Question about use of lethal force when confronted by strangers

[VMI77]

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.

Not a bad idea, maybe I'll change mine to the local PD.

[TVegas]

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.

My apologies, VMI77. I meant section 2. It requires that deadly force be reasonably necessary to prevent the acts listed in section 2(A).

I'm not trying to mix apples and oranges. The apples and oranges are already mixed. What I'm saying is that we have to be aware of that and act accordingly.

I understand what the law says, but Texas law isn't necessarily the law in other jurisdictions. Again, I was offering a general mindset that applies in virtually every jurisdiction of the Unites States. If you disagree with that, I respect your opinion, but there's no need for us to argue about it.

Have a nice day, and hopefully we will never have to apply these ideas in the real world.

[VMI77]

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, it doesn't always go the other way either"

"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?

Also to consider is the fact that if you do get shot moving and positioning in the process of taking out your attacker your chances of survival are still good. OTOH, if he unloads four or five rounds into you while you're just standing there I'd say your survival chances are significantly reduced.

[VMI77]

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.

My apologies, VMI77. I meant section 2. It requires that deadly force be reasonably necessary to prevent the acts listed in section 2(A).

I'm not trying to mix apples and oranges. The apples and oranges are already mixed. What I'm saying is that we have to be aware of that and act accordingly.

I understand what the law says, but Texas law isn't necessarily the law in other jurisdictions. Again, I was offering a general mindset that applies in virtually every jurisdiction of the Unites States. If you disagree with that, I respect your opinion, but there's no need for us to argue about it.

Have a nice day, and hopefully we will never have to apply these ideas in the real world.

I'm only talking about Texas. I haven't had to subject myself to any other legal jurisdiction for quite some time. I don't ever intend to voluntarily place myself in any of those more questionable jurisdictions. Most of them deny me my right to carry a gun anyway, so my use of deadly force would be moot. Also, my responses have been based on the assumption my assailant is armed with a weapon other than his fists. An "unarmed" robbery situation is more complicated, but then, I'm not sure how someone would pull that off since I'm not just handing anything over on command.

[rotor]

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.

So someone says "give me your wallet now". You would give your wallet? If they say "give me your wallet or else" you would use deadly force? Anyone that demands my wallet ( car, whatever) I assume is also saying "or else" and that puts me in fear for my life. Of course at age 72 I am not going to win in a fist fight.

[cb1000rider]

What do you think the actual chances are of violence after compliance if they're not 50/50? I choose to believe what I do because I think that most common robberies aren't necessarily life threatening. I believe it's both easier and less risky (on average) to comply. Then again, being pushed, hit, shoved - those things are likely - maybe I'll feel different as I get older and those things become more substantial threats.

cb1000rider,
If assaulted, you think you might simply not have the resolve to defend yourself with a gun, and with respect, why carry it?

I didn't say that I wouldn't defend myself (or my family) with a gun against any assault, especially if I consider that assault a deadly threat. I'm also still reasonably physically capable, although I recognize that won't always be the case, so I think there might be in-between options. Using a firearm has complications, unfortunately, and for me it's not all or nothing. I simply said that I'm unwilling to shoot someone that deprives me of property in a robbery situation (excluding home invasion) as a default response. That's in contrast to BaldEagle, who indicates the opposite (not a criticism).

That also doesn't mean I wouldn't support someone else's right to make a different choice in defending themselves.

[rotor]

What do you think the actual chances are of violence after compliance if they're not 50/50? I choose to believe what I do because I think that most common robberies aren't necessarily life threatening. I believe it's both easier and less risky (on average) to comply. Then again, being pushed, hit, shoved - those things are likely - maybe I'll feel different as I get older and those things become more substantial threats.

cb1000rider,
If assaulted, you think you might simply not have the resolve to defend yourself with a gun, and with respect, why carry it?

I didn't say that I wouldn't defend myself (or my family) with a gun against any assault, especially if I consider that assault a deadly threat. I'm also still reasonably physically capable, although I recognize that won't always be the case, so I think there might be in-between options. Using a firearm has complications, unfortunately, and for me it's not all or nothing. I simply said that I'm unwilling to shoot someone that deprives me of property in a robbery situation (excluding home invasion) as a default response. That's in contrast to BaldEagle, who indicates the opposite (not a criticism).

That also doesn't mean I wouldn't support someone else's right to make a different choice in defending themselves.

One summer while going to college I worked in the New York City morgue in Manhattan. They did autopsies in mass production the way Ford builds cars. I saw so many young people on the tables with relatively small external wounds and wondered how many were simple robbery victims.

[cb1000rider]

That sounds like a job that would give you some perspective..

[Glockster]

"There is no way I will shoot someone if all they want is my wallet, or cash, or car."

"...if all they want..."

How can you be sure after you cooperate with handing over your valuables, the criminal will be so pleased with your helpful nature he'll then disappear into the mists, leaving you/your wife/your children with your life...?

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

Many have been robbed, cooperated with the robber and then killed.

Not to mention, robber takes all your valuable...and what if the robber also finds and takes your gun?