TexasCHLforum.com

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?

Excaliber wrote:

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;

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.

I'm with Gigag04 - the idiot who started out vertical would have become horizontal in a hurry.

PC §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.