Quoted:

§ 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.

§ 9.31.  SELF-DEFENSE.  (a)  Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. (b)  The use of force against another is not justified:                         (1)  in response to verbal provocation alone;                                 (2)  to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (3)  if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A)  the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and (B)  the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;  or (5)  if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A)  carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02;  or                   (B)  possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.     (c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:             (1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;   and (2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. (d)  The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. 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;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 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.

§ 9.41.  PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.  (a)  A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b)  A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1)  the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;  or (2)  the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

§ 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.

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!".

Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense

Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell

2.  Same situation as #1, but during daylight hours.

Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense

Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell

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

Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense

Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell
.

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 under any of the above-pertinent statutes.  

Reality- depends on how you tell the story to the LEOs and if there are witnesses.  Would look bad shooting someone in the back

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

Not justified

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

Not Justified

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

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

Not justified until he starts coming through your car with the tire iron- a reasonable person would leave the scene.

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

Not justified until he starts coming through your car with the tire iron

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

Not justified until he starts coming through your car with the tire iron

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

Not justified

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

Not justified

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

Justified- destruction of property,  reasonable belief that they are committing arson and . going to burn the home down.

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

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

Justified- 9.31, 9.32 & 9.33

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

Justified- 9.31, 9.32 & 9.33

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- A mere fist fight

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).

Might be justified

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.

Not Justified- call police & videotape the action.

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

Not justified

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

Justified by 9.43- stupid to do, but justified.

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

Qualified Not Justified- 9.42 might allow it- I don’t see this as clear cut.

22.  Same as #21 but at night.

Justified

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

Qualified Not Justified- 9.42 might allow it- at this point it can be argued that the theirf is hot-wiring the car.

24.  Same as #23 but at night.

Justified

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

Not justified

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

Not Justified

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

Qualified- Not justified

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

Qualified not justified

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

Justified

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.

Not Justified

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

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

Qualified- Justified- protection of property, criminal mischief in the night

Not justified if they can claim self defense from your dog’s attacking them

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

Qualified- Justified

Not justified if they can claim self defense from your dog’s attacking them

That said- I met a guy who came home from work early in Houston, TX, awoke to find a gentlemen of somewhat ethic persuasion in his back hall and he shot him in the chest with a 12ga.  No charges filed.

Can't remember if hte intruder had a knife or not.  I think he did.

Coz_45,

You are correct, BUT. .  . . that is not what the scenario states:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 under the applicable laws regarding self defense and use of deadly force.

If you add the following facts:

the guy reached through the window and grabs the driver and starts beating him

Then is becomes justified under the applicable laws cited in my post above.

damn, nice post sean.  That should be tacked as a Use of Deadly Force FAQ somewhere.

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! (RELOAD) Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! - in every situation

Quoted: A comment about number 6. I believe this is mentioned in Masaad Ayoob's book on carry concealed. A older gentleman was acquitted as a justifiable shooter in Texas (Dallas I think?), when a Samoan fellow got road rage and came to this older man's window of his car and started hitting him with just his bare fists. The old man was getting beat up and he fired on the Samoan, killing him. The justification was that he was in fear of his life, an older guy and the big ass Samoan was beating hell out him. Just an interesting case. Some of you might have heard of it.

I believe this was the very first CHL shooting to go to trial in Texas...

Quoted: Quoted: A comment about number 6. I believe this is mentioned in Masaad Ayoob's book on carry concealed. A older gentleman was acquitted as a justifiable shooter in Texas (Dallas I think?), when a Samoan fellow got road rage and came to this older man's window of his car and started hitting him with just his bare fists. The old man was getting beat up and he fired on the Samoan, killing him. The justification was that he was in fear of his life, an older guy and the big ass Samoan was beating hell out him. Just an interesting case. Some of you might have heard of it. I believe this was the very first CHL shooting to go to trial in Texas...

It was the first deadly encounter involving a CHL, but it did not go to trial, Hale was no billed, then sued into bankruptcy... The critical factor was not "in fear of his life", but that Tavai was choking Hale at the time Hale fired, this thus consitituted a deadly threat which allowed Hale to use deadly force.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A comment about number 6. I believe this is mentioned in Masaad Ayoob's book on carry concealed. A older gentleman was acquitted as a justifiable shooter in Texas (Dallas I think?), when a Samoan fellow got road rage and came to this older man's window of his car and started hitting him with just his bare fists. The old man was getting beat up and he fired on the Samoan, killing him. The justification was that he was in fear of his life, an older guy and the big ass Samoan was beating hell out him. Just an interesting case. Some of you might have heard of it. I believe this was the very first CHL shooting to go to trial in Texas... It was the first deadly encounter involving a CHL, but it did not go to trial, Hale was no billed, then sued into bankruptcy... The critical factor was not "in fear of his life", but that Tavai was choking Hale at the time Hale fired, this thus consitituted a deadly threat which allowed Hale to use deadly force.

who brought the civil suits......

