TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator

kauboy wrote:I thought that might be the answer, and I'm curious to know something further.

If he used my gun to commit another crime, could I be held liable by any means?

Criminally, no. Civilly, that is a matter of fact for a judge or jury to decide if you were sued.

txinvestigator

kauboy wrote:Agreed!

But here's a good hypothetical to grind your gears on.

If this same situation takes place, but as in my instance on the first page, the thief takes your gun, would it be justifiable to shoot him?
Same time of day, same non-assaulting act. It is still only a theft committed during the day. But now, he has a deadly weapon... YOURS. And he is hot-footing it for all he is worth in the opposite direction. If 3(b) is now met, but not 2, is it justifiable to shoot him with your backup?

You are not justified to use deadly force to recover property taken from a theft during the day. Period. There is no provision for what type of property is taken.

And the justification for using deadly force to recover property is either 9.42 (A) OR (B). Both don't have to be met.

TPC
Â§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:

(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.

txinvestigator

gregthehand wrote:
NguyenVanDon wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:As TX stated, robbery is a combination of two other crimes. A shorthand version is robbery is theft plus assault.

Chas.
Same scenerio on the first page:

It's 2pm. Outside the grocery store. The guy runs and Tackles me on the floor, takes my wallet, got up, and started running.

Am allowed to shoot him?
Nothing really has changed, it's still just robbery, not ag robbery. Plus the fight is over, he's running away.

Robbery is listed as one of the crimes deadly force is justified to prevent if the other requirements are met, and DF is also justified to prevent a person from fleeing with your property after committing a robbery, if the other conditions are met.

txinvestigator

NguyenVanDon wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:As TX stated, robbery is a combination of two other crimes. A shorthand version is robbery is theft plus assault.

Chas.
Same scenerio on the first page:

It's 2pm. Outside the grocery store. The guy runs and Tackles me on the floor, takes my wallet, got up, and started running.

Am allowed to shoot him?

NO. You MIGHT be justified under Texas law, but the lawful use of deadly force is a defense to prosecution. (Not a defense from prosecution) If you met all of the requirements of penal 9..42 and can establish reasonable doubt on the issue, you could be found not guilty of charged.

I am not saying you definately would be charged, but you certainly could be.

Â§9.02. Justification as a defense.

It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is
justified under this chapter.

Â§2.03. Defense.

(a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is
so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the
existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the
offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted
to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted
to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the
issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.

READ section 9.

txinvestigator

NguyenVanDon wrote: It is 12:30am at night. You're traveling from Dallas to Houston. You decided to pull over to the nearest gas station and refill. As you are refilling your gas, you see in a distant 3 males walking towards you. They have not done or said anything to you, but yet you expect they are a threat to you. They are getting closer about 25 feet away from you. By using only Force, not Deadly Force, are you allowed to draw your weapon out to just stop them from getting closer to you?

Class: No.

CHL Instructor: Yes you can.

He told the class he done this before. He has got off the hook plenty of times doing this.
Is he wrong or right for doing this?

Your instructor, pardon me for being blunt, is a knucklhead. IF you had warned these 3 males several times VERBALLY first, and they continued to approach, then producing a weapon could be appropriate. It is called escalation of force. It is called the force continuum. Again, read chapter 9 and tell me where in there 3 guys walking up to you justify producing your handgun as a FIRST resort.

txinvestigator

nuparadigm wrote:
NguyenVanDon wrote: Lets use the same situation what I wrote on the first page. WITHOUT using Deadly Force, am I'm able to draw my gun out and just use Force? All I want is to scare my victim so he can drop my wallet and run away. Am I'm allowed to do that?
If you would be justified in firing your weapon, then you would be justified in displaying your weapon. Any other situation would probably be considered "brandishing" the thing.
Not true. There is no brandishing in Texas. As in my above post, Texas law specifically states that there is a justification for displaying the weapon in specific circumstances.

I echo the thoughts of others (above). Think very hard about your proposed scenario: As our laws stand right now, scaring the perpetrator, when your life or the life of an innocent 3rd party is not in danger, is no justification for using your weapon

That's not necessarily true either.

txinvestigator

glocklvr wrote: If I am not mistaken the penal code prohibits you from displaying your gun unless you are justified in using it (I would have to double check) and anytime you pull your gun out it is considered deadly force. .

