TexasCHLforum.com

...good point...what we're discussing here is only part of CH 9...wouldn't it be a bummer if the part you didn't take time to study out turned out to be the part you needed to decide within...some dark night??? this isn't the "Code of the West", we're living by...it's the Texas PENAL Code...that name was named for a REASON...the more time and effort we spend in understanding ALL of it, the less chance we'll ever spend our Sunday evenings in the prison library slapping our head with our hand...it can't all be learned in a CHL class...but there are classes available...if we realize the need...

...really knowing what the law does and doesn't say...what our options are LEGALLY, gives us the foundation on which to build our tactics, moral decisions, and execute our choices if "it" ever jumps up in front of us...I've been laughed at for my views that I wouldn't take a life for any physical thing that I own...but I would if someone threatened my family or violated the safety of my home...but those are MY decisions...each one of us will make their own choices...carefully think them out...and may pray that we never have to act on them...but chances are great that at least ONE of us will be in a real-life deadly force situation before we die...so just like we go to the range with a quality weapon and learn what we're capable of doing with it...practice and discipline ourselves to become the best that we can be with it...we need to invest the time and effort to know where we stand with respect to the law....or the rest of it may be misdirected...

...none of those "onces" are written into the law we're discussing...PC 9:31 and 9:32 are written to explain to us(and those who will try us or decide not to) the conditions/situations in which you and I are justified by law in using deadly force...I'll speak to 9:31...since you quoted a little bit of 9:31...

...continue reading past where you stopped and you'll see that if any of those situations listed and spelled out exist and fit the law, your decision to believe that it was immediately necessary to use force is presumed to be necessary...

now look at 9:31(a)(1)(C)...if the person fits the description of committing or attempting to commit any of those crimes (or those in (A) or (B), for that matter...you are justified in using force...and, following on through 9:32, in using deadly force if they fit (a)(2)(B)...

...AND AS LONG AS THEY ARE STILL COMMITTING one of those listed crimes...in (A) or (B)...you are still justified in use of deadly force...
look at each instance...and you'll see that in quite a few of them, they could throw down the gun and STILL BE COMMITTING the crime that's listed...and several don't even require a gun to commit...that was the whole point of my discussing this...

...at issue in 9:31 and 9:32 is not ONLY is he using/threatening you with deadly force...we'll say a gun...but is he STILL COMMITTING OR TRYING TO COMMIT A CRIME IN 9:32(a)(2(B)...that's why I listed all those questions...you may be very well justified by this law in choosing to use deadly force to stop him EVEN if he is UNARMED...but is committing or attempting to commit one of the listed crimes...

...I listed a lot of examples earlier...just one now...if a man comes into your presence in a restaurant...and at gunpoint kidnaps your daughter...but throws his gun down at the door, as he drags her out...you're STILL justified in shooting him...because he's STILL committing a listed crime...if he kidnaps her with no gun at all...you're still justified in shooting him...if he's still taking her with him...even if he's begging you not to shoot him every step of the way...

...his threatening you with deadly force(a gun) is a very small part of what 9:31 and 9:32 are about...

(here's the PC description of aggravated kidnapping...to show you no weapon is required to commit it http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/20.04.00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...didn't say that...why did you??? my listing of the 6 crimes covered that...that's not the only one that might be a "no" answer...the example you quoted shows why all of them aren't always shoot situations...and all aren't always don't shoot situations...what if he doesn't drop the gun but runs...? the bottom line is go back to the law and work through it to see what you have and what your justification is or is not...then decide based on the specifics should be...there is no "one size fits all" answer...but there is one safe way to make a decision...how does it fit the law in this situation AS IT IS...not how does it fit this cliche or that..."I always" "you never..." those don't get you a pink bunny by your name in Grand Jury...we're either going to be justified or condemned by how the specifics of our particular incident match up to the law...there is no catch-all answer...

...alright...two got mad and one quit on me...and I'm still saying...READ THE LAW...it tells us what we can do and what we can't do...and when...and how...

...get mad if you must, but the law doesn't say if the threat of deadly force stops...don't shoot...it tells us when we are justified in using deadly force...it doesn't say if the bad guy leaves the scene, don't shoot...it doesn't say those things at all...it's not about whether he's not standing there pointing a gun at us...some of those crimes which justify deadly force don't even require a weapon...as Beiruty said...and some of them specifically allow us to pursue and use deadly force if we feel that we'd be in great danger trying to do what??? RECOVER OUR FRESHLY STOLEN PROPERTY...WHY does it say that??? because the person you're chasing is STILL COMMITTING THE CRIME...even though he's hi-tailing it down the road...escaping...with his back to you...he's still got what he robbed...(or stole or burgled)...and he's still in the commission of that crime...

...now, going back to 9:31 (a)(1)
(A)is he still in or trying to get into your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment...or is he outside fleeing=shoot or don't shoot...
(B)did he remove you...or is he still trying to...or has he desisted, let you go, and fleeing WITHOUT you?=shoot or don't shoot...
(C)aggravated kidnapping...not is he running away or put down his gun...HAS HE RELEASED HIS VICTIM?(or is he still committing the crime)=shoot or don't shoot
...murder...is he still trying to kill someone(still armed) or fleeing for his life=shoot or don't shoot
...sexual assault...if he's fleeing...he's obviously stopped committing the crime...
...aggravated sexual assault...if he's fleeing...he's stopped committing the crime...
...robbery---is he still taking what he robbed you of? he's still committing the crime...if he throws it down...he's stopped and is fleeing...=shoot or don't shoot
...aggravated robbery...same question...is he still committing the crime or has he thrown down what he robbed you of and is fleeing for his life=shoot or don't shoot...

