Car Burgulary Last Night

[Will]

Also, which statute were you referring to a while back when you were showing justification to draw down without having justification to use deadly force (obviously for threats, but threats which are not yet to that point but appear to be headed that way).

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

If by "draw down" you mean produce a weapon.

[txinvestigator]

Could you have done something less than deadly force that would have stopped or prevented the crime?

In your opinion, what is reasonable?

Reasonable depends upon the circumstances then and there existing. Again, as a former LEO with current MA training and continued training in firearms and tactics, being 46 years of age and healthy, it could be quite different than what is reasonable say....for a 70 year old crippled guy.

There have been some good suggestions in this thread already.

You don't have to allow them to leave, but someone like me also doesn't have any formal training to subdue someone. I'd assume that if we were to wrestle, I'd lose my gun and be killed. So then the person isn't getting closer than 20+ feet from me and I wouldn't plan on holstering anything. So then if the person, unarmed, tried to walk towards you without making any verbal threats...what would you do?

Also, which statute were you referring to a while back when you were showing justification to draw down without having justification to use deadly force (obviously for threats, but threats which are not yet to that point but appear to be headed that way).

Without shooting them I would attempt an arrest. If they run off, fine with me. If they walk towards me, unarmed, then deadly force is not justified. However, the likelihood of a person walking towards me with a gun pointed square at the noggin is pretty slim, I believe. But if they did, I would respond as I would in any situation I might find myself in where a person of apparent hostile intent is moving towards me.

Remember, to protect yourself, deadly force is ONLY justified if youreasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force against you.

A person walking toward you, unarmed, does not meet that requirement.


I made a decision a long time ago that I am not willing to take another persons life over property. I believe that morally and ethically I should not. However, that is MY belief based on prayer with MY maker, and no one else is bound by that. The law is clear, and everyone has to decide what, within the law, they are willing to take a life over.

[CHL/LEO]

A person walking toward you, unarmed, does not meet that requirement.

Unless they are physically bigger and stronger than you (your 70 year old man example) and are telling you the entire time that they are walking toward you that they're going to take your gun away from you and kill you with it - AND you believe that they will do exactly that. Then I believe you might be able to justify your actions. Of course, it depends upon the Grand Jury and the totality of the circumstances at the time.

[txinvestigator]

A person walking toward you, unarmed, does not meet that requirement.

Unless they are physically bigger and stronger than you (your 70 year old man example) and are telling you the entire time that they are walking toward you that they're going to take your gun away from you and kill you with it - AND you believe that they will do exactly that. Then I believe you might be able to justify your actions. Of course, it depends upon the Grand Jury and the totality of the circumstances at the time.

There are thousands of changes to the scenario "he walks towards you, unarmed" that might make DF justifiable. It is important for those (especially those not trained in procedures for handling these situations) who contemplate these scenarios to realize that deadly force is not justified in response to simple force or threats. That's my point, but I agree with your assessment of the situation as you described.

[Will938]

Remember, to protect yourself, deadly force is ONLY justified if youreasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force against you.

A person walking toward you, unarmed, does not meet that requirement.


I made a decision a long time ago that I am not willing to take another persons life over property. I believe that morally and ethically I should not. However, that is MY belief based on prayer with MY maker, and no one else is bound by that. The law is clear, and everyone has to decide what, within the law, they are willing to take a life over.

I think most people here would agree that killing to protect your property isn't acceptable unless its something thats going to keep you alive, like insulin during a disaster.

But you're saying that someone who has already broken into your property, doesn't hit the deck or stop when told to, but also doesn't say anything threatening; can't be stopped by deadly force?

I like to think I'm a reasonable person, and my first thought is that the size of a person means nothing just like you can't assume what someone with a gun's intentions are. If I allow the situation to escalate to the point where I'm going to be going hand to hand with this person, they might be smaller but better trained or more lean/stronger. And by allowing that to happen with a firearm present (even if I was the person to present it in this situation it would of been justified) I'd be in grave danger of being shot. So case law would say that I'm not being reasonable, and I should of fought them/turn my back and ran?

[txinvestigator]

Remember, to protect yourself, deadly force is ONLY justified if youreasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force against you.

A person walking toward you, unarmed, does not meet that requirement.