Incorrect.

Chapter 9 states that "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.

txinvestigator

NguyenVanDon wrote:
jhutto wrote:I believe pulling the gun out is a bad idea. Force is beating the guy with your fists.. No pulling your gun. Don't pull your gun if your not justified and ready to use it.
Here's the thing. The way I was taught by my instructor is that...

If I felt threaten and afraid of my life, I am able to draw my weapon and use force. Once the situation settled, I have to dial 911 immediately. Give a report that I am a CHL holder. Some random male ran and snatched my wallet out my hand. I drew my weapon because I was I felt threaten and I was afraid for my life. I used Force to make him drop my wallet, but will not shoot the guy for any reason, unless he drew a weapon at me.

Would that consider to be a legal situation by pulling my gun out if I reported to the cops right then and there?

I want you to read here http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.doc

and then justify your pulling your gun on a guy who "snatches" your wallet and runs away.

We can only have a good discussion once you actually know the law.

txinvestigator

NguyenVanDon wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
NguyenVanDon wrote:This is great info you guys are giving. So basically there is 2 side on this, but shooting the guy in broad daylight when he running away with my wallet is a NO. And yeah, I do not have 50k to spare on court, bail, and any other extra expenses.

But I am still confused though. It said in reasons if I believe my wallet would not be recovered at all, then I can shoot the guy still?
NOT DURING THE DAY.
Sweet...Thanks.

Night = Yes
Daytime = No

Actually, night= maybe, and a whole other discussion.

txinvestigator

NguyenVanDon wrote:This is great info you guys are giving. So basically there is 2 side on this, but shooting the guy in broad daylight when he running away with my wallet is a NO. And yeah, I do not have 50k to spare on court, bail, and any other extra expenses.

But I am still confused though. It said in reasons if I believe my wallet would not be recovered at all, then I can shoot the guy still?

NOT DURING THE DAY.

txinvestigator

mbw wrote:Txinvestigator- You are probably correct for the wrong reason. The phrase "Theft during the nightime" is a seperate crime, not a condition that applies to the rest of the statue.

The problem that he would have is section 3-

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.

No, you can only use deadly force to prevent the other from escaping with property taken from a theft during the nighttime, not daytime theft.

Once you have theft during the nighttime, then 3) applies.

txinvestigator

kauboy wrote:Just curious TXI, what constitutes theft as opposed to robbery? What is the difference? If theft must happen "during the nighttime" as stated in the law, what would make it all out robbery?

A theft becomes a robbery when the offender, during the commission of the theft, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

The is a former Dallas area Securty Guard who is in prison today because he shot and killed a teen who was fleeing after the guard believed the teen had stolen something from a store.

BTW, theft from a person is a felony.

This is why I tell students; if you are willing to use deadly force to protect stuff, you better study the penal code some. Those listed crimes have definitions.

txinvestigator

glocklvr wrote:Legaly yes you can shoot to recover property but moraly are you willing to take a human life over a few dollars.

gregthehand wrote:Remember you can only use deadly force to protect property that can not be replaced

kauboy wrote:Â§ 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.

Straight from the Penal Code.
If 3(a) or 3(b) are not met, you CANNOT SHOOT!!!
We don't get to pick and choose which sections of the law we want to follow.
If you shoot a fleeing suspect while he is no longer a threat to you or anyone else(threat being defined here as capable of deadly force) and he is only in possession of easily recoverable items, you will be prosecuted and spend a long time in a concrete box.

Now, conversely, if he stole your gun (because he saw a flash of it in the store, or whatever) and was fleeing with it, YES you would be completely justified in shooting him with your backup.(you do have a backup, right) This is allowed because he now meets 3(b) and is a deadly threat to society, and he has YOUR GUN. You are responsible for that gun and he may cause great harm with it. It would then be your duty to ensure that he cannot do so.

Oh boy, this scares me. Snatching your wallet from your hand is a theft.

According to the law, as kauboy pointed out, deadly force is justified to protect property when and to the degree you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent theft during the nighttime. Two o'clock in the afternoon is not nighttime.

You cannot use deadly force to prevent him from escaping with the property FOR ANY REASON as the theft did not occur during the nighttime.

So, in response to NguyenVanDon,

Am I'm allowed to shoot the guy? or no?

NO!!!

Search found 13 matches