TexasCHLforum.com

I was reading a story on another forum were a guy was robbed at gun point. All the bad guy got was 13 dollars and pocket knife but the question is would you be justified in what SEC 9.42 says about deadly force shooting him as he ran away from you? I hope I'm never put in this postion. Not sure it would be worth shooting someone over 13 dollars and a knife but other side of me says he need to be taken out so that he doesnt do this again. This was at night.

Sec. 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.

...both from what you quoted and the self-defense deadly force laws, you would be legally justified in stopping an armed robber still armed fleeing the scene of the robbery...if you so choose...

"As I raised my weapon and fired the BG made a turn to run away".

As he's running away say something about his Mother so he has to turn around then take the shot!

snack wrote:... but other side of me says he need to be taken out so that he doesnt do this again. This was at night.

This is probably not a good reason to shoot someone. We CHL holders are not judge nor jury. Shooting slimeballs to protect ourselves and is a good good idea, to get a wallet with the IDs back might be worthy, but to get back $13.00 and a penknife, or for revenge doesn'ty seem prudent, even if it may be legal.

Several forum members carry a "throw-down" wallet exactly for this purpose. Only you can be the judge of whether or not it is worth shooting and possibly killing someone over property. I would submit that the determination should be made based more on how much of a threat is presented to your life rather than to your property. You may defend your property with deadly force in Texas, but I'm personally not willing to risk killing someone over $13.00. However, as the value of the property goes up, the opposite becomes increasingly true. I've never carried this much money, but if I had $50,000 in cash on my person, I might resort to deadly force. Property is often recoverable or insured. Credit cards can be canceled and checks voided. Cash, not so much.

Liberty wrote:

snack wrote:... but other side of me says he need to be taken out so that he doesnt do this again. This was at night.

This is probably not a good reason to shoot someone.

It's a very good reason but not one you should tell the police.

If they took my wallet the joke would be on them since It's empty. I normally only carry enough loose cash for lunch.

the thing I would ask all of you that oppose lethal force to consider this recovery of the items stolen, especially your wallet that contains your drivers license, CHL and other sundry items should be more of a concerne to each of you. there are a number of reasons for this not only that now he does infact have your get out of jail card for having that really nice pistol in your really kewl holster, he also has your address, the address of your wife and children. now consider that he just robbed you at gun point, just what do you think he might do at your house while you are waiting for the nice police officer to come take your report, your weapon you like so much and the next 2 or so hours of your time or perhaps longer since you probably gave the nice man that robbed you your cell phone and there probably isn't a pay phone, oops you don't have any money the nice theif took that darn. yes I could be even more sarcastic, but you get the point. this person could in all reality go to your home, steal what is there, rape and or murder your wife, children and dog. I do NOT advocate just taking anyones life for fun revenge or just because, however I see alot of people here who have the opinion that they would not take the life of some one for property or what they see as minor things/possessions because they just aren't worth a life, I personally think they are living in condition white and refuse to see beyond themselves.

Legally, I don't believe it matters how much the robber got. Morally, I'm even more certain it doesn't.

JP171 wrote:the thing I would ask all of you that oppose lethal force to consider this recovery of the items stolen, especially your wallet that contains your drivers license, CHL and other sundry items should be more of a concerne to each of you. there are a number of reasons for this not only that now he does infact have your get out of jail card for having that really nice pistol in your really kewl holster, he also has your address, the address of your wife and children. now consider that he just robbed you at gun point, just what do you think he might do at your house while you are waiting for the nice police officer to come take your report, your weapon you like so much and the next 2 or so hours of your time or perhaps longer since you probably gave the nice man that robbed you your cell phone and there probably isn't a pay phone, oops you don't have any money the nice theif took that darn. yes I could be even more sarcastic, but you get the point. this person could in all reality go to your home, steal what is there, rape and or murder your wife, children and dog. I do NOT advocate just taking anyones life for fun revenge or just because, however I see alot of people here who have the opinion that they would not take the life of some one for property or what they see as minor things/possessions because they just aren't worth a life, I personally think they are living in condition white and refuse to see beyond themselves.

+1 on this. There is more to it than a missing wallet. Your life and your families life is in there so yes I would go to extreme lengths to prevent what is likely to happen next if he gets away. I do carry a throw down though.

JP171 wrote:......I see alot of people here who have the opinion that they would not take the life of some one for property or what they see as minor things/possessions because they just aren't worth a life, I personally think they are living in condition white and refuse to see beyond themselves.

You don't know me, and you don't know anything about me. I make it a deliberate point to live in condition yellow at all times. That's got nothing to do with it. I just don't want to kill someone over $13.00. If you want to kill someone over $13.00, then your moral compass is so far off gimbal as to be beyond recall. Here's what you don't know (among other things)..... My ID isn't in my wallet. Did you take that into consideration? No. You didn't. Because you didn't know. My credit cards aren't in my wallet. Did you take that into consideration? No. You didn't. Because you didn't know.

Maybe you should climb down off that high horse before you make yourself look really bad.

