Shot Fired

[speedsix]

...when requalifying I put the front sight on the target...focused on the target, and squeezed...din't try to align the sights...worked just fine at those ranges...

[dihappy]

It would have been a damned shame had your boys lost their father because you decided to chase a burglar.

[dihappy]

Devil's advocate: You come home, night time, front door is kicked in etc., guy runs out the back. Do you give chase? It's apparent he's the one who kicked in the door. Do you run to check your VERY valuable possessions, run upstairs to to see if any family member has been harmed etc. Time is passing, the BG is fleeing a crime scene. You won't know what's been taken or who's been harmed, yet. Do you let him run or do you give chase?
Tough question. You must draw the line somewhere. And, in doing so, be able to live with the consequences or outcome.

I know what my response would be.

I hope you wouldnt give chase, unless you value chasing a guy instead of checking on family first. And whos to know how long youd even be chasing him while a family member may be in need of CPR, an ambulance, or first aid.

Yes, i know what my response would be as well.

[dihappy]

...first off, you and I and 97% of the others on the board know what the Castle Doctrine name means...it's commonly used by professionals across Texas ( i.e. http://www.ianinglis.com/article-texas- ... rine.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) and if you weren't upset you wouldn't pull a picky snit about it... second, your comments about internet anonymity, etc..are childish...I don't know your name or face either, but when someone quotes the law chapter and verse...maybe you could see past the fact that he is an old fat grey-haired guy and actually read the law as pertains to your post...and learn from the law...without getting all upset...most of us here learn from others' posts...does the law say I'm wrong in what I claim...or not??? that's the bottom line...you have the option of ignoring the post...while we're not "internet authorities", we commonly share points in the law for the common good...and, hopefully, adjust where we're wrong...

...as to your question about the "justified shoot" question...the law doesn't specify where you have to hit them...you just have to be able to convince a Grand Jury why you took careful aim at the center of a man's back and shot him as he ran, when you didn't even see him have anything in his hand,even some of your property, much less a weapon, and he had harmed noone...don't think that'll be too easy...

...as to your nuggets of truth and reason:

9:32 (2) key words "reasonably believes"......only kicks in AFTER you satisfy (1) which says you have to be justified under 9:31

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.....anyways, he used nor attempted any unlawful deadly force......

9.41: key words "reasonably believes"....read WHAT you must reasonably believe...you're not terminating a trespass or unlawful interference with the property...he's done that...he's gone...fleeing...you're not recovering property...you didn't see him take any...forget (1) and (2)...which are required elements...they don't apply either...


9.42: again, key words "reasonably believes"
9.42 (A) key words "to prevent"
9.42 (B) key words "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately........".....again...these three don't apply because you can't satisfy 9:41, so 9:42 can't apply
...what you're doing here is picking and choosing phrases throughout the law to support your "position"...ignoring the qualifying material...and you don't qualify to claim these phrases...it's like saying 1=2 without the +1...it doesn't work...

...when using the law, you can't pick and choose and take here a little or there a little...you have to follow it through like diagramming a sentence...putting things in the right order...the ifs, thens, and ands all mean something...

...you got a pass...you got away with what you did...great...my point to you or anyone else who's willing to pick up the law and read it, is that it's not like you think it is...you got a weekly quiz...the Grand Jury's more like a final...and, had your bullet hit, or you'd taken the second "legal" shot aimed right at his back, you'd have been in a world of hurt...if you don't care enough to learn...maybe someone else here will...I've done my evil deed...I can't help it if you don't like it or me...I'm just quoting the law...not interpreting...quoting...be mad and sarcastic as you want to be...or think about it and learn...not from me...from the law you'll be judged by...I'm on your side...like it or not...no apologies or regrets from me...if ONE person gets it...it's worth it...what have I got to lose by trying???

Speedsix's argument here comes from a regular guy, imagine this coming from an experienced attorney. I too am glad you didnt pull the trigger, but am more glad the bad guy didnt actually have a gun to fire at you with.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm not going to second guess the OP. I know in advance what I'm willing to shoot someone over, and a car stereo or a TV isn't one of those things. But to each his own. That is my decision. Someone else's decision may be different, and no less legitimate in my book.

For me, there are differences when it comes to the presentation of a threat by the BG. If I surprised someone in my home (like purplehood's account) unplugging the TV, I would not shoot him if he ran out the door. But if I ran to the door in pursuit so that I could get a good description for the police, and he turned on my front lawn toward me and was raising an object in his hand that looked "gun-like" in a perceived attack, I might shoot him........or, I might duck back behind the wall and take cover. It kinda depends.

Also, there are some times when I'm going to shoot without question. If someone kicks down my door, he's going to get shot. A lot. It doesn't matter what he's there to take. If someone sneaks into my house at night, he's going to get shot. A lot. Doesn't matter what he's there to take. Anybody who would break into a home when he has every reasonable expectation of encountering the homeowner is an immediate threat to that homeowner and family. Lethal force is immediately justifiable.

That same person breaks in during daylight hours, not expecting to run into the home owner, and I might order him to the floor and hold him for police. If he does not comply, and if non-compliance is anything other than running out of my house, he's going to get shot. A lot.

If Gemini's bullet had connected with the bad guy, his outcome before the law might have been less smooth. Even with a sympathetic PD and ADA, he might still have to face a grand jury, and even getting no-billed costs a LOT of money. IF I WERE IN HIS SHOES, and there was no visible property being taken, I'd have to ask myself if the loss of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees might be worth the loss of random cash or jewelry he had stuffed in his pockets. But again, that is a decision that only he can make.

