That would depend on whether the defender is close enough to have the option of taking him down before the BG could draw, or whether he has to be dealt with from a distance. The second case is self explanatory.pbwalker wrote:I don't think the question has been answered yet (aside from the snarky comment) but in this situation, if you see a guy doing this exact thing and you stop him, what is the likelihood of a no-bill? I know what the law says, and I *believe* it would be a no-bill, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of the LEO's and Lawyers on this one.
ETA: For those who are saying they'd be down (floored, horizontal, eating pavement, prone'd out, etc.) does this mean with a pulse or not?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “This idiot is lucky he didn't get killed! what do u think?”
- Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:51 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: This idiot is lucky he didn't get killed! what do u think?
- Replies: 60
- Views: 7242
Re: This idiot is lucky he didn't get killed! what do u thi
- Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:59 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: This idiot is lucky he didn't get killed! what do u think?
- Replies: 60
- Views: 7242
Re: This idiot is lucky he didn't get killed! what do u thi
Remember the standard is what a reasonable man would perceive and do under the circumstances. From the situation as described, there would be no way for a reasonable man who observed it to tell it wasn't a robbery, and every reason to believe it was with an innocent life in immediate danger.RoyGBiv wrote:So if I'm standing behind him on line and I overhear these threats...
And I see a "bulge" and his hand in his coat...
And I draw and fire.... injuring the guy, or worse..
Standing behind him in line, it's likely the entry wound would be in his back.
What's the likelihood of a "No-Bill".?
PC §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 the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
I'm with Gigag04 - the idiot who started out vertical would have become horizontal in a hurry.