The salient point is the OP's question:

All the bad guy got was 13 dollars and pocket knife but the question is would you be justified in what SEC 9.42 says about deadly force shooting him as he ran away from you? I hope I'm never put in this postion. Not sure it would be worth shooting someone over 13 dollars and a knife but other side of me says he need to be taken out so that he doesnt do this again. This was at night.

I'll preface that I am not a lawyer. So anything I say is only personal opinion.

However, what some of us fail to realize is that the law is as explicit as it can be...but it it can be no more explicit than that.

In other words, though the law does a pretty good job of telling us what is illegal, it can't be expected to tell us everything that is llegal. There's some black, some white, and some gray.

There's a test a DA will apply to the call coming in from the PD, Constable, or Sheriff's Deputy responding: Did the shooter reasonably believe the use of deadly force was immediately necessary?

"Immediately necessary" is driven by circumstance. In the OP's description, immediacy is a fail.

The "Reasonable Man" evaluation is: Would an intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable person have acted in the same way? Would a reasonable person have believed deadly force was necessary?

Unfortunately, "reasonable belief" isn't determined by you. Your personal opinion doesn't matter.

You will need to be able to state why you did what you did to law enforcement officers, prosecuting attorneys, and a grand jury. If it comes to it, the "Reasonable Man" defense will be your jury plea.

I ain't saying to hesitate before you fire in a life-or-death situation. That's why we carry.

But shooting a robber in the back as he fled if he was no longer a threat? Absolutely not.

Please read the Texas Penal Code, in its entirety, at least twice each year. There are questions asked on the Forum every day that could be answered by reading the law:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/

...I disagree that the immediacy of necessity isn't there in the OP's situation...let's forget the self defense law which would also justify him and concentrate on what he quoted...PC 9.42...which, word for word, spells out that immediacy of necessity in this scenario...
...this law clearly tells us under what conditions we're justified BY LAW in using deadly force to protect property...if we go through the law and it fits our situation, we're justified if we CHOOSE to use deadly force...
9.42 says he is justified:
(1) if he would be justified under 9:41(which he is) AND
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary : (B)to prevent the other... AND
(3)(B)the use of force other than.......follow through those sections and he is justified by the clearly written law...

...it is necessary to use deadly force to prevent an ARMED robber from fleeing immediately after committing armed robbery and it's reasonable to believe that the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the (property) would expose him or another to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury...he, still being armed IS STILL A THREAT as you pursue him to recover your money as the law specifically states...

...if, on the other hand, the law said that you could not legally pursue him in an attempt to recover your property, then you would not be justified in using deadly force, and that part of the law wouldn't be there...but it IS...because you DO have the legal right to go after him as he IMMEDIATELY flees after having threatened your life with a weapon and robbing you...

...this process has been used many times to justify the victim or someone acting on his behalf IMMEDIATELY AFTER AND DURING THE FLEEING from an armed robbery...NOT days later...not hours later...but immediately...I have never heard or read of someone being indicted for shooting an armed robber in Texas during or IMMEDIATELY after the robbery...and meeting the requirements of 9.42 to claim this justification...

...the deadly force laws are written primarily to explain to us under what circumstances the use of deadly force IS LEGAL...so that we don't use deadly force in an illegal manner...rather than listing the elements of an offense, they list the elements that must be present in the situation for us to be justified if we use deadly force...

...NOW...if someone ran up to me and snatched the gas money out of my hand as I went to pay, or grabbed my shirt pocket off and got my money...and ran...I would not feel that it was either reasonable or necessary to shoot them to stop them...let's say, as the OP did,for a small amount of money...a human life is worth more than that money...though that, too, would be a robbery...

...BUT, if that same person came up to me and threatened my life with a gun or knife, took the same money, and turned to go, I would use whatever force to stop a still-armed and dangerous robber from escaping...if I could safely do so without endangering bystanders...the difference being his having threatened my life with a weapon and leaving to (as any reasonable man would think) do it again...he's not a common thief, he's a man who's just demonstrated that he's willing to take my life to get what he wants from me...and is able to immediately do so, and is likely to do so if I go after him to recover my property...and I would be legally and morally justified...

...the law does NOT say I will not be justified if he is running away...it specifically says "...to prevent the other who IS fleeing immediately after committing...aggravated(armed)robbery..." this law tells me that I have the right to prevent him if I choose...with deadly force...it does NOT tell me that I must sit there and watch an armed robber flee while doing nothing...

...in THIS OP's scenario...the law he quoted will justify his use of deadly force...walking through the law point and requirement by point and requirement...and disregarding our opinions...it does...and case after case has happened that way...

...is it illegal for you to choose NOT to use deadly force to stop him? no
...am I justified if I choose TO use deadly force to stop him...yes....by the letter of the law...point by point...

...the law pertaining to use of deadly force is written not only to restrain us from doing the illegal, but to give us the right way to excercise our rights...legally...we don't have to be lawyers to READ the law and see if we meet what it says or not...else the State of Texas would have us sign an affidavit that we had gone over and had explained to us by a lawyer what the law says about use of deadly force ( http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetfo ... CHL-86.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )...they wrote it so that WE can understand it and follow it...and it's expected that we understand it well enough to make decisions based on what it says point by point, not picking and choosing...it's not that hard...