Search found 2 matches
Return to “Black Friday & thinking like a newbie...Part 2”
- Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:22 am
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: Black Friday & thinking like a newbie...Part 2
- Replies: 16
- Views: 2944
Re: Black Friday & thinking like a newbie...Part 2
For help w/ the weight of the gun, while your watching TV, during commercials hold a can of vegetables (or similar 10-16oz can) as long as you before your arm shakes. Work on this periodically until you develop the arm strength to hold it out solid for 3-7 minutes w/o shaking. - - My wife doesn't have alot of upper body strength and this exercise helped her alot.
- Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:08 pm
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: Black Friday & thinking like a newbie...Part 2
- Replies: 16
- Views: 2944
Re: Black Friday & thinking like a newbie...Part 2
First welcome to the forum, second if you get 100 replies you will get 100 different opinions so from me (keep in mind IANAL)
This is where it comes to word play, were they running away from the store with their guns out OR were they running TOWARDS you with their guns out?
Running toward you w/ gun out = opportunity and capability, just waiting for intent.
Here is the applicable Penal Code Sections (in reverse)
Sec.A9.43.AAPROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON ’S PROPERTY.A A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1)AAthe actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2)AAthe actor reasonably believes that:
(A)AAthe third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B)AAhe has a legal duty to protect the third person ’s land or property; or
(C)AAthe third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor ’s spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor ’s care.
here is 9.42
Sec.A9.42.AADEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.A A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)AAif he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2)AAwhen and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)AAto prevent the other ’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B)AAto 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)AAhe reasonably believes that:
(A)AAthe land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B)AAthe 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.
Here is 9.41
Sec.A9.41.AAPROTECTION OF ONE ’S OWN PROPERTY.A (a)AAA person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other ’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b)AAA person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1)AAthe actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2)AAthe other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
What it comes down to is what the law says and how much you are willing to expose yourself for certain things. Some people feel lethal force is too much to even protect their own property and some people feel completely opposite. I take it they got away?? When you carry and you think about getting involved with your weapon you have to play things out 3, 4, or 5 moves ahead to make sure you walk away from an incident like that. Personally, I think you did your best (and more than most) with what you had. Taking someone's life (or attempting) is going to have serious implications on your life no matter what happens or how justified you are. Learn for you, what it is your willing to do and how far you are going to extend yourself for you, somone you love, some stranger, etc, etc, etc.
Could you of shot them? I think YES. Would I of shot them? I do not honestly know, it would depend if I was alone or I had my kids with me, etc.
You will get much more educated people here than me with loads of info, opinions, suggestions, etc.
Bryan
This is where it comes to word play, were they running away from the store with their guns out OR were they running TOWARDS you with their guns out?
Running toward you w/ gun out = opportunity and capability, just waiting for intent.
Here is the applicable Penal Code Sections (in reverse)
Sec.A9.43.AAPROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON ’S PROPERTY.A A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1)AAthe actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2)AAthe actor reasonably believes that:
(A)AAthe third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B)AAhe has a legal duty to protect the third person ’s land or property; or
(C)AAthe third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor ’s spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor ’s care.
here is 9.42
Sec.A9.42.AADEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.A A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)AAif he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2)AAwhen and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)AAto prevent the other ’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B)AAto 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)AAhe reasonably believes that:
(A)AAthe land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B)AAthe 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.
Here is 9.41
Sec.A9.41.AAPROTECTION OF ONE ’S OWN PROPERTY.A (a)AAA person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other ’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b)AAA person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1)AAthe actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2)AAthe other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
What it comes down to is what the law says and how much you are willing to expose yourself for certain things. Some people feel lethal force is too much to even protect their own property and some people feel completely opposite. I take it they got away?? When you carry and you think about getting involved with your weapon you have to play things out 3, 4, or 5 moves ahead to make sure you walk away from an incident like that. Personally, I think you did your best (and more than most) with what you had. Taking someone's life (or attempting) is going to have serious implications on your life no matter what happens or how justified you are. Learn for you, what it is your willing to do and how far you are going to extend yourself for you, somone you love, some stranger, etc, etc, etc.
Could you of shot them? I think YES. Would I of shot them? I do not honestly know, it would depend if I was alone or I had my kids with me, etc.
You will get much more educated people here than me with loads of info, opinions, suggestions, etc.
Bryan