What do you do if you draw your weapon w/o having to shoot?

[apostate]

...PC9:31 and 9:32 don't mention any fleeing felon rule...nor arrest...but since you bring that up...do you really believe we're justified in using deadly force to recover property involved in two of the crimes mentioned, robbery or aggravated robbery...and yet not justified in using deadly force in preventing the escape of someone who has just committed or was in commission of the crimes listed in 9:32(a)(1)(B)?

I believe the law says what the law says. You are free to believe otherwise if you wish.

[gigag04]

Ok. Im done.

[speedsix]

...alright...two got mad and one quit on me...and I'm still saying...READ THE LAW...it tells us what we can do and what we can't do...and when...and how...

...get mad if you must, but the law doesn't say if the threat of deadly force stops...don't shoot...it tells us when we are justified in using deadly force...it doesn't say if the bad guy leaves the scene, don't shoot...it doesn't say those things at all...it's not about whether he's not standing there pointing a gun at us...some of those crimes which justify deadly force don't even require a weapon...as Beiruty said...and some of them specifically allow us to pursue and use deadly force if we feel that we'd be in great danger trying to do what??? RECOVER OUR FRESHLY STOLEN PROPERTY...WHY does it say that??? because the person you're chasing is STILL COMMITTING THE CRIME...even though he's hi-tailing it down the road...escaping...with his back to you...he's still got what he robbed...(or stole or burgled)...and he's still in the commission of that crime...

...now, going back to 9:31 (a)(1)
(A)is he still in or trying to get into your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment...or is he outside fleeing=shoot or don't shoot...
(B)did he remove you...or is he still trying to...or has he desisted, let you go, and fleeing WITHOUT you?=shoot or don't shoot...
(C)aggravated kidnapping...not is he running away or put down his gun...HAS HE RELEASED HIS VICTIM?(or is he still committing the crime)=shoot or don't shoot
...murder...is he still trying to kill someone(still armed) or fleeing for his life=shoot or don't shoot
...sexual assault...if he's fleeing...he's obviously stopped committing the crime...
...aggravated sexual assault...if he's fleeing...he's stopped committing the crime...
...robbery---is he still taking what he robbed you of? he's still committing the crime...if he throws it down...he's stopped and is fleeing...=shoot or don't shoot
...aggravated robbery...same question...is he still committing the crime or has he thrown down what he robbed you of and is fleeing for his life=shoot or don't shoot...

...if we'll READ the LAW...it will tell us...there are umpity-ump "rules of thumb" that we hear to go by...but I guarantee you the Grand Jury or jury will read the law...and sort through it to see WHAT we were doing and WHEN and WHY...and there's our salvation or our downfall...justify what you do or don't do in the law...not opinions and things everyone knows...but they often don't match the law...


...as an aside...a CHL who is NOT acting at the direction of a peace officer is NOT justified under PC9:51 in using deadly force---only force...so what we're talking about in PC9:31 and 9:32 has nothing to do with arrest...

[Beiruty]

Let me add, if some one has committed or in process of committing an offense justifiying the use of deadly force, if the offender surrenders and freezes upon presentation of deadly foce ( CHer's weapon), drop any weapon he might bear. Then, It would be "actual" arrest till 911 help show us. Happy ending for CHLer, very long vacation in the "iron hotel" for the offender.

[smoothoperator]

If "the deed is done" then you're talking about arrest, not preventing the crime. I don't believe the fleeing felon rule is in effect these days.

...PC9:31 and 9:32 don't mention any fleeing felon rule...nor arrest...but since you bring that up...do you really believe we're justified in using deadly force to recover property involved in two of the crimes mentioned, robbery or aggravated robbery...and yet not justified in using deadly force in preventing the escape of someone who has just committed or was in commission of the crimes listed in 9:32(a)(2)(B)?

...edited to change 9:32(a)(1)(B) to 9:32(a)(2)(B), which is where the crimes are listed

Suppose you're in a restaurant. You hear shots. You look and see the shooter drop the gun, turn and run toward the door. Do you think the law says you can shoot him in the back to prevent his escape? Can you show me where it says that?

[speedsix]

...didn't say that...why did you??? my listing of the 6 crimes covered that...that's not the only one that might be a "no" answer...the example you quoted shows why all of them aren't always shoot situations...and all aren't always don't shoot situations...what if he doesn't drop the gun but runs...? the bottom line is go back to the law and work through it to see what you have and what your justification is or is not...then decide based on the specifics should be...there is no "one size fits all" answer...but there is one safe way to make a decision...how does it fit the law in this situation AS IT IS...not how does it fit this cliche or that..."I always" "you never..." those don't get you a pink bunny by your name in Grand Jury...we're either going to be justified or condemned by how the specifics of our particular incident match up to the law...there is no catch-all answer...

[pcgizzmo]

...alright...two got mad and one quit on me...and I'm still saying...READ THE LAW...it tells us what we can do and what we can't do...and when...and how...

