9.22 Necessity

[LSUTiger]

Just for the sake of argument because I know what I would do in this situation but:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm

Is section 9.22 Necessity a legal defense to prosecution in the scenario that you are in the parking lot of a school and an active school shooter situation occurs and you are able to respond and as such must bring a weapon onto school premises to do so to neutralize the threat?

[Greybeard]

Possibly a quite viable application of 9.22 as a defense. Just hope you could get the situation resolved and the gun put away before the LEOs arrive or you might not be around to need it.

[flechero]

I can say without question that I don't know or care what the statutes say on this... I'm heading in. Knowing full and well that I could be killed by friend or foe. My faith assures me that Gods full and final plan for me was written long before the shooter drew my attention.

ETA: no matter the law, you wouldn't be prosecuted for that.

[skeathley]

These situations have actually happened. Regardless of the law, if someone stops an active shooter and saves lives, and is not reckless, experience shows that public pressure makes it impossible to prosecute those people.

This is not a guarantee, but the public appreciates someone who steps up for public safety, even putti g tbemselves in legal jeopardy to do so.

Note that "reckless endangerment" will not be overlooked, nor will shooting someone who is not indisputably an immediate threat.

[jeffbird]

These situations have actually happened. Regardless of the law, if someone stops an active shooter and saves lives, and is not reckless, experience shows that public pressure makes it impossible to prosecute those people.

This is not a guarantee, but the public appreciates someone who steps up for public safety, even putti g tbemselves in legal jeopardy to do so.

Note that "reckless endangerment" will not be overlooked, nor will shooting someone who is not indisputably an immediate threat.

The 7th Amendment right to trial by jury has a powerful tempering effect on the interpretation and application of laws.

[Allons]

I can say without question that I don't know or care what the statutes say on this... I'm heading in. Knowing full and well that I could be killed by friend or foe. My faith assures me that Gods full and final plan for me was written long before the shooter drew my attention.

ETA: no matter the law, you wouldn't be prosecuted for that.

I'm going in too.

[K.Mooneyham]

I've stated many times that my LTC is to protect me and mine...but also that it's not a hard rule, just a mental guideline. Each and every situation would have its merits and difficulties. Am I pulling a gun and shooting some punks for breaking into a car? Oh, no way, I'm calling the police. I don't have the money to defend myself from some overzealous ADA who needs a notch in the belt. But when life is on the line, there are other factors at work. Each and every individual has to make that mental call for themselves.

[C-dub]

If I'm waiting in the parking lot for my daughter to come out after school and something like that were to happen, I'm going in to protect and get her. If I'm able to stop the BG then great.

However, now that I'm thinking about it, what if I do not engage the BG, but am discovered in or exiting the school and have my holstered firearm? How much trouble am I in? The whole necessity thing might be out the window since I did not find or engage or stop anyone.

[The Annoyed Man]

It is my fervent prayer to never find myself in that situation, but I take care of a 4yr old granddaughter and 2yr old grandson every day. Some day they’ll be in school. My liberty is a cheap price to pay if their lives are on the line, so I’ll do whatever I have to do to protect them. If I and the first responder, then I’ll respond and trust my fate to God’s judgement. But if the pros are already there and entering to engage the shooter, then I will stay outside, on my knees in intercessory prayer. I don’t want to be “that guy” that just gets in the way and makes things worse.

[cdwieg]

It seems to me that the easier argument would be that the person entered the building to protect the lives of others and utilized reasonable and deadly force would be fairly well covered under §9.33, “Defense of Third Person”.

More specifically, §9.33 states,

“A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Then you can get into the chicken/egg argument about the validity of §46.03 “Places Weapons Prohibited”.