle of the night and brandish your firearm and try to stop them, would you get burned for that or would that be prtecting your property. This is one question of the several hundred my crap instructor could not answer because he did not know what in the hell he was talking about. The true answer only please. If your truck IS being stolen, AIM AND PULL THE TRIGGER TIL YOU STOP THE BASTARD! Brandishing a firearm w/o the intent to use it, could backfire on you...

Shooting someone for stealing your truck, (or any insured property) is stupid.  It will cost you WAY more than a truck in legal fees.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now let me ask all of you this...........Legally can you actually brandish a fire arm if you really need to. Thats what i want to know is that. And dont leave the smart-ass remarks and answers that most of the people on here give because i dont have time to read that shit. I honestly want to know if you can. Say suppose your truck is being stolen and you run outside in the middle of the night and brandish your firearm and try to stop them, would you get burned for that or would that be prtecting your property. This is one question of the several hundred my crap instructor could not answer because he did not know what in the hell he was talking about. The true answer only please. If your truck IS being stolen, AIM AND PULL THE TRIGGER TIL YOU STOP THE BASTARD! Brandishing a firearm w/o the intent to use it, could backfire on you... Shooting someone for stealing your truck, (or any insured property) is stupid.  It will cost you WAY more than a truck in legal fees.

Last I checked, you were only required to have liability insurance on a vechicle, and that's if its for use on the road and current.

Quoted: Last I checked, you were only required to have liability insurance on a vechicle, and that's if its for use on the road and current.

Duh.  How does this change the last sentence in my statement?  

It doesnt.  If you would kill someone to protect your property, that is your choice.... and you can deal with the aftermath.  Of course I would prefer to be able to stop anyone committing a crime, and (when legal) I *might* use the threat of deadly force to protect property.... However, knowing the legal costs when you are sued by the entire family of the dead theif.... is going to cost you a lot more than a vehicle.

Quoted: Quoted: Last I checked, you were only required to have liability insurance on a vechicle, and that's if its for use on the road and current. Duh.  How does this change the last sentence in my statement?   It doesnt.  If you would kill someone to protect your property, that is your choice.... and you can deal with the aftermath.  Of course I would prefer to be able to stop anyone committing a crime, and (when legal) I *might* use the threat of deadly force to protect property.... However, knowing the legal costs when you are sued by the entire family of the dead theif.... is going to cost you a lot more than a vehicle.

All i simply asked was could i brandish, not shoot, kill or injure. Just brandish. B_R_A_N_D_I_S_H. If you can do that i would rather shove a S@W 500 in his face and tell him "If he moves i will shoot" and have him stop dead in his tracks while i call the police versus sitting there like some coward and let him take something that isnt his. I never said shoot. I would never shoot anyone over a damn vehicle or anyother property of mine unless my life is in severe danger. If it was then i would take action. But this is over a replacable truck that i have full coverage on. It was just a question if it is legal to prevent something like that from happening. But someone already posted an answer for that in another forum.

Leathal force is a last-resort option in Texas...and based on some quality instructors I have had, they indicated any fighting (martial arts) is completely exposing the CHL holder to further civil punishment because we CHL's are held to a higher accountability than a non-CHL holder. A lot depends on the scenario of course and each situation is different than the next, as is each jury. Remember the PAC matrix.

Communication is the key, like a pilot aviate first, navigate second, then communicate...

aviate: is there a way out of this without injury or bodily harm to self or others...
navigate: where to go to get help and attempt to stay out of the "deadly force" scenario..if possible
Communicate: well again that depends on the situation, if its stolen property outside of residence or other private property ie: car, call the police and that is what insurance is for...in the house...well it again comes down to the particular situation.  I will choose based on the situation and in direct corellation to the threat represented to myself and family, including the dog...

Did you know if you shoot someone in your house that it is information required by law to be given to any potential buyers of your house, assuming of course you are selling the house....

Just my .02...

CHL = begging and paying to exercise your rights with many stipulations...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Last I checked, you were only required to have liability insurance on a vechicle, and that's if its for use on the road and current. Duh.  How does this change the last sentence in my statement?   It doesnt.  If you would kill someone to protect your property, that is your choice.... and you can deal with the aftermath.  Of course I would prefer to be able to stop anyone committing a crime, and (when legal) I *might* use the threat of deadly force to protect property.... However, knowing the legal costs when you are sued by the entire family of the dead theif.... is going to cost you a lot more than a vehicle. All i simply asked

Uhhh... I wasnt talking to YOU.  

was could i brandish, not shoot, kill or injure. Just brandish. B_R_A_N_D_I_S_H.

