TexasCHLforum.com

I think that producing a weapon is what constitutes a "threat of deadly force" under the law - not mere jawboning. Of course, IANAL, and the preceeding isjust my opinion of what the law means.

If someone was breaking into my truck, and I was inside my house, I'd probably call 911 first. Then, I might or might not go outside and try to run the BG(s) off. But the temptation would be to let the sheriff's deputies handle it. Much less hassle for me.

Another possibility might be to open my door holding a 12 gage at port arms and tell the BG(s) to get the heck off the property. If they are crazy enough to come at me, I can shut the door or not.

In any event, I've got a lot of options at that point, most of them good ones.

Will938 wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:
I was talking about going out with the gun already drawn before he made an advance towards you, just to clarify.

lol guys I'm sorry to keep opening a new can of worms, but...

If you were on your own property as I understand it you can carry however you please. Now then you'd be just great carrying it in your hand correct? Because in all reality I wouldn't be likely to have a holster on myself at home. Then again if I was at home I'd likely be using a shotgun, what do you guys think?

I think if you walked out carrying a shotgun you'd be fine. Likewise if you walked out carrying a handgun openly, even in your hand. Maybe at low ready or something like that.

NcongruNt wrote: The problem with that is that drawing a gun in and of itself is considered use of force, as threat of deadly force. It can be argued that you initiated the sequence of events that led up to the shooting if he goes for a gun you have already drawn, especially in a scenario where he is on the street.

Well, sure it can.

But like I said, we frequently take these things too far. Far too far in this case.

If he was just standing around soaking up sun it might be argued that you initiated a chain of events, etc. But if the guy is committing a property crime, and you order him to stop, and he advances towards you in a menacing way, and you draw (all in that order), you have initiated nothing.

It's impossible to fully describe every last detail in one of these scenarios. So sure, if the guy is calmly walking towards you while smiling beatifically, hands spread out at his waist, wearing a Roman Catholic collar and quoting from the Bible, TX law and Black's Law Dictionary in the way of explaining that what you thought was a property crime was actually his solemn obligation, you're in trouble. But that's not what any of us have in mind when we talk about ordering someone to stop committing a crime, and having them turn and advance on us.

I know that if someone was deliberately advancing on me, while emitting the requesite sights, sounds, and smells, I would fully believe that they intended to sieze the gun and harm me with it. I think almost any reasonable person would believe the same thing. And while I might try backing away and verbalizing so as to eliminate any possible misunderstandings about my reasonable belief, if the person got close enough to grab the gun I would certainly be in fear for my life at that point - unless they only weighed around 80 lbs or so.

Note: The above is more or less why (in other cases) I would generally try to retreat rather than standing my ground and defending myself from what would otherwise be simple assault. If you're grappling with someone and they "find" the gun, the whole nature of the situation has escalated tremendously.

Better to be thought a "chicken" than to have things spiral out of control.

txinvestigator wrote: And it seems everyone likes to read the penal code selectively when reading the justifications for deadly force to protect property.

Everyone reads "to prevent criminal mischief during the nighttime" or "to prevent theft during the nighttime", but seems to forget this part;

"when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent."

Could you have done something less than deadly force that would have stopped or prevented the crime?

What is reasonable? That IS a subjective term, and it can mean something different to you than it does me.

Consider this; most LE agencies have policies prohibiting its officers from using deadly force to protect property.

Excellent points.



This is where something like issuing a verbal command to desist is part of the picture. Under any law, anywhere (even in a place like the UK where self defense is all but banned) it is perfectly reasonable to: 1) call the police, and 2) order someone to stop messing with your stuff. "Hey, stop that! Get out of there! I've already called the police!" Etc.

Reasonable.

Way down on the "force continuum".

And the next move is up to the BG. He can run away. He can keep on with his "business". Or he can come at you.

For you, what is reasonable to do kind of depends on what the BG does. What's reasonable if he runs away is a lot different than what's reasonable if he charges at you with a tire iron in his hand.

NguyenVanDon wrote:I don't think those BG won't be coming back anytime soon in the next 3-4 months. By then, Castle Doctrine will take affect Sept. 1 like everyone else said. Shoot first, ask question later.

PLEASE, PLEASE post a message explaining that the above statement was intended as a satirical reference to the way the ANTI-SELF DEFENSE people mis-characterize the Castle Doctrine law.

From one CHL brother to another, I believe that is how you meant it. But lest some people fail to "get the joke", you really should clarify your remark.

PLEASE.

KRM45 wrote:Why is it that rather than trying to prevent this from happening again your first thought is "can I shoot them?"

I have seen many threads on here about improving security around the home. I would personally look into that first.

NVD can answer for himself, but it hardly seems like this was his first thought. He and his family have been victimized repeatedly. The police have been unable to prevent tham from being further victimized, nor have they (apparently) caught those responsible.

So to me NVD is just doing what almost anyone would do - exploring his legal options. And in TX, at nighttime, one of those options may be the application of deadly force.

I think the best outcome for all concerned is if the people breaking into cars in his neighborhood realized the error of their ways and decided to go straight.