Question about use of lethal force when confronted by strangers

[Vol Texan]

Y'all can make your own decisions. When I was younger, fresh out of jump school,etc., I may have had one reaction. Now, 25 years later, after a spinal (neck) surgery, and not in as good a shape as I was back then...suffice to say that any good hit above the neck could cause paralysis or death for me.

My threshold of decision making for escalation of force has lowered over the years.

[misterlarry]

I would never shoot anyone over theft of property, however, I have no problem properly defending myself against the stated or implied threat of what will happen to me if I do not surrender my property to a thief.

I'm quoting you but I'm really asking this of everyone saying they will never shoot someone over the theft of property....I get it if the guy snatched something and his running off with it, but how do you know that someone with a knife or gun isn't going to stab or shoot you even if you hand over your property? Are you just going to play the odds and assume if you hand it over they won't beat you over the head, stab you, or shoot you? If they have a gun are you just going to trust their trigger discipline? And if they're not armed why would you surrender your property?

I don't see a robbery as being about "property." If you weren't being threatened with violence you'd have no reason to hand over any property. If someone is threatening you with violence unless you hand over your property then saying you'll "never" shoot anyone over theft of property seems tantamount to saying you're going to trust their goodwill not to carry out the threatened violence if you comply. Granted, their are situations where you have to weigh the odds of successful resistance against the odds your attacker will depart without violence once he has your property, but there's a lot of room between there and "never."

You might be doing a better job of making the point that I was trying to make. Property can be replaced and is no reason for me to possibly take another person's life. In my opinion though, defending myself or my loved ones against a robbery is not in fact about the property at all but the threat of physical harm that is integral to the unlawful act itself. If someone has already snatched something and is running away, I may in fact draw my pistol (with my head on a swivel), but if I do not feel that my safety is being threatened, I do not believe in good conscience that I could bring myself to shoot someone simply over money when no physical threat is present. I do not believe that I would hand over my property and submit to the threat of physical violence unless it was as a decoy to gain a tactical advantage in bringing my pistol to bear.

[cb1000rider]

"
Answer: You can't be sure. Passivity isn't a good plan.

So the best plan is always lethal response? I strongly disagree. Although you're right that not every single robbery attempt that is complied with ends well, it doesn't always go the other way either. If the only response to a deadly weapon (or threat of) is to produce a deadly weapon, many of those incidents are going to end badly - especially if you're already disadvantaged. I don't think that an escalation means that you're going to have a better outcome.

If you want my car or my wallet and have a deadly weapon - no problem. I'll hand them right over. Take them and walk away - that will be the end of it. The wallet loss will be a bigger problem than losing the car and the actual cost of that loss will only be what cash I'm carrying and a deductible.

I'm not one to shoot over property. The only exception would be if I felt that further violence was imminent, as in a home invasion. Or if I was told to stay in the car during a car-jacking.

Why do I think like that? The chances that using deadly force may incur additional costs are substantial - as I'm immediately talking to an attorney. What replacing that property costs me out of pocket is likely very much less than what an attorney will charge my for representation when being questioned by the PD. That's just math. And honestly, I dont want to live with killing someone over property. And I don't think that it's necessarily a better physical outcome - you don't know who you're dealing with or who else might be helping.

In regard to the fear of having your wallet/keys/address result in additional crime: I think that's not a very likely scenario. Keys don't really provide substantial advantages for entering a residence for someone who is willing to do armed robbery. Exterior doors on most of our homes are easily breached. My address is public record. You can get it from my license plate. I hear the same scare tactics from Realtors and car dealers - dont sell it yourself as people will have your address as it's just too dangerous. Maybe it's a valid fear in the big city? I'm not sure.

Each situation needs to be evaluated.

[mr1337]

Robbery is theft with the use of force or threat of force against a person. So, a mixture of larceny and assault.

Aggravated robbery is robbery with a weapon.

If you believe someone is assaulting or attempting to assault you, you should defend yourself. Verbal provocation alone typically does not, in itself, justify use of deadly force unless there are actions or other factors that cause you to be in fear for your well-being.

The 3 elements of lethal force are typically summarized as Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy.

Ability means that the other person has the power to kill or to cripple you.

Opportunity means that the circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability against you.

Jeopardy means that the other person’s actions or words provide you with a reasonably-perceived belief that he intends to kill you or cripple you.

Every situation is unique, so I'm not going to say if X or Y scenario is okay to use deadly force in. Familiarize yourself with Texas use of force & deadly force laws - Texas Penal Code, Title 2, Chapter 9 and only use deadly force if there is no other option.