If you want to know when you *CAN* us a threat of deadly force, just read the law.  

But I hope you dont ever plan on displaying your weapon, and not be prepared to use it.

If you can do that i would rather shove a S@W 500 in his face and tell him "If he moves i will shoot" and have him stop dead in his tracks while i call the police versus sitting there like some coward

Coward?  Uh, this is about life and death situations.  Not ego.  Be smart.... not brave.

and let him take something that isnt his. I never said shoot.

Hope you are ready to, if you pointing your pistol around.

I would never shoot anyone over a damn vehicle or anyother property of mine unless my life is in severe danger.

Then you might seriously reconsider pulling your weapon in the first place.  If the BG has a weapon, it could escalate to a use of deadly force situation in a heartbeat.

If it was then i would take action. But this is over a replacable truck that i have full coverage on. It was just a question if it is legal to prevent something like that from happening. But someone already posted an answer for that in another forum.

Well, the statues explain it pretty clearly.

Quoted: CHL = begging and paying to exercise your rights with many stipulations...

Got a better plan?

Sorry about that but i thought that you quoted me. Ok then well anyway.

Quoted: Sorry about that but i thought that you quoted me. Ok then well anyway.

No worries!  

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry about that but i thought that you quoted me. Ok then well anyway. No worries!

+1... we are all just talking anyway
Don't get upset over what's said on the internet... its just "the internet" hehe.

FALARAK-- I see your point on the hassle/legal issues arising from shooting a perp stealing a truck, but if I owned the truck, I'd want someone to shoot the perp too... I think we all would... but that doesn't mean we would do it ourselves-- we are all talk, until it happens to us. When it comes time to pull the trigger, that's when we will know what we would have done in that EXACT situation, and ONLY for that specific situation as they are all different and composed of various events that lead up to the act.

Quoted: FALARAK-- I see your point on the hassle/legal issues arising from shooting a perp stealing a truck, but if I owned the truck, I'd want someone to shoot the perp too... I think we all would...

Absolutely!  At that moment, I would WANT him dead.  As a doornail.  I have been burglarized before, and the anger hate level you feel is astounding.

And then later, thinking more level headed.... I really just dont want him to steal my truck, turn his life around, accept Christ as his savior, and work to turn young delinquents away from a life of crime.  

but that doesn't mean we would do it ourselves-- we are all talk, until it happens to us. When it comes time to pull the trigger, that's when we will know what we would have done in that EXACT situation, and ONLY for that specific situation as they are all different and composed of various events that lead up to the act.

Well said.

I Feared for my life!!
Bottom Line, works almost every time.