I made a decision a long time ago that I am not willing to take another persons life over property. I believe that morally and ethically I should not. However, that is MY belief based on prayer with MY maker, and no one else is bound by that. The law is clear, and everyone has to decide what, within the law, they are willing to take a life over.

I think most people here would agree that killing to protect your property isn't acceptable unless its something thats going to keep you alive, like insulin during a disaster.

But you're saying that someone who has already broken into your property, doesn't hit the deck or stop when told to, but also doesn't say anything threatening; can't be stopped by deadly force?

I like to think I'm a reasonable person, and my first thought is that the size of a person means nothing just like you can't assume what someone with a gun's intentions are. If I allow the situation to escalate to the point where I'm going to be going hand to hand with this person, they might be smaller but better trained or more lean/stronger. And by allowing that to happen with a firearm present (even if I was the person to present it in this situation it would of been justified) I'd be in grave danger of being shot. So case law would say that I'm not being reasonable, and I should of fought them/turn my back and ran?

I didn't write anything about case law. Texas does not justify Deadly force for "grave danger" whatever that is.

The law is clear. Read it..all of the words;

§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not
have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

There is no allowance for what "might" happen if he gets your gun in a few minutes. In fact, there is no allowance except for the reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect yourself from his use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.

If you are standing there pointing your handgun at him and he walks towards you, you still have not met the requirement. Walking towards you is NOT the use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.

***Please note that this assumes he has stopped the property crime***

If deadly force becomes justified due to his actions after you order him to stop, you are acting in defense of persons at that point, and not of property.

[KD5NRH]

There is no allowance for what "might" happen if he gets your gun in a few minutes.

If he makes a move to take your gun by force, that should fall under "imminent commssion of...robbery"

If someone is advancing against a drawn gun, I'd certainly "resonably believe" that he intends to take it away by force. I'd probably still wait until the last possible instant to fire before he can gain any degree of control over the weapon, but I would be using that time to aim, continue verbalizing, and look for alternatives, and certainly wouldn't call anyone else's decision to fire at Tueller drill range unreasonable.

[NcongruNt]

There is no allowance for what "might" happen if he gets your gun in a few minutes.

If he makes a move to take your gun by force, that should fall under "imminent commssion of...robbery"

If someone is advancing against a drawn gun, I'd certainly "resonably believe" that he intends to take it away by force. I'd probably still wait until the last possible instant to fire before he can gain any degree of control over the weapon, but I would be using that time to aim, continue verbalizing, and look for alternatives, and certainly wouldn't call anyone else's decision to fire at Tueller drill range unreasonable.

The problem with that is that drawing a gun in and of itself is considered use of force, as threat of deadly force. It can be argued that you initiated the sequence of events that led up to the shooting if he goes for a gun you have already drawn, especially in a scenario where he is on the street.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The problem with that is that drawing a gun in and of itself is considered use of force, as threat of deadly force. It can be argued that you initiated the sequence of events that led up to the shooting if he goes for a gun you have already drawn, especially in a scenario where he is on the street.

Well, sure it can.

But like I said, we frequently take these things too far. Far too far in this case.

If he was just standing around soaking up sun it might be argued that you initiated a chain of events, etc. But if the guy is committing a property crime, and you order him to stop, and he advances towards you in a menacing way, and you draw (all in that order), you have initiated nothing.

It's impossible to fully describe every last detail in one of these scenarios. So sure, if the guy is calmly walking towards you while smiling beatifically, hands spread out at his waist, wearing a Roman Catholic collar and quoting from the Bible, TX law and Black's Law Dictionary in the way of explaining that what you thought was a property crime was actually his solemn obligation, you're in trouble. But that's not what any of us have in mind when we talk about ordering someone to stop committing a crime, and having them turn and advance on us.

I know that if someone was deliberately advancing on me, while emitting the requesite sights, sounds, and smells, I would fully believe that they intended to sieze the gun and harm me with it. I think almost any reasonable person would believe the same thing. And while I might try backing away and verbalizing so as to eliminate any possible misunderstandings about my reasonable belief, if the person got close enough to grab the gun I would certainly be in fear for my life at that point - unless they only weighed around 80 lbs or so.

Note: The above is more or less why (in other cases) I would generally try to retreat rather than standing my ground and defending myself from what would otherwise be simple assault. If you're grappling with someone and they "find" the gun, the whole nature of the situation has escalated tremendously.