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A comment about number 6. I believe this is mentioned in Masaad Ayoob's book on carry concealed. A older gentleman was acquitted as a justifiable shooter in Texas (Dallas I think?), when a Samoan fellow got road rage and came to this older man's window of his car and started hitting him with just his bare fists. The old man was getting beat up and he fired on the Samoan, killing him. The justification was that he was in fear of his life, an older guy and the big ass Samoan was beating hell out him. Just an interesting case. Some of you might have heard of it. I believe this was the very first CHL shooting to go to trial in Texas... It was the first deadly encounter involving a CHL, but it did not go to trial, Hale was no billed, then sued into bankruptcy... The critical factor was not "in fear of his life", but that Tavai was choking Hale at the time Hale fired, this thus consitituted a deadly threat which allowed Hale to use deadly force. who brought the civil suits......

Next of kin.

www.chron.com/content/chronicle/page1/96/03/21/nobill.html

Quoted: Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! (RELOAD) Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! - in every situation

Why dont you get rid of that sissy pistol, and get yourself a Glock?

Quoted: Quoted: Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! (RELOAD) Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! - in every situation Why dont you get rid of that sissy pistol, and get yourself a Glock?

I was wondering why he didn't top off the first mag.

My solution?  Shoot them all in the ass...

Quoted: Quoted: 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. I'm shooting for Center of Mass. If you pull the damn weapon and point it, that's deadly force, period end of story. I've been on juries that convicted people for Capital murder for carrying a firearm in a robbery in which someone was killed. He didn't even shoot the guy, but went to jail for life. So, if I follow your advice, I might as well just bend over and let the criminal do what he wants to me or whomever. I'd rather be judged by a juror that is NOT looking at some 20 year old gangbanger sitting there with one leg or one arm missing or some other debilitation.

Of course you shoot center mass.  But you use that force to STOP the other person, not kill him.  If he dies as a result of your force, then he brought it on.  But you don't shoot to kill.  Thats macho TV stuff that will see you bent over in prison, to use your expression.

I never gave you ANY advice that would keep you from using your force.  My intention is to show you that your intent in the result of that use of force is important.

Calm down.  

Quoted: A comment about number 6. I believe this is mentioned in Masaad Ayoob's book on carry concealed. A older gentleman was acquitted as a justifiable shooter in Texas (Dallas I think?), when a Samoan fellow got road rage and came to this older man's window of his car and started hitting him with just his bare fists. The old man was getting beat up and he fired on the Samoan, killing him. The justification was that he was in fear of his life, an older guy and the big ass Samoan was beating hell out him. Just an interesting case. Some of you might have heard of it.

Actually the justification was that he used deadly force to stop the imminent commission of deadly force being used against him, ie the smashing of his face by the Samoans fist.  

The victim was trapped in traffic and could not retreat either.  

Quoted: 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!". Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell  How about 9.42?       (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 2.  Same situation as #1, but during daylight hours. Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell  how about 9.42? 2a.  Same as #1, but the intruder is perhaps 12 years old. Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell  9.42? 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 under any of the above-pertinent statutes.   Reality- depends on how you tell the story to the LEOs and if there are witnesses.  Would look bad shooting someone in the back  9.42   Text     (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. 4.  Same as situation #3, but the intruder has made it to your front yard. Not justified  9.42? 11.  Someone is toilet papering a tree in your back yard at night. 12.  Someone is burning a cross on your lawn at night. Justified- destruction of property,  reasonable belief that they are committing arson and . going to burn the home down.  I say not enough info.  Is it a kid with a 2 foot tall cross, or a group of 3 hooded men with a 10 foot burning cross?  Just reasonable belief that they are committing the arson is not enough, you must reasonably believe that Deadly Force is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of that arson.   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  what about 9.42 or 9.32, to prevent the imminent commission of Robbery? 15.  Same as #13, but one youth has a knife in hand. Justified- 9.31, 9.32 & 9.33  Depends on many factors, but probably I agree. 22.  Same as #21 but at night. Justified  ONLY if you resaonably believe it was immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission.  Not allowable, but necessary.   23.  You open your door to see someone sitting in your car. 24.  Same as #23 but at night. Justified  no blanket justification.  WHat if it was a homeless person sleeping from the cold?  No crime there to justify the deadly force.  Thats why I so dislike these "blanket" questions and answers.   29.  You are in a convenience store, and witness someone at the cashier pointing a gun at the clerk. Justified

 At your trial, you discover it was a UC cop making a felony arrest on the clerk who was holding a gun on the UC cop that you could not see.  Uh oh.  

Quoted: A comment about number 6. I believe this is mentioned in Masaad Ayoob's book on carry concealed. A older gentleman was acquitted as a justifiable shooter in Texas (Dallas I think?), when a Samoan fellow got road rage and came to this older man's window of his car and started hitting him with just his bare fists. The old man was getting beat up and he fired on the Samoan, killing him. The justification was that he was in fear of his life, an older guy and the big ass Samoan was beating hell out him. Just an interesting case. Some of you might have heard of it.

Samoan, or Tongan?  I'll have to ask about that case.


ETA: Thanks for the link, frisco.

ETA2:  This

Hale, who works for a welding supply company, obtained one of the new concealed weapon permits because his job requires him to drive a truck carrying expensive equipment all over the Dallas area, according to his lawyer, Vincent W. Perini.

suggests that it was even an issue.  His atty either wanted to position him as one who only obtained this [at the time] novel "killing license" () out of a work necessity, or was forced to do so as a counter tactic.

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

 At your trial, you discover it was a UC cop making a felony arrest on the clerk who was holding a gun on the UC cop that you could not see.  Uh oh.  


