Dallas Morning News 11/11/05

[Kyle Brown]

We are all proud of her and what she did, and as I understand it the NRA called her and wants to do a story on her.
Now for an interesting question: as I understand it, she shot through the door as he was leaving and caught him in the leg. Since he was in "retreat" mode, can she get in trouble?? Just wondering... I may need to know someday....

Jim

Chapter 9, Texas Penal Code



§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.


Text
§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.

A person fleeing is not in the imminent commission of one of those crimes, nor is he using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force.



§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.

Unless he was fleeing with property she can't claim defense of property.

Now don't get me wrong, I am in support of this woman, but if she keeps talking its going to cause her problems.......

I read exactly what you wrote..."Unless he was fleeing with property she can't claim defense of property." I responded and said you ignored her right to prevent the imminent commission..." You now say you addressed that part of the statute. Where???

[Kyle Brown]

Now don't get me wrong, I am in support of this woman, but if she keeps talking its going to cause her problems.......

Yep. She is talking to much. She might not get charged, but a civil suit is sure to follow. Shooting him in the leg did not help much either, a COP would have unloaded a mag into him and killed him and kept his mouth shut. She needs to get her story straight, and in line with the above penal code.

No, a cop would not have "unloaded a mag into him" I know, I was one.

If you use Deadly Force you should just plan on getting sued. That would be the least of my worries. My concern is being indicted and convicted.

I have, numerous times on other forums including most recently on Glock Talk, if anyone could point me to specific instances in which a Texas resident and/or a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Texas, has been sued in civil court after his/her use of deadly force.

Now, you and Renegade feel such law suits are something that the shooter should plan on and further more, you stated that by and though my questioning of your statement, I display my lack of understanding of "DF" shootings.

So, if I am uninformed, please lead me to specific cases wherein such suits have been filed. Just give me the attorney's name on either side and I will take it from there. I think the certainty of such law suits is an urban ledgend.

[Renegade]

I have, numerous times on other forums including most recently on Glock Talk, if anyone could point me to specific instances in which a Texas resident and/or a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Texas, has been sued in civil court after his/her use of deadly force.

Hale was sued, the Houston guy who killed repo man was sued. I imagine most cases are settled out of court, that is what I would do.

EDIT ADD:

The bottom line is, when there is a death, there is a suit. This is America after all. Dallas just paid off $800,000 to someone who died in police custody. Just about everyone who has died of LVNR or Tazer has had a settlement. Doesn't matter if Police or non police.

[Kantishna]

Woe im...Woe is me....The sky is falling. Heaven help the poor lady what did this bad thing! She must be a evil person...or least dim witted to not realize she is going to loose all her worldy goods and be forced to get a very short haircut. The UN is looking into the matter...she is in big trouble for sure!!!!

[txinvestigator]

Now don't get me wrong, I am in support of this woman, but if she keeps talking its going to cause her problems.......

Yep. She is talking to much. She might not get charged, but a civil suit is sure to follow. Shooting him in the leg did not help much either, a COP would have unloaded a mag into him and killed him and kept his mouth shut. She needs to get her story straight, and in line with the above penal code.

No, a cop would not have "unloaded a mag into him" I know, I was one.

If you use Deadly Force you should just plan on getting sued. That would be the least of my worries. My concern is being indicted and convicted.

I have, numerous times on other forums including most recently on Glock Talk, if anyone could point me to specific instances in which a Texas resident and/or a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Texas, has been sued in civil court after his/her use of deadly force.

Now, you and Renegade feel such law suits are something that the shooter should plan on and further more, you stated that by and though my questioning of your statement, I display my lack of understanding of "DF" shootings.

So, if I am uninformed, please lead me to specific cases wherein such suits have been filed. Just give me the attorney's name on either side and I will take it from there. I think the certainty of such law suits is an urban ledgend.

Kyle,

The first case of a CHL holder using deadly force in Texas occurred in 1996 in Dallas, TX. The shooter was no-billed by a Grand Jury; however, he was sued by the family of the guy who was shot.

I will try to find something in writing for you......

[txinvestigator]

We are all proud of her and what she did, and as I understand it the NRA called her and wants to do a story on her.
Now for an interesting question: as I understand it, she shot through the door as he was leaving and caught him in the leg. Since he was in "retreat" mode, can she get in trouble?? Just wondering... I may need to know someday....

Jim

Chapter 9, Texas Penal Code



§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.


Text
§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.

A person fleeing is not in the imminent commission of one of those crimes, nor is he using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force.



§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.

Unless he was fleeing with property she can't claim defense of property.

Now don't get me wrong, I am in support of this woman, but if she keeps talking its going to cause her problems.......

I read exactly what you wrote..."Unless he was fleeing with property she can't claim defense of property." I responded and said you ignored her right to prevent the imminent commission..." You now say you addressed that part of the statute. Where???