Better to be thought a "chicken" than to have things spiral out of control.

[NcongruNt]

The problem with that is that drawing a gun in and of itself is considered use of force, as threat of deadly force. It can be argued that you initiated the sequence of events that led up to the shooting if he goes for a gun you have already drawn, especially in a scenario where he is on the street.

Well, sure it can.

But like I said, we frequently take these things too far. Far too far in this case.

If he was just standing around soaking up sun it might be argued that you initiated a chain of events, etc. But if the guy is committing a property crime, and you order him to stop, and he advances towards you in a menacing way, and you draw (all in that order), you have initiated nothing.

It's impossible to fully describe every last detail in one of these scenarios. So sure, if the guy is calmly walking towards you while smiling beatifically, hands spread out at his waist, wearing a Roman Catholic collar and quoting from the Bible, TX law and Black's Law Dictionary in the way of explaining that what you thought was a property crime was actually his solemn obligation, you're in trouble. But that's not what any of us have in mind when we talk about ordering someone to stop committing a crime, and having them turn and advance on us.

I know that if someone was deliberately advancing on me, while emitting the requesite sights, sounds, and smells, I would fully believe that they intended to sieze the gun and harm me with it. I think almost any reasonable person would believe the same thing. And while I might try backing away and verbalizing so as to eliminate any possible misunderstandings about my reasonable belief, if the person got close enough to grab the gun I would certainly be in fear for my life at that point - unless they only weighed around 80 lbs or so.

Note: The above is more or less why (in other cases) I would generally try to retreat rather than standing my ground and defending myself from what would otherwise be simple assault. If you're grappling with someone and they "find" the gun, the whole nature of the situation has escalated tremendously.

Better to be thought a "chicken" than to have things spiral out of control.

I was talking about going out with the gun already drawn before he made an advance towards you, just to clarify.

[Will938]

I was talking about going out with the gun already drawn before he made an advance towards you, just to clarify.

lol guys I'm sorry to keep opening a new can of worms, but...

If you were on your own property as I understand it you can carry however you please. Now then you'd be just great carrying it in your hand correct? Because in all reality I wouldn't be likely to have a holster on myself at home. Then again if I was at home I'd likely be using a shotgun, what do you guys think?

[frankie_the_yankee]

I was talking about going out with the gun already drawn before he made an advance towards you, just to clarify.

lol guys I'm sorry to keep opening a new can of worms, but...

If you were on your own property as I understand it you can carry however you please. Now then you'd be just great carrying it in your hand correct? Because in all reality I wouldn't be likely to have a holster on myself at home. Then again if I was at home I'd likely be using a shotgun, what do you guys think?

I think if you walked out carrying a shotgun you'd be fine. Likewise if you walked out carrying a handgun openly, even in your hand. Maybe at low ready or something like that.

[para driver]

Okay okay, maybe I over exaggerated over unloading my magazine through the windshield, but I would have done something though. I'm not going to be a sitting duck and watch someone strip my car apart. I've already talked to 2 LEO this afternoon. They've already told me what I need to do in this situation in justification in shooting or not shooting. I asked a lot of question, to the point where I won't get into trouble with the law and be protected by self defense.

okay, now you're on record having discussed premeditated use of deadly force.. not clever..... those LEOs won't remember a thing about those conversations at your trial..

It might be interesting if your uncle got an interest in snakes?? And left Herman his pet rattlesnake in his truck at night????

[HankB]

It might be interesting if your uncle got an interest in snakes?? And left Herman his pet rattlesnake in his truck at night????

Texas law explicitly prohibits setting "mechanisms" that might injure someone, and some slick DA may try to extend the definition of "mechanism" to include a rattlesnake, a bottle of poisoned liquor, razor blades taped to the dashboard, or any of a number of other things . . . you could get in more trouble for this than the perp. (Although proving it was your rattlesnake might be difficult, especially if the ol' rattler didn't have a tag or your fingerprints . . . )

[Venus Pax]

It might be interesting if your uncle got an interest in snakes?? And left Herman his pet rattlesnake in his truck at night????

Darn, officer! This happened again? Herman just hates his new cage. He's really a gentle rattler; wanna pet him?