Not at all.  The standard is reasonable.   Please read the law re defense of third persons.

If its a UC cop- I beleieve that he should ID himself when he draws down and make it known that he is an LEO

NO ID, then not a bad shoot.


No diffferencet that a LEO kicking in my front door w/o proper Identification- he is going to get lots of 6.8 or 5.56mm 77grn bullets shot at him until he ID's himself as an LEO.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 29.  You are in a convenience store, and witness someone at the cashier pointing a gun at the clerk. Justified  At your trial, you discover it was a UC cop making a felony arrest on the clerk who was holding a gun on the UC cop that you could not see.  Uh oh.   Not at all.  The standard is reasonable.   Please read the law re defense of third persons. If its a UC cop- I beleieve that he should ID himself when he draws down and make it known that he is an LEO NO ID, then not a bad shoot. No diffferencet that a LEO kicking in my front door w/o proper Identification- he is going to get lots of 6.8 or 5.56mm 77grn bullets shot at him until he ID's himself as an LEO.

 The issue is that it is not reasonable for you to  believe that your intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person when you have no knowledge of the encounter.  

And third party defense requires that you be protecting the third person from another's use or attempted use of UNLAWFUL deadly force.

That standard is not met in the described scenario in my opinion.  Its not black and white, a jury will decide if it is reasonable for the shooter to have believed as he did.  Thats again why I dont like absolute answers.

But I enjoyed looking at your answers.  If you look in my last post, you can see where I had other questions and suggestions about the answers you gave.  (My quoting was messed up though)  Again, my ideas are not absolutes, just food for thought and discussion.  

.

Quoted: <snip> That standard is not met in the described scenario in my opinion.  Its not black and white, a jury will decide if it is reasonable for the shooter to have believed as he did.  Thats again why I dont like absolute answers. <snip>

That's because:

"The law doesn't end with a period; rather, with a comma."

Sorry, just wanted to get that in there; in case my old b-law prof happens to be reading, I wanted to try and make the old coot proud.

Quoted:

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!".

Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell

 

How about 9.42?       (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

The fact pattern does not suggest anything more than what it says.  It says nothing about the bad actor doing any of the things listed under 9.42.  

"Just the facts mam, Just the facts"

2.  Same situation as #1, but during daylight hours.

Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell

 

how about 9.42?

Again- based on the facts above.  If you want to step onto the slippery slope, we can add lots of additional facts to make it fit 9.42- BUT, the facts given do not meet self defense or 9.42.  However, by adding any one of hte factors listed in 9.42- it would be justified.

HOWEVER- Once the guy puts his hands up and says don't shoot- DEADLY FORCE IS NOT JUSTIIFIED b/c he is not longer doing any of hte bad acts listed in 9.42 nor could he be engaging in that conduct with his hands up.  

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

Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell

 

9.42?

Still, one must stick to the facts- Age doesn't matter- the actions matter and the 12y/o has stopped and surrendered.  No one is an execution squad.

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 under any of the above-pertinent statutes.   Reality- depends on how you tell the story to the LEOs and if there are witnesses.  Would look bad shooting someone in the back

 

9.42   Text     (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.

Again, apply the facts to the statute that you quoted- where in the facts does it describe an act covered by 9.42?

You can't infer stuff into these situations- a handful of jewelry, bearer bonds, cash, rape of daughter (which is not covered in 9.42), whatever- it is not in the fact scenario

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

Not justified

 

9.42?

Again, apply 9.42 to the facts as described above.  It doesn't fit.

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

Justified- destruction of property,  reasonable belief that they are committing arson and . going to burn the home down.

 

I say not enough info.  Is it a kid with a 2 foot tall cross, or a group of 3 hooded men with a 10 foot burning cross?  Just reasonable belief that they are committing the arson is not enough, you must reasonably believe that Deadly Force is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of that arson.

I don't disagree with this statement- but you burn a cross in my front yard or my neioghbor's (who is black) and I figure that is a terroristic act and you will be dead as Fred!  I'll let a minority jury decide if they are cool aith Mo-Fo's buring crosses.  Also- a 2 foot cross can catch the grass on fire and burn your house down just as sure as a 10ft cross can do it.

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

 

what about 9.42 or 9.32, to prevent the imminent commission of Robbery?

Just the Facts- no weapons visible!  Verbal demand for money w/o a threat- how does that fit into the deadly force statutes anywhere?

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

Justified- 9.31, 9.32 & 9.33

 

Depends on many factors, but probably I agree.

21 foot rule- they are presumably inside it b/c they are talking to you & are d irect and immeidate threat.  If you retreated, it is reasonable to assume they would chase and stab you in the back.

That is hte basis for my determination re justifiability.

22.  Same as #21 but at night.

Justified

 ONLY if you resaonably believe it was immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission.  Not allowable, but necessary.  

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

24.  Same as #23 but at night.

Justified

 

no blanket justification.  WHat if it was a homeless person sleeping from the cold?  No crime there to justify the deadly force.  Thats why I so dislike these "blanket" questions and answers.

 

While I do agree with you in general on your answer-The standard is what a reasonable person would think.  Noone of hte deadly force statues impose a duty of investigation on the actor.  They impose a duty of reasonableness in their actions.

