TexasCHLforum.com

LedJedi wrote:

cxm wrote:Gents, I have read PC Chapt 9 pretty carefully... I can't find a single place it tells you WHERE you can or can not shoot someone if you are justified in using deadly force...

If I have missed this somehow, would someone be kind enough to show it to me?

Thanks

Chuck

where as in location on the body?
answer: it doesn't specify which is good imo cause if it gave specifics and you missed accidentally you could be even more liable.

At least one of my CHL instructors (most recent for sure), said absolutely clearly and specifically that 'shooting in the back' was permitted -- we all knwo that this might complicate the explanation of why deadly force was necessary, but that the side you choose to shoot was technically irrelevant.

or where as in location you're standing when you fire the shot?
It makes no reference to location like this. The only thing really close that I know of is the stipulation that DF be IMMEDIATELY necessary, but that's more a question of timing rather than geographic location.

Agreed x 2 and ditto. It's much easier to explain that you were in fear of your life in your own home after the front door is broken down, but IF your situation has reached the level where deadly force is justified then physical or geographic location doesn't matter.

KD5NRH wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I have been hunting and using guns all my life, my experience with shooting game animals tells me one cannot turn sideways at the sound of a shotgun blast from a few feet away quick enough to cause the impact to change from the front of the chest to the side of the back. But I guess I am letting the facts influence my beliefs again.

And, since one cannot jump up at the sound of a gun quickly enough to get into the path of the shot, Cheney must have intended to shoot his buddy in the head?

Or more directly: One can turn, dodge, duck based on seeing a muzzle orient on you (especially at 10-15 feet) and seeing the body language and facial expressions, even the hand movements of someone in the process of firing.

Martial artists who were said to "dodge bullets" don't dodge the bullet, they dodge the aim.

Paradoxically, it is easily to dodge (less distance needed for a larger angle) the CLOSER you are to the shooter. (But don't try this at home children. )

Searching Google NEWS for < "joe horn" ~federal >

(without duplicates there were 6 or so entries, most are accidental hits where "joe horn" appears on a news page with another story having the word "federal". And that is a TILDE in front of ~federal meaning 'approximate' or 'synonyms' and not a MINUS which excludes result with the term)

The only sourced reference to some Federal action seems to versions of this:

• "Frank Ortiz, a member of the local League of United Latin American Citizens chapter, said he hopes federal authorities investigate the case further."
  http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP3O ... wD91KVCD00

Consider the source. CITIZENS?


Or course we cannot easily search radio talk shows, but I also tried this for Google BLOG search too -- with similar (lack of) results.

Pinkycatcher wrote:True, you do make a point, that is castle doctrine, but the shooting a neighbor's robber is an older statute.

The older law isn't going to "take away" the protections (if) he is offered (them) under the new law without a specific conflict.

If both apply he will get the protections of both, or the greater protections, right?

Try this:
He was justified to use deadly force under the old law, he was justified to be where he was, they ran AT him leading him to be in fear of his life (which means murder was a reasonable presumption, and they were in the commission of a felony), therefore he is covered under Castle Doctrine?????

It's an argument -- I don't know if it is sufficient to be compelling.

Pinkycatcher wrote:

CHL/LEO wrote:

For you lawyer types out there: What are the chances of someone bringing civil action, for example for wrongful death? (God forbid.)

Isn't part of the Castle Doctrine that it provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill?

This most likely wouldn't be castle doctrine, it would be under an old statute that really is hardly ever tested (you can shoot as a third person would if the third person would do the same)

The detective testified that he was in his yard, and they move towards him, at least one entering his yard, he was in fear of his life, he was authorized to be there.

Doesn't that make castle doctrine? (I am confused in this case -- but believe the argument can be made.)

Horn did nothing illegal. Where he took the best course is debatable, but he certainly made some tactical and procedural mistakes.

boomerang wrote:

SCone wrote:

flb_78 wrote:Because he did nothing wrong. He stopped a burglary in process.

This is where we would have to agree to disagree. Listening to the 911 call, it appears the Mr Horn intended from the beginning of the call to shoot the two men. And that makes a HUGE difference. In his case, it has cost him the past six months of his life to keep himself from being prosecuted at this time. But I doubt this will end here.

Listening to the long 911 call, you could also say the police could have prevented the shooting by showing up and arresting the career criminals in the act.

The detective was in his car in front of Horn's house, spotted the two men between the houses, was assessing the situation, and at one point ducked down concerned that Horn would thing he was the wheel man and shoot him. (You can't make this stuff up -- ok a journalist might but this is a near quote.)

When seconds count, 911 is only minutes away.

stevie_d_64 wrote:What is the best lesson we've learned from this incident???

DoubleJ, you cannot go ask Mr. Owl!

For most people it would be something like: Don't argue nor chat with 911, nor give 911 your plans (unless that affects your safety) -- make your report, make sure they got it, make sure they're coming.

Hang up.

Don't even answer questions that don't pertain* to getting the help you need.

* If they ask how you are dressed, cross streets, or something that's fine, but don't get into a dialogue beyond the purpose of the 911 call.

Article on ABC News with Video -- watch the video it's loaded up against Joe Horn and the Castle Doctrine but also has another (black) home defender, Damon Barone, and his interesting story -- complete with Mr. Barone acting out the incident while holding his Glock.

It is dated today (June 30), the same day Joe Horn was No Billed by the Grand Jury...it doesn't seem to be please with the outcome of the Grand Jury: The first line of the text says "the Grand Jury failed indict" (refused or decided would have been less pejorative .)

I recommend watching it...

Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars
'Castle Doctrine' Gives Texans Unprecedented Authority to Take Action Against Intruders
By CHRIS BURY and HOWARD L. ROSENBERG
June 30, 2008
http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story? ... 638&page=1

dustyb wrote:Good news for Mr. Horn. I look forward to Quanell the 10th's comments.

According to the article:

Horn testified before the jurors for about 90 minutes on Friday...

And:

community activist Quanell X (said) wrote: "The message that the grand jury sent today is frightening

Also, the article KHOU is still repeating the "shot in the back" thing without putting it in context: Once deadly force is justified (and the Grand Jury has ruled) then it doesn't legally matter which end you shoot.