TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote: I am still waiting for you to show me the law that allows you to use deadly force if you are afraid.

Maybe this was the train of thought:

If someone can prove a reasonable fear of loss of life, then a GJ/DA would probably label it a clean shoot, as a reasonable person would have acted as such in a self defense capacity.

The law is well and good, but courts interpret the law in the light of reason.

Just a midnight thought.

-nick

txinvestigator wrote:See what I mean??

For the example I mentioned earlier. If a teenager is stealing the wheels from you car at 2:00 am, thats Theft during the nighttime, right?

So you could just blast them, right?

Yeah good points!

Luckily - I seem to have gotten a great CHL class (thank you champion firearms), and we had a very in depth discussion on use of force/DF scenarios.

Another point that our instructor brought up was homestead issues, where you can shoot anyone inside your house, technically, but he also emphasized that in practice use your stinking head. He gave this example:

If I come into my house and see three 8 yr old kids, and tell them to leave and they don't, could I shoot....Yes. Would I......heck no...I would leave my house and call 911.

Same thing w/ the water hose, would I blast someone for burning off with my yard tools, not likely, though "justifiable" it's too much headache for a $20 piece of equipment.

I think this is the ideaology where most of us would line up??

ghentry wrote:It's a shame you weren't able to make the legal seminar that Charles hosted last Saturday. We discussed the penal code you are referring to.

I know! I was all ready to go and jump in the truck, but we had friends come in at midnight the night before (I was at home for the weekend), so I felt it best to stay, even though they came last minute.

Hopefully we can have another get together like that, or even just a hang out time, go shoot or something.


I guess my confusion with this discussion is stemming from the fact that all the things I read about this say that there WAS an immenint burglary, and the fact the the BGs shot back is another nice fact that will work well for this to be proven as a clean shoot.

I am not "intentionally misleading" as was suggested, since it's not my desire to mislead anyone by what I quoted (simple enough). I was following what I thought was the thread of the conversation - but maybe I missed something.

I think we got mixed up when I've been at this discussion from a mindset of "the BGs were breaking and entering" thus making it a clean shoot, whereas you've been discussing from a mindset of "they were just standing there." Papers said both, so niether of us really know.

Does any of this make sense?

txinvestigator...


follow the arguments and please stop singling me out.

The original article wrote: A northeast Houston resident shot and killed one man and critically wounded another after reportedly catching them breaking into his house early today.

The man told police he returned to his house on Lakewood near Jensen just after 1 a.m. today and found four men trying to break in.

He opened fire on the would-be burglars, who fired back before fleeing to a house on Willie near Terrell, about a mile a way, authorities said.

Then....

ghentry wrote: I'm betting there's a good possibility he will get charged for muder since they were not in his house and did not present an imminent threat to him or his family as they were running away.

I clarified by quoting the law loosely, in an example:

I wrote:No sticking charges for him. Nighttime at his house. A texan has a defense to prosecution for a clean shoot on someone stealing a waterhouse after the sun has set.

Then in an apparent rebuttal (along with an exlaimation mark):

ghentry wrote:The law doesn't say you can shoot someone on your property just because it's dark!

He goes on to say that they weren't doing anything.....I will point you back up to my first quote from the chronicle.

So then I quoted the law. A misunderstanding...maybe.



Also - its not giga, as in a ghetto name...its gig ag....as in Texas Aggies.

-nick

ghentry wrote:The law doesn't say you can shoot someone on your property just because it's dark!

Yes it does:

texas penal code wrote: §9.42. Deadly force to protect property.

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.

(emphasis mine)

ghentry wrote:I'm betting there's a good possibility he will get charged for muder since they were not in his house and did not present an imminent threat to him or his family as they were running away.

No sticking charges for him. Nighttime at his house. A texan has a defense to prosecution for a clean shoot on someone stealing a waterhouse after the sun has set.

Would I do it? Heck no. But...the law is the law - as long as its interepretation is not too twisted, he should be fine


-nick