[TVegas]

Many people tend to think that drawing a gun, knife, or other deadly weapon is legal if someone is attempting to rob you or commit some other crime, but that is not necessarily the case. The ONLY thing that will generally allow you to legally threaten the use of deadly force is a situation in which a reasonable person (not you or me) would reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect themselves or another person against death or serious injury under the circumstances. So if you draw your weapon before deadly force is actually reasonable, you may be the one who is held responsible if someone is hurt or killed.

What I have said is just a baseline, and many instances will depend on the limitless circumstances and the opinion of law enforcement, so understand that what I have said is not gospel. Take it with a grain of salt.

The safest way I like to think about it is this: We only take a life to save a life. (Not my original idea)

Quoted from another thread:

9.42 deals with this scenario and states:

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.

You are ignoring section 3 of the statute, which requires reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary.

I was offering a general mindset that will keep us within the law in almost every jurisdiction of the United States.

[TVegas]

"Many people tend to think that drawing a gun, knife, or other deadly weapon is legal if someone is attempting to rob you or commit some other crime, but that is not necessarily the case."

"...if someone is attempting to rob you or commit some other crime..."

If someone is attempting to rob me or commit some other crime (presumably/violently aimed at me) you think it unreasonable for me to defend myself with say, a pistol? Or, that if I'm under the threat of such an attack, I have an obligation to give the benefit of the doubt to the robber/criminal?

I should take my time, mull it over, make certain the robber/criminal gets a lot of leeway before I defend myself?

Doesn't compute.

That's not what I'm saying at all. The idea that it's better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six still applies, but even you inserted the words "violently" and "attack." Those words suggest that it would be reasonable to use deadly force.

Let me make it more clear. When a bully demands a child's lunch money, that is a robbery, but I think we can all agree that it would be unreasonable to draw a gun on the bully. A robbery or the smell of a potential robbery does not automatically make it reasonable to draw a gun. There still has to be a threat of injury or death.

Seriously think about what exactly I'm saying. Don't fulfill the trigger-happy conclusions that the antis draw about us. We're all on the same side here.

[VMI77]

"
Answer: You can't be sure. Passivity isn't a good plan.

So the best plan is always lethal response? I strongly disagree. Although you're right that not every single robbery attempt that is complied with ends well, it doesn't always go the other way either. If the only response to a deadly weapon (or threat of) is to produce a deadly weapon, many of those incidents are going to end badly - especially if you're already disadvantaged. I don't think that an escalation means that you're going to have a better outcome.

If you want my car or my wallet and have a deadly weapon - no problem. I'll hand them right over. Take them and walk away - that will be the end of it. The wallet loss will be a bigger problem than losing the car and the actual cost of that loss will only be what cash I'm carrying and a deductible.

I'm not one to shoot over property. The only exception would be if I felt that further violence was imminent, as in a home invasion. Or if I was told to stay in the car during a car-jacking.

Why do I think like that? The chances that using deadly force may incur additional costs are substantial - as I'm immediately talking to an attorney. What replacing that property costs me out of pocket is likely very much less than what an attorney will charge my for representation when being questioned by the PD. That's just math. And honestly, I dont want to live with killing someone over property.

In regard to the fear of having your wallet/keys/address result in additional crime: I think that's not a very likely scenario. Keys don't really provide substantial advantages for entering a residence for someone who is willing to do armed robbery. Exterior doors on most of our homes are easily breached. My address is public record. You can get it from my license plate. I hear the same scare tactics from Realtors and car dealers - dont sell it yourself as people will have your address as it's just too dangerous. Maybe it's a valid fear in the big city? I'm not sure.

Each situation needs to be evaluated.

I agree that a lethal response may not always be the best response or even practical in some cases. However, the part I "reddened" is the part of your response I don't quite understand....how are you going to know or determine that? I submit that you can't and you're not. I'd guess that most people who have complied with the demands of a robber were surprised when visited by further violence. You're saying you're going to judge someone's capacity for further violence but I suggest that what you'd actually be doing is simply rolling the dice. In fact, unless you're 100% certain that you can determine your attacker is not going to visit further violence upon you, rolling the dice is exactly what you're doing.

When someone gets the drop on you you're in a tough situation --no doubt about that. In the end though you have only two choices, resist or comply. You have no idea what is really motivating the person in front of you. If you comply you're just betting the odds on the goodwill of your assailant. Before you've complied you have some opportunity to act even if you've got a gun pointed at you because you still have some element of surprise and the chance to get inside his OODA loop. If you hand over your wallet and your assailant pulls the trigger immediately thereafter he's in your OODA loop and your opportunity to act is gone.

