TexasCHLforum.com

You'b better check this thread if you think it would have been ok to fire that second shot or even the first.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=25714

Here are some of the pertinent highlights:

Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing. He'd been trying to detain the intruder until police arrived, he said.

Lemes indicated at the time of the shooting that he was protecting himself, but prosecutors said Thursday they sought the indictment because he shot the unarmed man five times after Glass already had fled the house without any of the homeowner's belongings.

Texas law traditionally allows a homeowner to fire at an intruder if he believes it's the only way to protect his property, but prosecutors said Glass was empty-handed.

“In this instance, the trespass had been terminated,” she said. “The guy's running down the street and away. There was no gun found. There was no indication of deadly force being used against the defendant.”

austinrealitor makes a pretty good point. Certainly has me rethinking things.

Section 9.42
(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

section (3) ADDS other conditions which would allow deadly force. Difference between and/or.

Exactly. And once your were chasing him after his commission of burglary and he is fleeing then (2)(A) no longer applies.

(2)(B) applies if he has your property. If he does not have your property I'm assuming it doesn't apply.

Of course I am in no way a lawyer or even pretend to be. And maybe one could chime in and clarify. But as I see it, once the "other" is fleeing 2B and (3A or 3B) only apply if he has your property.

Don't get me wrong gemini, I have no attack here on what actions you chose. And posting here certainly adds fuel for thought. If I were on your jury I certainly wouldn't convict you but keith certainly has good points on what you could expect had you actually shot the guy.

I believe I could have fired the second shot, hit, and still been no-billed. Although I was angry, I
am glad I did not. If the guy had been running away with my Strat, '68 J-45, tools etc. then I would do
whatever was necessary to stop him. Each situation has a ton of variables.

Yup after I made that post I went back and reread Sec. 9.42 (certainly covered in CHL but I don't have a photographic recollection) and the 3B sub section certainly covers the dilemma I was concerned about:

3) he reasonably believes that: (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.

That is if you could see that he had your property in your hands.

In your case, If you could not see that he was carrying any of your property you may be on thin ice under section 9.42.

Really great to hear first hand accounts.

I think several in this thread have questioned why you chose to pursue the individual. One way to answer this question is to remove the gun from the equation. If this was a couple years ago (when I wasn't carrying) and I caught someone breaking into my car I would certainly have tried to run them down. In fact, in my 20's my car had a pager alarm and the vehicle stayed silent. It woke me up at 2am one morning and my older brother and I were certainly out the door and after the guy. He too was on foot and knew his path back across the neighborhood fences and lost us. Similar event a year later when we heard our neighbor's tailgate getting stolen. And one other time when someone broke out the window on my brother's truck parked out front. We must be slow cause we never sacked anybody.

So if this happened tomorrow I can't say I'm wired any different than I was back then. So I'd likely give it a good foot chase. I run about 15 miles a week anyway.

Question is as in your dilemma: The guy you are pursuing isn't likely to just stop and comply with your commands so what do you do? If he is not threatening your life and continues to just "leave" you are justified in using "force" (not deadly force, just force) to apprehend him but a struggle with him while having your gun strapped to your side is likely to turn deadly.

If it were 20 yeas ago and it were me and my older brother giving chase I wouldn't sweat it. We could probably take down a water buffalo. But this ain't 20 years ago and my brother lives in east Texas. So you posting this story certainly has me rethinking things. Thank you for posting it up.