Case in point- Tow truck scumbag gets shot and dies while repoing a car.  No crimie invovled on the Tow truck drivers part.  It was reasonable for the actor to think that his car was being stolen.

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

Justified  

 At your trial, you discover it was a UC cop making a felony arrest on the clerk who was holding a gun on the UC cop that you could not see.  Uh oh.  


Again- what is a reasonable response-  If the LEO has Id'd himself and is waving a badge around- you would be fucked.


Also- none of these are slam dunks- but I think the comments are fair and reasonable.

Quoted: Quoted: 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!". Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell    How about 9.42?       (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 The fact pattern does not suggest anything more than what it says.  It says nothing about the bad actor doing any of the things listed under 9.42.   "Just the facts mam, Just the facts"

Sean, would the act of him breaking either your window glass or *into* your home NOT be criminal mischief?  Great Dragnet reference, BTW.  

2.  Same situation as #1, but during daylight hours. Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell   how about 9.42? Again- based on the facts above.  If you want to step onto the slippery slope, we can add lots of additional facts to make it fit 9.42- BUT, the facts given do not meet self defense or 9.42.  However, by adding any one of hte factors listed in 9.42- it would be justified. HOWEVER- Once the guy puts his hands up and says don't shoot- DEADLY FORCE IS NOT JUSTIIFIED b/c he is not longer doing any of hte bad acts listed in 9.42 nor could he be engaging in that conduct with his hands up.   2a.  Same as #1, but the intruder is perhaps 12 years old. Not Justified- Doesn't meet requriements of 9.31 self defense Reality- Probably depends on the story you tell   9.42? Still, one must stick to the facts- Age doesn't matter- the actions matter and the 12y/o has stopped and surrendered.  No one is an execution squad. 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 under any of the above-pertinent statutes.   Reality- depends on how you tell the story to the LEOs and if there are witnesses.  Would look bad shooting someone in the back   9.42   Text     (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. Again, apply the facts to the statute that you quoted- where in the facts does it describe an act covered by 9.42? You can't infer stuff into these situations- a handful of jewelry, bearer bonds, cash, rape of daughter (which is not covered in 9.42), whatever- it is not in the fact scenario

"to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing"
Not going one way or the other here, but how does a resident and/or property owner know that the intruder is NOT "fleeing immediately after committing" one of the acts in 9.42?

4.  Same as situation #3, but the intruder has made it to your front yard. Not justified   9.42? Again, apply 9.42 to the facts as described above.  It doesn't fit. 12.  Someone is burning a cross on your lawn at night. Justified- destruction of property,  reasonable belief that they are committing arson and . going to burn the home down.   I say not enough info.  Is it a kid with a 2 foot tall cross, or a group of 3 hooded men with a 10 foot burning cross?  Just reasonable belief that they are committing the arson is not enough, you must reasonably believe that Deadly Force is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of that arson.   I don't disagree with this statement- but you burn a cross in my front yard or my neioghbor's (who is black) and I figure that is a terroristic act and you will be dead as Fred!  I'll let a minority jury decide if they are cool aith Mo-Fo's buring crosses.  Also- a 2 foot cross can catch the grass on fire and burn your house down just as sure as a 10ft cross can do it. 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   what about 9.42 or 9.32, to prevent the imminent commission of Robbery? Just the Facts- no weapons visible!  Verbal demand for money w/o a threat- how does that fit into the deadly force statutes anywhere?

If they get your money, aren't you JUST AS ROBBED?  9.32 doesn't differentiate between robbery and aggravated robbery, right?

15.  Same as #13, but one youth has a knife in hand. Justified- 9.31, 9.32 & 9.33   Depends on many factors, but probably I agree. 21 foot rule- they are presumably inside it b/c they are talking to you & are d irect and immeidate threat.  If you retreated, it is reasonable to assume they would chase and stab you in the back. That is hte basis for my determination re justifiability. 22.  Same as #21 but at night. Justified  ONLY if you resaonably believe it was immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission.  Not allowable, but necessary.   23.  You open your door to see someone sitting in your car. 24.  Same as #23 but at night. Justified   no blanket justification.  WHat if it was a homeless person sleeping from the cold?  No crime there to justify the deadly force.  Thats why I so dislike these "blanket" questions and answers.   While I do agree with you in general on your answer-The standard is what a reasonable person would think.  Noone of hte deadly force statues impose a duty of investigation on the actor.  They impose a duty of reasonableness in their actions. Case in point- Tow truck scumbag gets shot and dies while repoing a car.  No crimie invovled on the Tow truck drivers part.  It was reasonable for the actor to think that his car was being stolen.  29.  You are in a convenience store, and witness someone at the cashier pointing a gun at the clerk. Justified    At your trial, you discover it was a UC cop making a felony arrest on the clerk who was holding a gun on the UC cop that you could not see.  Uh oh.   Again- what is a reasonable response-  If the LEO has Id'd himself and is waving a badge around- you would be fucked. Also- none of these are slam dunks- but I think the comments are fair and reasonable.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm shooting for Center of Mass. If you pull the damn weapon and point it, that's deadly force, period end of story. I've been on juries that convicted people for Capital murder for carrying a firearm in a robbery in which someone was killed. He didn't even shoot the guy, but went to jail for life. So, if I follow your advice, I might as well just bend over and let the criminal do what he wants to me or whomever. I'd rather be judged by a juror that is NOT looking at some 20 year old gangbanger sitting there with one leg or one arm missing or some other debilitation. Of course you shoot center mass.  But you use that force to STOP the other person, not kill him.  If he dies as a result of your force, then he brought it on.  But you don't shoot to kill.  Thats macho TV stuff that will see you bent over in prison, to use your expression. I never gave you ANY advice that would keep you from using your force.  My intention is to show you that your intent in the result of that use of force is important. Calm down.   Where did you get the "uncalm" from and the Macho TV comment? The shoot to kill comment came from my CHL instructor, not TV. Pony up the $ for a membership why dontcha before telling us to calm down...it's the Internet man, not a nationally televised debate. Your advice implied not to shoot to kill, which I argue that aiming center of mass with a pistol is a kill shot. Do you really only intend to stop them? By Stop, what do you mean? A shot to the spine, the heart, the lungs? A large artery? All shots to these areas are kill shots unless treated pretty soon after the wound. You're right, I'm not calm, it's been a long day already...I digress You're right I'm a fucking idiot I'll let my CHL expire and start carrying a taser