I can't help you if you can't comprehend normal English. The very first section of the Penal Code I quoted dealt with protection of persons. My comment was that IF he was fleeing when he was shot, he was NOT in the imminent commission of one of those crimes.

[CaptDave]

Real basically, the use of deadly force in Texas is justified when one's life is in immediate danger.
as in:

Subch. C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
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 he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful
force.

Note: "...is immediatley necessary to ..." because the attorney sueing you
is going to notice it.

Once that threat has de-escalated ie: the bad guy see's your gun, drops his gun and raises his hands - the immediate threat to your life is now over. You cannot legally shoot him and claim lawful self defense.
Like maybe, for instance, he turns and goes out the door (no immediate threat to you) and you shoot through the door....

Remember a CHL only gives you the right to carry. It DOES NOT give you the right to USE IT. Texas law governs the use deadly force.

And if you notice a lot of the laws read "it is a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION IF..."

as in :
PC §9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution
that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.
Read: you will most likely get charged and possibly prosecuted. If so, your actions (if legal) will be justified in defense of yourself.

Here's another good one:

PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is
justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for
the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

ie: You get off legally on the criminal prosecution, but the family comes after you in a civil action because their brother, son, etc., was a good person and just happened to be where he was doing what he was doing, (trying to kill you) but it wasn't his fault and he'd never been in trouble, and all those arrests and jail terms he had served were all due to "The Man" being "down on him"..., etc.
That's where the big bucks can start adding up.

Actually Florida recently passed a new law that states if one is acquitted against criminal charges stemming from a self defense shooting, then they cannot be prosecuted in a civil suit. A Big Pat On The Back for Florida. Hopefully, Texas is not far behind on enacting this one for us.

I had a lot more to say, but I decided to edit .

Then, I decided not to:

Bottom line: You Do Not want to have to shoot anybody.
A lot of people, especially - on other boards- talk about how they'd drop the hammer on someone so fast and spout all this macho stuff without realizing just exactly how big a problem they will have if in fact they really do have to use deadly force. That is why places like Thunder Ranch go over de-escalation and avoiding the fight in the first place.
Clint Smith said he doesn't wear a gun because he thinks there will be a gunfight. If he thinks there's gonna be a gunfight where he's going he wouldn't go there in the first place. He wears a gun in casethere is a situation that arises where in needs to defend himself or his family.

Avoiding is A LOT CHEAPER than defending yourself in a lawsuit.

Don't think since you shot and killed someone in self defense because there was no other course of action to take, that everyone else (a jury) is going to see it the same way.
Add the proctological exam you can get from the D.A. if everything little thing about the case doesn't add up and the world as you know it can start to look kinda shakey. And in a shooting there's gonna be a lot of adding. From how it started to what various "witnesses" saw and heard to how you ended it including each and every one of your shots, why you fired them and where each one of them went and it can go downhill real fast from there.

Ok, now, I'll stop,

[Kyle Brown]

We are all proud of her and what she did, and as I understand it the NRA called her and wants to do a story on her.
Now for an interesting question: as I understand it, she shot through the door as he was leaving and caught him in the leg. Since he was in "retreat" mode, can she get in trouble?? Just wondering... I may need to know someday....

Jim

Chapter 9, Texas Penal Code



§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.


Text
§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.

A person fleeing is not in the imminent commission of one of those crimes, nor is he using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force.



§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.

Unless he was fleeing with property she can't claim defense of property.

Now don't get me wrong, I am in support of this woman, but if she keeps talking its going to cause her problems.......

I read exactly what you wrote..."Unless he was fleeing with property she can't claim defense of property." I responded and said you ignored her right to prevent the imminent commission..." You now say you addressed that part of the statute. Where???

I can't help you if you can't comprehend normal English. The very first section of the Penal Code I quoted dealt with protection of persons. My comment was that IF he was fleeing when he was shot, he was NOT in the imminent commission of one of those crimes.

My comprehension skills are outstanding, thank you. Have yours been tested???

I would appreciate any information you could pass along re the first shooting in your area. I have heard civil action followed the shooting but as of yet no one has been able to furnish the name of an attorney on eiither side of the matter. Again, any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. I have researched this "civil action" question for several years now to no avail.

Civil actions have never been inexpensive. Unless the person sued has adequate assets (deeper than the average pocket), the whole exercise is fruitless, so to speak.

Now, in re the granny shooting in your area. The article clearly states she found this man in her hall closet at 1AM. There was no mention of his fleeing. His grabbing her gun is very significant. Do you believe that, if in fact he did attempt to flee, that he is protected from her use of deadly force under the statute you quoted? Do you believe that, if in fact he was attempting to flee, her use of deadly force is prohibited under the statue you quoted?