Quoted: I was thinking a bit about the use of deadly force in Texas, and for my own benefit I started to think about situations in which deadly force might or might not be legal, and might or might not be appropriate.  We did cover this in my CHL class, but there's obviously not time to go through every single possible scenario in the class.  I'd be interested in hearing opinions on the following situations. ok, i will play... In your opinion, in which situations is deadly force justified.  Are some of them situations in which you are likely to lose a civil suit even if the shooting is considered justified?  I realize that there is no clear cut answer in many of these. 1.  You are at home, in bed, at night.  You hear glass breaking in your living room.  You arm yourself and find an intruder in your living room.  As you enter the room, the intruder puts his hands up and says "don't shoot!". justified, lose civil suit 2.  Same situation as #1, but during daylight hours. not justified, lose civil suit 2a.  Same as #1, but the intruder is perhaps 12 years old. not justified, lose civil suit 3.  Same situation as #1, but by the time you reach the living room, the intruder is leaving your home through the front door. not justified, lose civil suit 4.  Same as situation #3, but the intruder has made it to your front yard. not justified, lose civil suit 5.  Same as situation #4, but it is daylight. not justified, lose civil suit 6.  At noon, you are directly behind a truck that is stopped at a light.  There are no other cars around you.  The light turns green, and the truck does not move. You honk your horn.  Immediately, a large man jumps out of the truck and starts walking up to your vehicle shouting profanity at you. not justified, lose civil suit 7.  Same as #6, but the man is carrying a tire iron. not justified, lose civil suit 8.  Same as #6 and #7, but assume there are other cars, and you have no means of driving off. not justified, lose civil suit 9.  Same as #6, 7, 8, but it is at night. not justified, lose civil suit 10.  Someone is toilet papering a tree in your back yard at noon. not justified, lose civil suit 11.  Someone is toilet papering a tree in your back yard at night. justified, lose civil suit 12.  Someone is burning a cross on your lawn at night. justified, 13.  You are returning to your car after watching a movie.  You are approached by two youths who demand money.  No weapons are visible. not justified, lose civil suit 14.  Same as #13, but one youth pulls aside a jacket to show you a pistol in his waistband. justified, 15.  Same as #13, but one youth has a knife in hand. justified 16.  You hear screaming in your neighbor's house at noon.  You go to investigate, and from the front yard, you can see someone you don't know fighting with your neighbor.  Your neighbor appears to be fighting back. not justified, lose civil suit 17.  Same as #16, but the person you don't know seems to be beating your neighbor, and your neighbor is not fighting back (simply covering up to avoid blows). not justified, lose civil suit 18.  It's noon, and you know that your neighbors are on vacation, and you see someone walking out of their front door carrying a TV. justified, lose civil suit 19.  Same as #18, but you confront the person, and the person drops the TV and runs. not justified, lose civil suit 20.  Same as #18 & 19, but it is night time. justified not justified, lose civil suit 21.  You open your door at noon to see someone breaking into your car. not justified, lose civil suit 22.  Same as #21 but at night. justified 23.  You open your door to see someone sitting in your car. not justified, lose civil suit 24.  Same as #23 but at night. justified 25.  You are driving home, and see 5 youths fighting with 1 youth. not justified, lose civil suit 26.  You are driving home, and see 5 youths fighting with someone who looks like an old homeless guy. not justified, lose civil suit 27.  You are driving home, and see 5 youths kicking someone who is curled up on the ground. not justified, lose civil suit 28.  Same as #27, but the youths in the scenario have had a run-in with your own child, who claims they are bullies. not justified, lose civil suit 29.  You are in a convenience store, and witness someone at the cashier pointing a gun at the clerk. justified, 30. store, and while the clerk is distracted, you see someone pop the register and grab money from the drawer. not justified, lose civil suit 31.  You are in a convenience store, and you see a terrified looking clerk handing the contents of the register to someone.  No weapon is visible, and you have not heard what words were exchanged between the clerk and the person who is receiving the money. not justified, lose civil suit 32.  You walk outside at night to find two people throwing large rocks at your dog. not justified, lose civil suit 33.  You walk outside at night to find someone pointing a gun at your dog. not justified, lose civil suit

you are asking a lot of questions that are covered in the deadly force stautes.  please review memorize them as they will keep you out of trouble.  and any fool can bring a civil suit at any time and you can loose about 5-10K defending yourself.  
your questions are simple in that you ask when you can drop the hammer.  the real world is a lot more complex.  the guy in your car at night could be a hobo looking for a place to crash.  or the guy next door drunk out of his mind who mistook your car for his.  the girl beind kidnapped may have had too much to drink and her BF is just helping her to the car.  the trick with a CHL is not pulling it and not killing.  any fool can kill.  the idea behind the CHL is to save lives.  not take them.

What about a neighbor with lots of Neon lights in the back yard and plays Ricky Martin to the wee hours of the morning?

Quoted: What about a neighbor with lots of Neon lights in the back yard and plays Ricky Martin to the wee hours of the morning?

Absolutely justified.  And lose civil suit.

Quoted: What about a neighbor with lots of Neon lights in the back yard and plays Ricky Martin to the wee hours of the morning?

Don't worry, you are safe from us shooting you.

Quoted: Quoted: What about a neighbor with lots of Neon lights in the back yard and plays Ricky Martin to the wee hours of the morning? Don't worry, you are safe from us shooting you.

But sir, It isnt I that we are speaking of.

tag

Quoted: Quoted: I wonder if the same applies at night if you have your car parked in the street by your house and not in your driveway, yet someone is still breaking into it. I wonder if you can legally open fire on them Yes. Deadly force can be used on a person if they are committing a felony ($X amount of property loss or damage, check local laws re: felonies), especially after dusk. If breaking into your car, you can assume (gray area) they are stealing it-- Grand Theft Auto. However, LT is wrong on some of his answers... and you also have the right to protect someone else's life and/or property if you believe they would like your assistance... Read the laws, they aren't too difficult to understand. Also, just drawing a gun on someone, even if you don't shoot, or shoot them in the leg for example, instead of killing them, is still sometimes considered use of deadly force...

IT IS NOT TRUE that you can use deadly force on someone who is committing a felony after dark.  and THERE IS NO SUCH LAW AS GRAND THEFT AUTO IN TEXAS.  And who said you can "assume" someone breaking into your car is stealing it? There are MANY more burglaries of cars at night than there are thefts of cars.  