[VMI77]

Many people tend to think that drawing a gun, knife, or other deadly weapon is legal if someone is attempting to rob you or commit some other crime, but that is not necessarily the case. The ONLY thing that will generally allow you to legally threaten the use of deadly force is a situation in which a reasonable person (not you or me) would reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect themselves or another person against death or serious injury under the circumstances. So if you draw your weapon before deadly force is actually reasonable, you may be the one who is held responsible if someone is hurt or killed.

What I have said is just a baseline, and many instances will depend on the limitless circumstances and the opinion of law enforcement, so understand that what I have said is not gospel. Take it with a grain of salt.

The safest way I like to think about it is this: We only take a life to save a life. (Not my original idea)

Quoted from another thread:

9.42 deals with this scenario and states:

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.

You are ignoring section 3 of the statute, which requires reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary.

I was offering a general mindset that will keep us within the law in almost every jurisdiction of the United States.

That belief is required under (B), preventing escape with the property, and is preceded from the previous part with "or." So, it reads...deadly force against another is justified....to prevent imminent commission of.....robbery, aggravated robbery.....OR, to prevent escape, IF 3.A or 3.B. These sections refer back to 9.41, 9.32, and 9.31. 9.31 and 9.32 also list robbery and aggravated robbery as justifications for the use of deadly force.

[VMI77]

"Many people tend to think that drawing a gun, knife, or other deadly weapon is legal if someone is attempting to rob you or commit some other crime, but that is not necessarily the case."

"...if someone is attempting to rob you or commit some other crime..."

If someone is attempting to rob me or commit some other crime (presumably/violently aimed at me) you think it unreasonable for me to defend myself with say, a pistol? Or, that if I'm under the threat of such an attack, I have an obligation to give the benefit of the doubt to the robber/criminal?

I should take my time, mull it over, make certain the robber/criminal gets a lot of leeway before I defend myself?

Doesn't compute.

That's not what I'm saying at all. The idea that it's better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six still applies, but even you inserted the words "violently" and "attack." Those words suggest that it would be reasonable to use deadly force.

Let me make it more clear. When a bully demands a child's lunch money, that is a robbery, but I think we can all agree that it would be unreasonable to draw a gun on the bully. A robbery or the smell of a potential robbery does not automatically make it reasonable to draw a gun. There still has to be a threat of injury or death.

Seriously think about what exactly I'm saying. Don't fulfill the trigger-happy conclusions that the antis draw about us. We're all on the same side here.

You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about children on the school ground. We're also not talking about potential robberies but robberies in the act of commission. The penal code does not require the threat of injury or death for justified lethal force in the case of robbery. Read section 9.31, Self defense, it says the use of deadly force is presumed to be reasonable if the actor was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kid-napping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery....subject to to several qualifications.

If your argument is that there are circumstances where using lethal force is legal but not wise, fine, I agree. But the law doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

[Abraham]

cb1000rider,

You posted: "Although you're right that not every single robbery attempt that is complied with ends well,[u] it doesn't always go the other way either"[/u]

Correct me if I misunderstand, but what I get out of your perspective is, if you are robbed, you'd be willing to gamble with your life that the 50-50 chance of "it doesn't always go the other way either" would be a comfortable enough scenario for you not to act, but instead comply with the robber, relying on him being a reasonable sort who won't kill you if you comply with his demands.

Do I have that right?

BTW, I think the argument that self-defense isn't necessary when only property is at risk is very short sighted.

How can you be confident our would be robber is so high minded?

There are many sociopath criminals out there, who enjoy inducing terror and follow through with the death of their victims. (as opposed to your everyday/normal working stiff of a robber, who takes no pleasure in his work, but hey, he's just trying to make a living and if you cooperate, heck, he might even send you a Christmas card...) alright, I've gotten off the path a bit, but I think you see (I hope) that there's no robbing situation that is a certainty you'll come out alive.

Now, if you'd rather risk your life, rather than act to defend yourself, because you might have to hire a lawyer because you defended yourself, well, ok, then...I'm sure that's an expensive, time consuming proposition, and you might just be better off dead than to have to go through that aggravation.

[cb1000rider]

I agree that a lethal response may not always be the best response or even practical in some cases. However, the part I "reddened" is the part of your response I don't quite understand....how are you going to know or determine that? I submit that you can't and you're not. I'd guess that most people who have complied with the demands of a robber were surprised when visited by further violence. You're saying you're going to judge someone's capacity for further violence but I suggest that what you'd actually be doing is simply rolling the dice. In fact, unless you're 100% certain that you can determine your attacker is not going to visit further violence upon you, rolling the dice is exactly what you're doing.