Oh calm down... and stop watching so much macho TV.  

That being said.... I do agree with txinvestigator.

I have taken the CHL course three times now (dont ask).  In all three course - the instructor was *very* clear.... you do NOT "shoot to kill"

I repeat - you do NOT "shoot to kill"

You shoot to stop.  You shoot to stop the threat.  You shoot to stop the threat from doing, whatever he/she was doing that prompted you to use deadly force.  Period.

This was reinforced in our heads, not because of the self defense tactical scenarios - but for the legal ones.  They were all very clear.... if you are questioned by the police (as you will be) you simply say nothing and wait for your lawyer... or you say, you shot to stop the threat.  You never use the term "shoot to kill" because that can and will be used against you.

Now - in your own mind... you may prefer to make sure anyone you shoot is dead, if it helps you in a legal battle later.... (a dead man cannot testifiy)  But this is your own personal decision.

I dont want to kill anyone.  I just want to be left alone.  If I have to use deadly force.... I absolutely dont want to "make sure they are dead"  I want to stop them from doing whatever it was they were doing that cause me to have to defend myself.  I absolutely hope they live though the experience.... because as I said, I dont want to kill anyone.  I just want them to leave me and my family alone.

COZ,

I don't know about you (or any of the rest of you yahoos), but when I want to stop a guy, I just shoot him in the hand.  Simple enough, with the appropriate training.

Bang!  If the BG has a gun or other weapon, it causes him to drop it.  If unarmed, they usually just stare at their hand in disbelief.  Then they run away.  We all go home safe (i.e. alive).



Jake.

P.S. What, you can't do that?


(I'm just clowning on everyone here, trying to lighten the mood a little)

I was always taught that you don't shoot to kill because of lawsuits, not because of police questioning. I learned that in the police academy 23 years ago and it still holds true today. If you have a lawful reason to justify deadly force, it doesn't change because of your choice of the words "kill" or "stop". A lawsuit however is a different issue.

My old partner shot and killed a guy a few years ago that was holding a gun to a woman's head. He was holding her hostage to escape from a burglary and sexual assault that he had just committed. From a legal standpoint, it was about as good of a justified shooting as you could ask for. My partner and the department were still sued for wrongful death. Juries tend to be very stupid at times and then your words can come back to haunt you. Therein lies the reason that most firearms instructors and CHL instructors will tell you that you shoot to stop, not to kill. If the suspect lives, great. If he dies, great. The only thing that matters is that you or your family come out unharmed.... and to use the politically correct words to help you in the lawsuit that is sure to follow.

Quoted:

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!".

Sean, would the act of him breaking either your window glass or *into* your home NOT be criminal mischief?  Great Dragnet reference, BTW.

Sure- breaking windows would certainly be criminal mischief- Breaking into the house would be burglary.  BUT . .  . that is not what the fact scenario says is happening.  It says that the Bad Guy has stopped and surrended.

My problem is that once the guy throws his hands up and says "Don't Shoot"- he has stopped committing ANY possible act that would give you a defense for killing him.

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

"to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing" Not going one way or the other here, but how does a resident and/or property owner know that the intruder is NOT "fleeing immediately after committing" one of the acts in 9.42?

Again- the fact scenario doesn't indicate that he is leaving with anything.  I would not shoot someone in the back without being able to articulate the basis for my reasonable belief that the dead guy had committed a crime that gave me a defense to killing him.

ALSO- you have failed to quote the ENTIRE Statute and therefore MISSED the MOST IMPORTANT section for your statement:

§ 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

This section puts several burdens on the homeowner-
9.41
Reasonable beleife that deadly force is necessary to prevent fleeing with property
& the property cannot be easily recovered by other means.

This means that the burden is on the homeowner to reasonably beleive that the perp has property- whioch is outside the fact pattern presented.

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

If they get your money, aren't you JUST AS ROBBED?  9.32 doesn't differentiate between robbery and aggravated robbery, right?

Again- stick with the facts- How are they going to get your money?  You may choose to give them your money- but you cannot kill someone for verbal provocaton alone.  