One thing is for certain.....I don't think I would have lit out after the bad guy. I'm too fat to run, and homey don't play that.

But at the end of the day, my shoot/don't shoot decision making is largely the product of my own morality and the accountability I feel to God. So it is a spiritual matter rather than a material matter. Although it is in my sinful nature to try and ignore it, even a thief is part of God's creation.....not the thieving part, but the human being part. Others are certainly free to disagree, and I am NOT trying to turn this into a discussion of religion. I am merely explaining where I am coming from. In my paradigm, Christ went to the Cross even for thieves, rapists, and murderers. I don't want to kill one of God's human creations unless one of three conditions is met: A) my own life is immediately threatened; OR B) the life of a loved one or friend is immediately threatened; OR C) the life of an unknown third party is threatened and I have some knowledge of the background information which would make that shooting justifiable. I refuse to take part in the dispensation of street justice. That's why we have courts and juries, and that is why I would probably have a clear conscience and not be morally conflicted about having had to shoot somebody. I have already considered the moral implications, and internally adjudicated my willingness to shoot.

Granted, none of us should be shooting to kill. We shoot to stop a threat. But even though gunshot survival rates are fairly high, shooting someone is use of deadly force, and use of deadly force acknowledges that the subject against whom the force is applied runs a significant probability of dying as a result of that application of force.

My guess is that gemini raised his gun and fired instinctively in reaction to a perceived threat. There is no doubt that the other guy was a bad guy. Sure, a flashlight might have helped, but maybe not. Bright light means high contrast shadows. Hard to say for sure. Let me break down something he said in his OP:

He partially turned toward me, he had something in his hands, when he turned I couldn't tell if it was a knife, screwdriver or what and I immediately pulled my gun up and fired, from about waist high.

Apparent weapon reasonably believed to be in act of presentation by thief.....gemini fires.

I was still moving when the shot was taken. I did not hit him. I believe the round landed about 1 foot to his right in the parkway grass. Needless to say, I have never seen a man run that fast before. I stopped, placed my left hand into full grip, raised the weapon and had my night sights aimed square in the middle of the fleeing mans back. He was about 45 ft from me at this time. I did not fire the second shot. Not that it wasn’t legal, not that I didn’t have a clear shot,but in that absolute fraction of a second I decided no.

Second shot easily makable, possibly justifiable (lawyers required to sort that one out), but according to gemini's personal moral make up, the shot isn't morally justifiable, and he refrains from shooting second time.

One can debate the wisdom of chasing the thief. I'm not sure that I would. But once he was committed to the chase, I think that he made pretty reasonable decisions to shoot/not shoot.

That's one of the interesting things about this incident: that there were two distinct points during the same single incident at which gemini had to make a shoot/no shoot decision, and that he chose to fire ONE round and pause, then chose NOT to shoot the second round. Lots of people in that situation might have shot the mag dry on the first shot.

Anyway... I'm rambling.... but I think that he acquitted himself fairly well, and I think he would likely agree that he is relieved in hindsight that he didn't actually hit the bad guy.

[DEB]

I again thank Gemini. I don't believe I would post my use of a firearm in any situation on this or any board, probably gets quite anger-some as others dissect it while sitting in their armchairs, myself included, so bravo. I also believe Gemini did what not only he, but also I, believed to be right and apparently L.E. did not have a problem with it as well, otherwise he would have been arrested and charged. Unlike some I don't believe the good ol' boy is really that prevalent, especially in large cities, unless you are somehow personally associated with L.E. especially the DA. Police officers usually don't have the time or inclination to put their jobs/freedom on the line now-a-days for strangers. I also applaud the courage of those who are willing to post their experiences as I have been able to receive free training by reading gemini's and other's posts about their experiences. Everyone is wired differently, I had a preacher friend of mine that ran after a purse snatcher at a viewing, without a firearm, just because he was offended that someone was willing to enter a Funeral home and steal from a widow. Would I have done the same? I don't know. I do know that if more people were like gemini or my preacher friend, lawlessness would probably go down. Unfortunately many become martyrs to the cause as they take a personal hand in taking on those who perp against them or others they believe to be in their care. But because of these real life experiences, laws have been changed, such as CCW in Texas and our Castle Law. I remember a time in Texas when gemini would have not only been charged but convicted, when a law abiding person could not carry a pistol no way no how, when you had to retreat when threatened, and etc. So thanks Gemini

[johnson0317]

Also, there are some times when I'm going to shoot without question. If someone kicks down my door, he's going to get shot. A lot. It doesn't matter what he's there to take. If someone sneaks into my house at night, he's going to get shot. A lot. Doesn't matter what he's there to take. Anybody who would break into a home when he has every reasonable expectation of encountering the homeowner is an immediate threat to that homeowner and family. Lethal force is immediately justifiable.

Granted, none of us should be shooting to kill. We shoot to stop a threat.

First off, as is pretty much usual, I agree with TAM. If I have gotten to the point where I feel the need to shoot, it will probably be several rounds. Although none of us should be shooting to kill, we should be shooting to quickly disable, to quickly restore some kind of equlibrium. We say we should not point the gun at anything we do not intend to destroy...so we will probably end up killing the BG.

I guess my point is, we may not want to shoot to kill, but we need to understand that effective weapons manangement (for lack of a better term), is going to result in death.