TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:

srothstein wrote:
But, From he description, I think a robbery was about to be committed. And you may use deadly force to prevent a robbery. This makes the question of the threat moot.

As I respect your views I have to ask, in the scenario presented and based on the law below, when did the robbery become imminent? I would think they would have to display some more specific behavior other than walking towards you, such as either producing a weapon or saying "give me your money," or words to that effect, or other aggressive action. I'm not sure about the use of deadly force based on what I think is going to happen based on this scenario.

"(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."

One of the more interesting theories that are used in our legal system is that the threat is int he eye of the beholder. The law would look at the question of whether or not a reasonable person, in the victim's position, would have believed that the robbery was imminent. This is an important, possibly even critical point, because it means that a robbery itself does not have to be imminent, just that a reasonable person would have believed it was. This is very similar to probable cause, which is when an officer believes that it is more likely than not that a crime was being committed. The officer can be wrong, as can the potential victim/shooter, but that does not change the legality.

Based on my experience, the actions of the two show a robbery is about to be committed. The key point being the separation into a V-formation around the potential victim. A V is used for an attack, but is not normal for other everyday people walking. One person watching the victim while the other concentrates on looking around makes it look like they are checking if there are any witnesses, reinforcing the belief that a robbery was about to be committed.

If they did not stop when asked after all of that, I find it hard to believe anyone would not think a robbery is about to be committed.

I believe that the statement on use of force sounds reasonably accurate. There may be other factors to be considered. One factor to consider is a court ruling that said it is illegal to threaten deadly force if deadly force is not justified.

But, Fromt he description, I think a robbery was about to be committed. And you may use deadly force to prevent a robbery. This makes the question of the threat moot.

VeeTee wrote:a) What should a "reasonably prudent" person have done next?

Well, I think I am a reasonably prudent person. I would take the one on the left first since the recoil will help me move my aim towards the one on the right. I have to admit that I would try the recommended shouting first, but if they did not stop, the one on the left goes first.