In my opinion- this fact scenario simply does not fall under the protection of the statute.  Shit-fire DUDE, I get lots of scumbag Mo-Fos demanding money form me everyday that I walk downtown.  Any one of them can be dangerous.  Some New Orleans Refugee knifed someone just down the street for not giving him money.

Quoted: I was always taught that you don't shoot to kill because of lawsuits, not because of police questioning.<snip>

But the plaintiff's atty can get a copy of the police report, your statement, etc.  So one *does* need to be cognizant of the answers they give to police questions/questioning *because of* lawsuits.


(not to mention the fact that, depending on where the incident transpires, and therefore, what the "State" believes regarding justifiable homicide, you may be charged with something/anything, whether it sticks or not.  does anyone think that morons like Rodney Ellis have *no pull whatsoever*?)

Quoted: Quoted: I was always taught that you don't shoot to kill because of lawsuits, not because of police questioning.<snip> But the plaintiff's atty can get a copy of the police report, your statement, etc.  So one *does* need to be cognizant of the answers they give to police questions/questioning *because of* lawsuits. (not to mention the fact that, depending on where the incident transpires, and therefore, what the "State" believes regarding justifiable homicide, you may be charged with something/anything, whether it sticks or not.  does anyone think that morons like Rodney Ellis have *no pull whatsoever*?)

When you speak to the police- AND GET THIS IN YOUR POINTY LITTLE HEADS- I got it in mine  . . .  . .

1.  I am really upset about this- I want to talk to my lawyer and friend so I can get my head straight.

2.  "I was afraid that he was going to kill me and my family"

3.  "I shot to stop him from killing me and my family"

4.  "He acted like he had a weapon"

5.  "He refused to  drop his weapon"

Thanks for the insight, Sean.  I guess I will concede the first point (hands up, no matter what he's already done [re the § under discussion here], means no justification to shoot).  I'm just having a tough time with it.

The second point (which was technically not my "point" or "belief," merely a postulate), however, I'd like to discuss a little further, if you don't mind.
• The question at hand isn't whether you (or I, for that matter) would shoot him; it's whether any given Texan would be justified under the law in doing so, in that particular situation.  (With what I know of the law at present, I probably wouldn't shoot him, either.  I'd just like to explore it a little more, though, while the discussion is ongoing.)
• I know the fact scenario doesn't indicate he was leaving with anything, but like you said in the 2nd to last post on pg.3: "None of the deadly force statues impose a duty of investigation on the actor. They impose a duty of reasonableness in their actions."  Would a given Texan be reasonable in assuming that a burglar(?) who was fleeing their home had property on him/her?  And especially if this given Texan "reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means"?
• I failed to quote the whole §, not because I was trying to be dishonest and intentionally omit anything, but because that was (or appeared to be) the only part of it under discussion in that scenario.

The third point......... well, let me ask another question first: Did the NOLA 'fugee brandish the knife before reaching the magical 21' perimeter, or only spring it on the poor, unsupecting sap at the last second?

Thanks,

Jake.

P.S. Remember, in each of these scenarios, we're not talking about you, not me, not "some arfcommer," not even a CHL holder (at least not neccessarily).  We're talking about "any given Texan" (presumably, a "reasonable person" ).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was always taught that you don't shoot to kill because of lawsuits, not because of police questioning.<snip> But the plaintiff's atty can get a copy of the police report, your statement, etc.  So one *does* need to be cognizant of the answers they give to police questions/questioning *because of* lawsuits. (not to mention the fact that, depending on where the incident transpires, and therefore, what the "State" believes regarding justifiable homicide, you may be charged with something/anything, whether it sticks or not.  does anyone think that morons like Rodney Ellis have *no pull whatsoever*?) When you speak to the police- AND GET THIS IN YOUR POINTY LITTLE HEADS- I got it in mine  . . .  . . 1.  I am really upset about this- I want to talk to my lawyer and friend so I can get my head straight. 2.  "I was afraid that he was going to kill me and my family" 3.  "I shot to stop him from killing me and my family" 4.  "He acted like he had a weapon" 5.  "He refused to  drop his weapon"

I agree, Sean.  That does pretty good job of covering an actor against any future civil and/or criminal charges (at least as best as can be expected at the time).

Quoted:

Thanks for the insight, Sean.  I guess I will concede the first point (hands up, no matter what he's already done [re the § under discussion here], means no justification to shoot).  I'm just having a tough time with it.

Its a tough subject.

The second point (which was technically not my "point" or "belief," merely a postulate), however, I'd like to discuss a little further, if you don't mind.

Lets talk.

• The question at hand isn't whether you (or I, for that matter) would shoot him; it's whether any given Texan would be justified under the law in doing so, in that particular situation.  (With what I know of the law at present, I probably wouldn't shoot him, either.  I'd just like to explore it a little more, though, while the discussion is ongoing.)

Good choice- hard to defend either in a criminal trial or a civil trial.

• I know the fact scenario doesn't indicate he was leaving with anything, but like you said in the 2nd to last post on pg.3: "None of the deadly force statues impose a duty of investigation on the actor. They impose a duty of reasonableness in their actions."

Reasonableness is hte standard and a jury question

Would a given Texan be reasonable in assuming that a burglar(?) who was fleeing their home had property on him/her?  And especially if this given Texan "reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means"?