And you can use DF to protect others property IN SOME SITUATIONS if you "reasonably believe they have requested your assistance", not if you think they would LIKE your assiatance.  

And please, shooting someone in the leg IS deadly Force.  

HOLY COW!  

Texas laws gives a justification of deadly force to protect property "

    (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;

Thats it.  No other felonies, and no $ amount.  and it is NOT a blanket justification.  The terms "reasonable belief" and "immediately necessary" , are factors.

Quoted: I Feared for my life!! Bottom Line, works almost every time.

That is very bad advice.  Show me where the Texas Penal Code allows Deadly Force if one is "in fear of his life"

Quoted: I think HK940 was pretty spot on.... on the dog questions, they'd never find the bodies of the motherfuckers that threw rocks at my dogs. The main thing on the "civil suit" question that was reiterated by my CHL instructor, was "SHOOT TO KILL" He mumbled something about how tough it is to win a lawsuit with the guy you shot sitting in a wheelchair on a respirator in front of the jury.  If he's dead and buried, that's bad, but not as dramatic.

That also is bad advice.  You should shoot to stop the threat.  The law allows a justification for the use of Deadly Force, not the premeditated decision to kill.  It sounds macho to say "shoot to kill" but it is bad advice.  You shoot the guy and he falls, still alive,...... I guess if you shoot to kill you better walk over and finish him off?

If you make your tactical and use of force decisions based on what may or may not happen in civil court you are being foolish.  You better worry about the criminal trial first.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now let me ask all of you this...........Legally can you actually brandish a fire arm if you really need to. Thats what i want to know is that. And dont leave the smart-ass remarks and answers that most of the people on here give because i dont have time to read that shit. I honestly want to know if you can. Say suppose your truck is being stolen and you run outside in the middle of the night and brandish your firearm and try to stop them, would you get burned for that or would that be prtecting your property. This is one question of the several hundred my crap instructor could not answer because he did not know what in the hell he was talking about. The true answer only please. If your truck IS being stolen, AIM AND PULL THE TRIGGER TIL YOU STOP THE BASTARD! Brandishing a firearm w/o the intent to use it, could backfire on you... Shooting someone for stealing your truck, (or any insured property) is stupid.  It will cost you WAY more than a truck in legal fees.

Ahhh, common sense.  I agree 100%.   And I am only a DPS certified CHL instructor and DPS Private Security Board Use of Force Instructor.  

Quoted: Quoted: I Feared for my life!! Bottom Line, works almost every time. That is very bad advice.  Show me where the Texas Penal Code allows Deadly Force if one is "in fear of his life"

Once an attorney talks to the shooter and councels them it’s always " I feared for my life." So I shot to stop his/her aggression towards me.

Quoted: IT IS NOT TRUE that you can use deadly force on someone who is committing a felony after dark.

Apparently you need to read up on the laws. Seems like section 9.42 would apply to the auto theft, which I believe is a felony.

and THERE IS NO SUCH LAW AS GRAND THEFT AUTO IN TEXAS.  And who said you can "assume" someone breaking into your car is stealing it? There are MANY more burglaries of cars at night than there are thefts of cars.

Grand theft auto in TX-- theft is theft, you knew what I meant. I believe it is a FELONY to steal a vehicle in TX, is it not? Either way, 9.42 covers theft.

Nobody said I *could* assume they were stealing the vehicle-- I said it was a gray area. Fact is, if they are breaking into my car, THAT IS WHAT I WILL BE THINKING, and even if they weren't actually stealing it (AKA "Grand Theft Auto"), maybe they were stealing contents, or vandalizing-- therefore 9.42.2 would apply since its definately criminal mischief.

And you can use DF to protect others property IN SOME SITUATIONS if you "reasonably believe they have requested your assistance", not if you think they would LIKE your assiatance.

Yeah, bad choice of words.

And please, shooting someone in the leg IS deadly Force.

Yep. I basically said that, but it was mixed in with another statement, along with "drawing the weapon."

HOLY COW!   Texas laws gives a justification of deadly force to protect property "     (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; Thats it.  No other felonies, and no $ amount.  and it is NOT a blanket justification.  The terms "reasonable belief" and "immediately necessary" , are factors.

