The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
I tend to doubt it. The article says the robber pointed the rifle at him. Assuming this is not contradicted by some other evidence, that is a new threat. The LTCer certainly had a right to be where he was. If the LTCer had his gun in his hand, visible to the robber, it may be sticky, and the robber's attorney may try to argue "self-defense" but I doubt that will fly either. After all, the robber had already cleary identified himself as a lethal threat.bblhd672 wrote:Will be interesting to see if the LTC holder will eventually be charged, since the threat had left the building.
viking1000 wrote:He did a good job , the bad guy had already robbed folks inside the store, by following the idiot outside he took the fight outside not inside where others could be in the line of fire.
Good shooting in my book.
He went outside to make sure his wife was safe. Like most, my family is the reason I carry. Their safety is my number one priority.Well, they did say he's on life support. That's one step out of the morgue.bblhd672 wrote:(edited after re-reading the news reports)- Only thing wrong is the pictures were taken from the robber's hospital room and not the morgue.
Should be okELB wrote:I tend to doubt it. The article says the robber pointed the rifle at him. Assuming this is not contradicted by some other evidence, that is a new threat. The LTCer certainly had a right to be where he was. If the LTCer had his gun in his hand, visible to the robber, it may be sticky, and the robber's attorney may try to argue "self-defense" but I doubt that will fly either. After all, the robber had already cleary identified himself as a lethal threat.bblhd672 wrote:Will be interesting to see if the LTC holder will eventually be charged, since the threat had left the building.
Sec. 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. 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) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the 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.
IMO, seeing this in the article also seems to show this is a guy who knows how to give good information to police such that they knew the robber pointed his gun at him and he went outside out of concern for his wife's safety.vjallen75 wrote:viking1000 wrote:He did a good job , the bad guy had already robbed folks inside the store, by following the idiot outside he took the fight outside not inside where others could be in the line of fire.
Good shooting in my book.
Is it even necessary to qualify it that the BG pointed his rifle at the GG?MechAg94 wrote:IMO, seeing this in the article also seems to show this is a guy who knows how to give good information to police such that they knew the robber pointed his gun at him and he went outside out of concern for his wife's safety.vjallen75 wrote:viking1000 wrote:He did a good job , the bad guy had already robbed folks inside the store, by following the idiot outside he took the fight outside not inside where others could be in the line of fire.
Good shooting in my book.
You shouldn't even "call out" to the BG to make him turn at you. BGs don't run away facing you.(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.
philip964 wrote:A brave man going up against an AK with a handgun.
But you gota do what you gota do when its your family.
Good thing it worked out for him.