That is the standard- The actor must be able to articulate the factors that make his actions reasonable to avoid prodecution.

• I failed to quote the whole §, not because I was trying to be dishonest and intentionally omit anything, but because that was (or appeared to be) the only part of it under discussion in that scenario.

No worries

The third point......... well, let me ask another question first: Did the NOLA 'fugee brandish the knife before reaching the magical 21' perimeter, or only spring it on the poor, unsupecting sap at the last second?

My understanding was that is was all w/in the 21ft rule- but your in a catch 22 here.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> <snip> My understanding was that is was all w/in the 21ft rule- but your in a catch 22 here.

So, one more time for the slow kid in class.........?

The NOLA 'fugee did not present/brandish said knife (deadly weapon) within a reasonable distance (std should be "time," not "distance," but that's a whole other can o' worms) for the vic to be expected [to be able to] retreat?

IOW, he got close (within 21', let's say) to the dead guy before brandishing his knife?

basically- correct


Its a catch 22- are you going to draw down on everyone within a 21ft circle of you that you have words with?

Kind of like Reducto with his shrink gun in "Harvey Birdman-Attorney at Law" on the cartoon network?


See the problem?  It truly is a catch 22- that's why yo have to be ready and bable to draw and shoot and scuffle within a 21ft. circle.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm shooting for Center of Mass. If you pull the damn weapon and point it, that's deadly force, period end of story. I've been on juries that convicted people for Capital murder for carrying a firearm in a robbery in which someone was killed. He didn't even shoot the guy, but went to jail for life. So, if I follow your advice, I might as well just bend over and let the criminal do what he wants to me or whomever. I'd rather be judged by a juror that is NOT looking at some 20 year old gangbanger sitting there with one leg or one arm missing or some other debilitation. Of course you shoot center mass.  But you use that force to STOP the other person, not kill him.  If he dies as a result of your force, then he brought it on.  But you don't shoot to kill.  Thats macho TV stuff that will see you bent over in prison, to use your expression. I never gave you ANY advice that would keep you from using your force.  My intention is to show you that your intent in the result of that use of force is important. Calm down.   Where did you get the "uncalm" from and the Macho TV comment? The shoot to kill comment came from my CHL instructor, not TV. Pony up the $ for a membership why dontcha before telling us to calm down...it's the Internet man, not a nationally televised debate. Your advice implied not to shoot to kill, which I argue that aiming center of mass with a pistol is a kill shot. Do you really only intend to stop them? By Stop, what do you mean? A shot to the spine, the heart, the lungs? A large artery? All shots to these areas are kill shots unless treated pretty soon after the wound. You're right, I'm not calm, it's been a long day already...I digress You're right I'm a fucking idiot I'll let my CHL expire and start carrying a taser

You do need to calm down.  I never said to not shoot center mass, or not to shoot the Bad Guy in a location that could not kill him.  You are taught to shoot center mass.  But your purpose of doing so is to make him stop.  If he dies as a result, then he dies.  However, 85% of people shot with handguns survive.  If you shoot him and he does not die, but falls down and stops trying to assault you, are you going to go over and finish him off?  If you really "shoot to kill" then you would have to do that.  

And from what planet would a person imagine that I would have to pay to be able to comment and use these forums?  

Calm Down Francises!

Man- everyone gets sand in their manginas so easily around here.

I shot him until he stopped being a threat.

Quoted: Quoted: I was always taught that you don't shoot to kill because of lawsuits, not because of police questioning.<snip> But the plaintiff's atty can get a copy of the police report, your statement, etc.  So one *does* need to be cognizant of the answers they give to police questions/questioning *because of* lawsuits.

That is exactly the point that I thought I made. I agree that you shoot to stop the threat. I just don't think that you do it to satisfy a police officer but rather for the lawsuit that is sure to follow.

In the Texas Penal Code, whether you shot to wound, kill or whatever is of no consequence. If you shoot a person in the chest and he dies, your intent does not matter. Texas law does not require you to intentionally kill someone to commit murder. You have to be able to justify your reason for pulling the trigger and the word "stop" just doesn't do it. If you have a justifiable reason under Texas law, and there are a few good reasons, then you are okay.

Anyone that thinks you can justify killing a person by just stating the words "I shot to STOP the guy" instead of "I shot to KILL they guy" is mistaken. In either case, you have admitted to shooting the person and not by accident. Your intent to kill, wound or stop has no bearing legally as far as murder charges being filed. The facts and circumstances that led up to the decision to shoot does matter.

Quoted: That is exactly the point that I thought I made. I agree that you shoot to stop the threat.

Maybe you did, maybe you didn't- its its unclear who made what points.I think that was the point.

I just don't think that you do it to satisfy a police officer but rather for the lawsuit that is sure to follow.

I disagree- It is for both reasons.  Namely perception of the investigating LEOs & the Grand Jury if the case is presented to one.  Statements also go toward culpability:
CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY
SECTION 6.01. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION
SECTION 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY
SECTION 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES
SECTION 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS

In the Texas Penal Code, whether you shot to wound, kill or whatever is of no consequence.

I also disagree- this issue could go to the flavor of the homicide-
CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
SECTION 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
SECTION 19.02. MURDER
SECTION 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER
SECTION 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER
SECTION 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE

If you shoot a person in the chest and he dies, your intent does not matter.