...if we'll READ the LAW...it will tell us...there are umpity-ump "rules of thumb" that we hear to go by...but I guarantee you the Grand Jury or jury will read the law...and sort through it to see WHAT we were doing and WHEN and WHY...and there's our salvation or our downfall...justify what you do or don't do in the law...not opinions and things everyone knows...but they often don't match the law...


...as an aside...a CHL who is NOT acting at the direction of a peace officer is NOT justified under PC9:51 in using deadly force---only force...so what we're talking about in PC9:31 and 9:32 has nothing to do with arrest...

apostate wrote:If "the deed is done" then you're talking about arrest, not preventing the crime. I don't believe the fleeing felon rule is in effect these days.

...PC9:31 and 9:32 don't mention any fleeing felon rule...nor arrest...but since you bring that up...do you really believe we're justified in using deadly force to recover property involved in two of the crimes mentioned, robbery or aggravated robbery...and yet not justified in using deadly force in preventing the escape of someone who has just committed or was in commission of the crimes listed in 9:32(a)(2)(B)?

...edited to change 9:32(a)(1)(B) to 9:32(a)(2)(B), which is where the crimes are listed

...I don't know how to hilight but 9:31(a) says in part: "...The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this sub section is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:..." so if you're justified under the rest of 9:31, and follow through to 9:32, where you read (b), which re-states it...then follow through 9:32...that explains the first part you printed in bold...so that's not a question...


...the second part you put in bold "...committing or attempting to commit..." includes any and all parts of the offense...including escape...I'm not talking about 3 hours later...immediately means immediately...the law doesn't require that we let them escape when they've committed the crimes in 9:32(a)(2)(B)...nothing in either place suggests the justified force ceased to be justified if they tried to escape...

...how the penal code "gets applied" by Texas LEOs isn't where trouble comes...it's the prosecutors, Grand Juries, judges and juries who decide if we followed the letter of the law...

...your use of the term "abandons the encounter" would be appropriate in an assault situation...but how does one abandon an aggravated kidnapping, a murder, a sexual assault, an aggravated sexual assault a robbery, or an aggravated robbery...the deed is done once the elements of those crimes have been met...you're not talking about changing his mind and abandoning an encounter...you're talking about escaping after committing a crime...

Beiruty wrote:

...there are several crimes against which deadly force is justified that do not even require a deadly weapon being used by the agressor...

Like simple robbery, kidnapping, etc.... as in the law.

...that'd be "aggravated kidnapping" and "robbery"...they're listed in 9:32(a)(2)(B)

Beiruty wrote:

apostate wrote:

gigag04 wrote:When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events.

I agree. However, I cannot deny there are many people, including some instructors, who say a CH licensee should not present their sidearm unless they intend to shoot and are legally justified in shooting.

As I understand the law, one may be able draw on someone who is simply assulting the CHLer as threat of use of deadly force. (no deadly wepon presented by the agressor). Hower, if the threat of use of deadly force failed to deter the aggressor, shooting the agressor would be dicy at best, and would place the CHLer in big legal trouble. It is the case, since simple assult does not justify the use of deadly force ( shooting the bad guy). However, Robbery and Aggrevate Robbery do justify the use of deadly force.

The Annoyed man, disagree with my analysis, since he consdiers fist-fight a potentionaly deadly threat.

...there are several crimes against which deadly force is justified that do not even require a deadly weapon being used by the aggressor...

...read PC9:31(a) and PC9:32(a) and (b)...



...they describe the situations where deadly force is JUSTIFIED BY LAW (PC9:31 being the first qualification to employ PC9:32)...they are very carefully written...

...neither says that deadly force may not be used once the BG turns his back to run or stops being a threat...I'd go with the law instead of opinion...if the situation satisfies 9:31 and 9:32...then I have a choice to make...but it won't be based on fear of getting into trouble...it will be based on all the facts as they occur in a situation where I know I'm justified if my choice is to use deadly force...

...that would depend on how professional the responding officer and the department were...but we can do our part...

JALLEN wrote:Lawyers all know that an eyewitness can ruin a good story. It's best that there be only one witness, and one version of what happened.

...these two sayings, though heard often, shouldn't alarm us if our story is only one of several and different ones...my personal experience in cases from traffic to murder and in between is this:
...as soon as possible, write down notes of everything you can remember...before you discuss what happened with anyone...every single detail matters...
...don't let yourself be rattled, either by investigators or a prosecutor or defense attorney...tell exactly what happened...people who deal with cases daily develop the ability to smell a lie...and recognize the ring of truth...

...I'll say that was a joke...and suggest that fingerprints on that dropped knife, or DNA from either the robber or a previous victim on it, might be used to take a criminal off the street...even if it were a brand new pistol...we have to responsibly call it in and get it logged and processed...the days of tossing it or keeping it were over along about the time DNA became significant...your being a good citizen might break a string of crimes and save someone else's bacon...