Yeah... I realize that. However, that was in response to Voldermortist re: "I wonder if the same applies at night if you have your car parked in the street by your house and not in your driveway, yet someone is still breaking into it. I wonder if you can legally open fire on them"

Quoted: Quoted: IT IS NOT TRUE that you can use deadly force on someone who is committing a felony after dark.   Apparently you need to read up on the laws. Seems like section 9.42 would apply to the auto theft, which I believe is a felony.

 texas laws do NOT allow the use of Deadly Force to stop a felony.  Texas Law specifically mentions which crimes in which DF can be used.  "Felonies" are not listed.  9,42 lists "theft during the nighttime".  That is not limited to felonies, nor are felonies listed under justifications under 9.42.  You can be a smart ass all you want, Mike, but I teach this every week.  

and THERE IS NO SUCH LAW AS GRAND THEFT AUTO IN TEXAS.  And who said you can "assume" someone breaking into your car is stealing it? There are MANY more burglaries of cars at night than there are thefts of cars.

Grand theft auto in TX-- theft is theft, you knew what I meant. I believe it is a FELONY to steal a vehicle in TX, is it not? Either way, 9.42 covers theft.

 In fact, it depends on the value of the vehicle.  What you said was that stealing a vehicle is a felony, and one can use deadly force to prevent a felony.  Neither of those are accurate.  

Nobody said I *could* assume they were stealing the vehicle-- I said it was a gray area. Fact is, if they are breaking into my car, THAT IS WHAT I WILL BE THINKING, and even if they weren't actually stealing it (AKA "Grand Theft Auto"), maybe they were stealing contents, or vandalizing-- therefore 9.42.2 would apply since its definately criminal mischief.

  here let me quote you "Deadly force can be used on a person if they are committing a felony ($X amount of property loss or damage, check local laws re: felonies), especially after dusk. If breaking into your car, you can assume (gray area) they are stealing it-- Grand Theft Auto."  and assumptions are not listed as justifications for deadly force Mike.  Only a reasonable belief.  

And you can use DF to protect others property IN SOME SITUATIONS if you "reasonably believe they have requested your assistance", not if you think they would LIKE your assiatance.

Yeah, bad choice of words. And please, shooting someone in the leg IS deadly Force.   Yep. I basically said that, but it was mixed in with another statement, along with "drawing the weapon." HOLY COW!   Texas laws gives a justification of deadly force to protect property "     (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; Thats it.  No other felonies, and no $ amount.  and it is NOT a blanket justification.  The terms "reasonable belief" and "immediately necessary" , are factors. Yeah... I realize that. However, that was in response to Voldermortist re: "I wonder if the same applies at night if you have your car parked in the street by your house and not in your driveway, yet someone is still breaking into it. I wonder if you can legally open fire on them"

You cannot answer that question either.  All you can respond to him is that IF he reasonably believes it is immediatley necessary to use deadly force to stop the imminent commission of theft during the nighttime, the he has a DEFENSE available to him at his Grand Jury or Trial.  ;)

Why do deadly force discussions always fall apart?

This is interesting to me.  I know the lw is pretty clear.... but then we have to apply it to real world scenarios.... which is good, in theory.

Then, why is it, almost every "use of deadly force" discussion go south?  What is it?  Are our misconceptions sooooooo deep about when we can and cannot draw/draw and fire?

I think the DF laws are designed to protect the criminal - that is why the common sense of self defense and property defense does not correlate to the law.

Quoted: Why do deadly force discussions always fall apart?

A lot of people cannot read?

I posted the relevant laws on page 1, and look at all the posts since then that are contrary to those laws. WTF? Should I post them in Spanish? Is that the problem?

Then there is the whole what will get you no-billed vs. what will cause you to be sued (and lose), in court.

Quoted: Quoted: Why do deadly force discussions always fall apart? A lot of people cannot read?

Christ almighty, it's like I'm sittin' here playing cards with my brother's kids or somethin', you nerve-wracking sons-of-bitches.

Christ almighty, it's like I'm sittin' here playing cards with my brother's kids or somethin', you nerve-wracking sons-of-bitches.


Billy Bob Thorton....in Tombstone

What do I win?

Quoted: Why do deadly force discussions always fall apart? This is interesting to me.  I know the lw is pretty clear.... but then we have to apply it to real world scenarios.... which is good, in theory. Then, why is it, almost every "use of deadly force" discussion go south?  What is it?  Are our misconceptions sooooooo deep about when we can and cannot draw/draw and fire?

I think they really are.  Someone who has spent a lot of time reading, studying, or teaching the deadly force laws in Texas probably reads them and says "those are pretty clear".  But the laws themselves aren't clear at all.  They become clear only in the context of the surrounding case law.

The gray areas really fall into the bottomless pit of "what is reasonable?" or "what does reasonably believe mean?".