I disagree- Intent always matters- Culpability  & the flavor of the murder charge

§ 6.03.  DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.  

(a)  A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b)  A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the
circumstances exist.  A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c)  A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.  The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d)  A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.  The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

And Causation:

§ 6.04.  CAUSATION:  CONDUCT AND RESULTS.  

(a)  A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient
to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient.

(b)  A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that:

(1)  a different offense was committed;  or                                  

(2)  a different person or property was injured,
harmed, or otherwise affected.

Texas law does not require you to intentionally kill someone to commit murder.

Again- This is incorrect.  Mental state- culpability is a requirement of 99% of the crimes- Speeding is one of the few exceptions.

Lets take this opportunity to examine Criminal homicide aka Murder and manslaughter in the Great State of Texas:

§ 19.01.  TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.  

(a)  A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.

(b)  Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

§ 19.02.  MURDER.  

(b)  A person commits an offense if he:                                        

(1)  intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;          

(2)  intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;  or

(c)  Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d)  At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause.  If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

I am omitting the capital murder statute for discussion purposes

§ 19.04.  MANSLAUGHTER.  

(a)  A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

(b)  An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.        

§ 19.05.  CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE.  

(a)  A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b)  An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

You have to be able to justify your reason for pulling the trigger and the word "stop" just doesn't do it.

True- but "stopping someone" sounds better than saying that you "shot to kill" & that goes into generating a particular interpretation of the facts.  The facts & the interpretation of the facts drive the decision to charge or not to charge.

If you have a justifiable reason under Texas law, and there are a few good reasons, then you are okay.

True- but the color of the investigation and the subsequent interpretation of the facts by the investigating officers will often determine what happens with the case- referral to a grand jury or no referral.

Anyone that thinks you can justify killing a person by just stating the words "I shot to STOP the guy" instead of "I shot to KILL they guy" is mistaken.

Absolutely true.  This is a fact driven investigation- but stopping v. killing go to the actor's frame of mind.

In either case, you have admitted to shooting the person and not by accident.

True- you are admitting to shooting someone & thereby taking away one defense.

Your intent to kill, wound or stop has no bearing legally as far as murder charges being filed. The facts and circumstances that led up to the decision to shoot does matter.

Very True.  But, once again, you have to choose the right frame of mind to help color the way the facts are interpreted- namely, you awant the investigating officers to be looking at the facts in a self defense framework.

As you can see above- the actor's mental state drives teh criminal charges and the actor's mental state is inferred from the facts surrounding the case.

How are the facts interpreted?

By statements made by the actor- "I shot to kill" allows/directs the LEO/DA/grand jury/jury to frame his conclusion based on his investigation of hte facts in one light.

"I shot to stop" allows and directs the investigating officer/DA/Grand Jury/Jury  to view the facts in a differnent light.

The basic facts are going to be whatever the basic facts are.

1.  Actor holding a gun
2.  A dead body
3.  Witnesses- maybe
4.  Actor saying that he killed the deadman b/c deadman was doing something very bad
5.  Physical evidence from the crime scene that, we hope, verify's the actor's description of the events.

Can anyone see how the actor's statment- "I shot to Kill the deadman" may have a completely different effect on the way the facts are viewed than the statement "I shot to stop the deadman".

I think it goes to the actors frame of mind and it certainly sounds better when you are talking to a LEO in person and to the /DA/Grand Jury/Jury through the statrement that you made.


Anyway- maybe I am simply too paranoid.

Quoted: Quoted: That is exactly the point that I thought I made. I agree that you shoot to stop the threat. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't- its its unclear who made what points.I think that was the point. I just don't think that you do it to satisfy a police officer but rather for the lawsuit that is sure to follow. I disagree- It is for both reasons.  Namely perception of the investigating LEOs & the Grand Jury if the case is presented to one.  Statements also go toward culpability: CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY SECTION 6.01. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION SECTION 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY SECTION 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES SECTION 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS <snip>

Thanks.  You put it much better than I did.

tvc, what SC just posted was a more thorough explanation of what I was trying to say in the parenthetic comment from the same post that you left out when you quoted me:

Quoted: <snip> (not to mention the fact that, depending on where the incident transpires, and therefore, what the "State" believes regarding justifiable homicide, you may be charged with something/anything, whether it sticks or not. does anyone think that morons like Rodney Ellis have *no pull whatsoever*?)

Jake.

Uh Yeah- NEXT QUESTION Please

Quoted: (my lawyer) "drives either a miata or a blazer"

SC-Texas drives a miata?  Awesome!

It all depends on the mission requirements and the loadout!

Quoted: It all depends on the mission requirements and the loadout! www.atomiclabrat.com/images/5200%20rnds%20Q3131A.bmp www.atomiclabrat.com/images/July%20Impact%20Zone-Brother%20in%20Law/02-Miata-Loaded.JPG www.atomiclabrat.com/images/July%20Impact%20Zone-Brother%20in%20Law/03-Table.JPG www.atomiclabrat.com/images/2005%20December-%20New%20Years%20Eve%20Machinegun%20Shoot/1-2005%20NYE%20shoot.JPG

Awesome.  I have always wanted one of those cars... since they came out in '88.  I check them out at every auto show.  I finally meet a male owner who isnt gay.