I submit that I agree with you. You can't definitively determine if compliance will be met with further violence. I did mention two cases in which I would assume further violence - home invasion and a car-jacking where the car owner gets to stay with the vehicle.
You're absolutely right that it's a dice role. Again, I think it requires evaluation. But I don't think that you the right answer is to escalate in every single case..

I think the point of discussion is simply - if given a choice and if you don't know full intent - do you comply or escalate?

When someone gets the drop on you you're in a tough situation --no doubt about that. In the end though you have only two choices, resist or comply. You have no idea what is really motivating the person in front of you. If you comply you're just betting the odds on the goodwill of your assailant. Before you've complied you have some opportunity to act even if you've got a gun pointed at you because you still have some element of surprise and the chance to get inside his OODA loop. If you hand over your wallet and your assailant pulls the trigger immediately thereafter he's in your OODA loop and your opportunity to act is gone.

Agree. When I go on my robbery spree and assuming I'm willing to kill someone after they comply, why even give them the opportunity to resist or comply? That doesn't make sense to me. I guess what I'm saying that is if you're being robbed, instead of being shot, there is a decent chance that they're after your property... That's not a solid every time rule, but that's what is going through my head.. at least right now.

[cb1000rider]

Correct me if I misunderstand, but what I get out of your perspective is, if you are robbed, you'd be willing to gamble with your life that the 50-50 chance of "it doesn't always go the other way either" would be a comfortable enough scenario for you not to act, but instead comply with the robber, relying on him being a reasonable sort who won't kill you if you comply with his demands.

Do I have that right?

BTW, I think the argument that self-defense isn't necessary when only property is at risk is very short sighted.

I think you've got a good part of it right. I'd probably gamble. I'd take issue with two things though:
1) I don't think that the chances are 50/50. You're indicating that 50% of robberies end with serious injuries after compliance. I don't think that's the case. If it is the case, I might be willing to reconsider.
2) You're indicating that I'm gambling with my life to comply. I'd submit that I'm also gambling with my life by escalating and may very well be at a tactical disadvantage.

I appreciate your opinion and discussion..

[baldeagle]

My name is pretty common so an internet search will produce a lot of results. That said, I will assume that finding my location is a possibility even if it takes a little while. The "home" location on my car's GPS isn't my home address, but a point several miles away, so if they got my car along with my wallet that would narrow it down a good bit.

The Home location on my GPS is the Richardson Police Department. That is also where I have advised my wife to drive to if she is ever being followed, thinks she's being followed or if someone in a vehicle not clearly marked as police that she knows attempts to pull her over.

To answer the OP, if you try to rob me you will be shot. No exceptions. If you have a weapon in your hand, you will be shot. I am not going to wait until you shoot me first. I'm not going to try to guess what your intentions are. I'm not going to warn you and try to scare you off. I will shoot you.

[Abraham]

cb1000rider,

I loosely based my 50-50 chances on the statement: "Although you're right that not every single robbery attempt that is complied with ends well,[u] it doesn't always go the other way either"[/u]

"I'd submit that I'm also gambling with my life by escalating and may very well be at a tactical disadvantage."

Well, yes, that's part and parcel of carrying a gun and why we practice situational awareness. That's why we practice not only shooting for accuracy and speed, but why we have to be mentally and emotionally ready if assaulted. No, you may not prevail, but if you don't act, you definitely won't prevail.

If assaulted, you think you might simply not have the resolve to defend yourself with a gun, and with respect, why carry it?

[VMI77]

Agree. When I go on my robbery spree and assuming I'm willing to kill someone after they comply, why even give them the opportunity to resist or comply? That doesn't make sense to me. I guess what I'm saying that is if you're being robbed, instead of being shot, there is a decent chance that they're after your property... That's not a solid every time rule, but that's what is going through my head.. at least right now.

Criminals do what is easy. Aside from any pathological satisfaction that may be derived from the victim's fear or subordination there is a practical reason why they don't just shoot first. If someone is robbing you in a parking lot or other public area it's easier, and probably quicker, to make you hand over your wallet, jewlery, etc, than to shoot you and search your body for it. Also, since gunshots tend to draw attention shooting first is more likely to draw attention before they have what they're after than just ordering you to comply. However, afterwards, you may act to draw attention anyway and shooting you leaves one less possible witness. If you're armed, and in the process they happen to detect it, they may just shoot you to prevent you from acting or order you to hand over your gun....then you've lost any possible element of surprise and they're inside your OODA loop.