...get mad if you must, but the law doesn't say if the threat of deadly force stops...don't shoot...it tells us when we are justified in using deadly force...it doesn't say if the bad guy leaves the scene, don't shoot...it doesn't say those things at all...it's not about whether he's not standing there pointing a gun at us.
...

Man, I have to totally disagree here. If the threat of deadly force stops you are no longer justified in using deadly force again the aggressor.

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

Once the aggressor turns to leave you can no longer reasonably believe force is immediately necessary. Once he drops his weapon. Once he puts his hands up etc. etc.

[speedsix]

...none of those "onces" are written into the law we're discussing...PC 9:31 and 9:32 are written to explain to us(and those who will try us or decide not to) the conditions/situations in which you and I are justified by law in using deadly force...I'll speak to 9:31...since you quoted a little bit of 9:31...

...continue reading past where you stopped and you'll see that if any of those situations listed and spelled out exist and fit the law, your decision to believe that it was immediately necessary to use force is presumed to be necessary...

now look at 9:31(a)(1)(C)...if the person fits the description of committing or attempting to commit any of those crimes (or those in (A) or (B), for that matter...you are justified in using force...and, following on through 9:32, in using deadly force if they fit (a)(2)(B)...

...AND AS LONG AS THEY ARE STILL COMMITTING one of those listed crimes...in (A) or (B)...you are still justified in use of deadly force...
look at each instance...and you'll see that in quite a few of them, they could throw down the gun and STILL BE COMMITTING the crime that's listed...and several don't even require a gun to commit...that was the whole point of my discussing this...

...at issue in 9:31 and 9:32 is not ONLY is he using/threatening you with deadly force...we'll say a gun...but is he STILL COMMITTING OR TRYING TO COMMIT A CRIME IN 9:32(a)(2(B)...that's why I listed all those questions...you may be very well justified by this law in choosing to use deadly force to stop him EVEN if he is UNARMED...but is committing or attempting to commit one of the listed crimes...

...I listed a lot of examples earlier...just one now...if a man comes into your presence in a restaurant...and at gunpoint kidnaps your daughter...but throws his gun down at the door, as he drags her out...you're STILL justified in shooting him...because he's STILL committing a listed crime...if he kidnaps her with no gun at all...you're still justified in shooting him...if he's still taking her with him...even if he's begging you not to shoot him every step of the way...

...his threatening you with deadly force(a gun) is a very small part of what 9:31 and 9:32 are about...

(here's the PC description of aggravated kidnapping...to show you no weapon is required to commit it http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/20.04.00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kjolly]

Taking a life is serious and requires more depth than armchair generaling. What is a life worth? Am I prepared to pull the trigger? In a heartbeat. Am I going to kill someone for stealing the TV, hell no. I have insurance. Might even help them load it up if I do not feel threatened.
There is a case in Austin on trial right now of a young man that got drunk on superbowl night was driving home and wrecked his car. He walked into the subdivision for assistance. From here details are sketchy but a homeowner shot him three times as he was leaving.
There are no hard and fast answers. The situation requires you to make the correct decision in a heartbeat based on individual circumstances. Do I want to explain to a DA why I shot a man in the back and why I precieved the man retreating as a threat?
Temper justice with commonsense. what the law permits and what your conscience permits may be quite different.

[speedsix]

...really knowing what the law does and doesn't say...what our options are LEGALLY, gives us the foundation on which to build our tactics, moral decisions, and execute our choices if "it" ever jumps up in front of us...I've been laughed at for my views that I wouldn't take a life for any physical thing that I own...but I would if someone threatened my family or violated the safety of my home...but those are MY decisions...each one of us will make their own choices...carefully think them out...and may pray that we never have to act on them...but chances are great that at least ONE of us will be in a real-life deadly force situation before we die...so just like we go to the range with a quality weapon and learn what we're capable of doing with it...practice and discipline ourselves to become the best that we can be with it...we need to invest the time and effort to know where we stand with respect to the law....or the rest of it may be misdirected...

[Nano]

This has been a very enlightening discussion by intelligent and sensible people. Far more useful information than I got in CHL class. kjolly I do agree with what you just said. Common sense has to prevail.

[bayouhazard]

People are quoting the law for defense of self and third parties. That's great.

I just want to point out that defending property falls under a different subsection. Arrest and preventing escape is also a different subsection. Make sure you know the laws that apply to what you're actually doing.

[speedsix]

...good point...what we're discussing here is only part of CH 9...wouldn't it be a bummer if the part you didn't take time to study out turned out to be the part you needed to decide within...some dark night??? this isn't the "Code of the West", we're living by...it's the Texas PENAL Code...that name was named for a REASON...the more time and effort we spend in understanding ALL of it, the less chance we'll ever spend our Sunday evenings in the prison library slapping our head with our hand...it can't all be learned in a CHL class...but there are classes available...if we realize the need...