Ah, got it. Designated drivers + Have the right to self defense as well.gljjt wrote:Agree. My point was that just because you are in a bar, doesn't mean you are drinking / impaired / drunk.Jumping Frog wrote:Have the right to self defense as well.gljjt wrote: Designated drivers.
I believe that you are correct, and that the shooting would be justified. I also believe that the person could [and probably would] be charged for violating carrying in a 51% business. I don't know the why the person fled the bar, but if they find him his punishment will be worse than if he had stayed at the seen. I believe his identity will be discovered.goinincircles wrote:Disclaimer......I took my original class sometime in the late 90's and probably (certainly) don't remember exactly how we were taught the law worked in situation such as this and in all my renewal classes we dint get into a bunch of different scenarios but.....
I'm 99% (let's make it 51% sure) we covered something similar to this and they talked about "necessity" and or "defense to prosecution" applying here. Not to say that we were taught correctly but it was two officers teaching our class and they were pretty sharp.
I think the scenario was you were walking your kids into their school and had forgotten to disarm. A BG also comes in and starts randomly shooting people. Are you allowed to "break the law" and neutralize the threat? I think their (the instructors) thinking was that preservation of life in this situation trumped the law that was broken and there would be a defense to prosecution for taking action.
Even if this was untrue, I'd think (hope) that you'd have a rough time getting a jury to convict a person for doing the "right" thing and that may be what the instructors were thinking as well when they said to take action to save lives.
Yep, that is the Bernie Goetz scenario, the famous so-called "subway vigilante" case from 1984.WildBill wrote:I believe that you are correct, and that the shooting would be justified. I also believe that the person could [and probably would] be charged for violating carrying in a 51% business. I don't know the why the person fled the bar, but if they find him his punishment will be worse than if he had stayed at the seen. I believe his identity will be discovered.
Maybe this guy is a convicted felon illegally in possession of a firearm which he illegally possessed in a 51% premises. Might be good enough reason to vacate the premises.Jumping Frog wrote:Yep, that is the Bernie Goetz scenario, the famous so-called "subway vigilante" case from 1984.WildBill wrote:I believe that you are correct, and that the shooting would be justified. I also believe that the person could [and probably would] be charged for violating carrying in a 51% business. I don't know the why the person fled the bar, but if they find him his punishment will be worse than if he had stayed at the seen. I believe his identity will be discovered.
He shot and seriously wounded all 4 assailants in the New York subway. Mr. Goetz was charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury found him not guilty of all charges except for one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm, for which he served eight months of a one-year sentence.
In this situation, he is clearly justified to use deadly force during an armed robbery. However, he should not have had a gun with him in the bar, so I'd agree he is at risk of a conviction for possessing a firearm in a 51% premises.
Another similar example would be a convicted felon who shot someone trying to rob him. If the convicted felon (who cannot legally possess a firearm) was carrying a gun and used it to defend himself, he would still likely be charged and convicted for felon-in-possession but be acquitted for actually shooting. However, if the felon opportunistically made use of someone else's gun during the robbery to defend himself, then necessity should apply in acquitting him for "possessing" a firearm.
Under the "necessity to use" most DAs would not prosecute.rp_photo wrote:In my humble opinion, the 51% and 30.06 laws should "cancel out" if someone otherwise legally defends themself against another person carrying illegally.
add me to that list too! i can't stand it that because some jerks can't control themselves, i have to leave my rights in the truck and be 100% sober and unarmed....Jumping Frog wrote:People in a bar need the God-given right to self defense restored, so long as they do not drink. I've been in bars to listen to live music on many occasions and I am a total non-drinker. I am not OK with drunk people carrying guns, but just because 51% of revenue comes from alcohol does not mean everyone in the place is a drunken fool.
I am also aware that there is no political consensus in Texas that agrees with my viewpoint.
Depends on the location and political affiliation of the DA.Beiruty wrote:Under the "necessity to use" most DAs would not prosecute.rp_photo wrote:In my humble opinion, the 51% and 30.06 laws should "cancel out" if someone otherwise legally defends themself against another person carrying illegally.
jmra wrote:Maybe this guy is a convicted felon illegally in possession of a firearm which he illegally possessed in a 51% premises. Might be good enough reason to vacate the premises.
Legally, this is known as a "double whammy." 
You need a better wife.jmra wrote:Nothing good happens at 2:30 am.
If I were the detective on this case, I think I'd walk to the curb, look both ways down the street, note my inability to see a suspect, then close the case as unsolvable.ELB wrote:A lawyer on another forum called the HPD a few days ago asking if they had caught up with the bar patron/hero. They had not, and the lawyer surmised that given how well known the patron apparently is, this might not be a high priority with the HPD right now. With all the other stuff that goes on in Houston, I could go with pushing this down the priority list....
