TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

Few years back in very similar scenario, A Dallas father and his son were acquitted of murder under the Texas laws (Castle doctrine). The father went to jail for for another charge, possession of firearms by a felon.

Here is the story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/communit ... s-2976.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one was shot while retreating in that case. How or to what is this case similar?

2 where shot and killed, as far I remember.

I'm sorry, you will have to be more clear for my thick head....

Beiruty wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

Few years back in very similar scenario, A Dallas father and his son were acquitted of murder under the Texas laws (Castle doctrine). The father went to jail for for another charge, possession of firearms by a felon.

Here is the story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/communit ... s-2976.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one was shot while retreating in that case. How or to what is this case similar?

locke_n_load wrote:Great post frog... Great post.
That's what I was thinking. If they are running, with a handgun we'll say, how quick could they turn on the run and make a potshot? I figure in about 1/2 a second, which is about the normal human reaction time I believe. Although their shot would be highly inaccurate, if it's my life at stake, should I take that chance if I have a clear shot? Hmm...

Will you be pursuing or attempting to arrest a fleeing suspect?

Remember, the penal code allows LE to use deadly force in circumstances when the non LEO can. In the scenario above, the suspect actually turned and fired and the officer fired. The bullet struck the suspect in the back, and the action vs reaction testimony to show that the person could have actually fired at the officer. Because of reaction time, the person could be shot in the back by the officer responding to being shot at. It does not mean to just shoot armed fleeing suspects as a matter of course.

The article referenced (a great article) does not suggest, for example, that officers shoot traffic violators preemptively in case the violator will try to shoot the officer. See example 1.

I maintain there is no justification for Joe Citizen for shooting a person fleeing without property based only on the premise of what the suspect "might" do.

So we Have changed the topic from self defense to retaliation?

RoyGBiv wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

How do I know they're fleeing and not just taking cover before they turn and fire?

ETA:
Am I expected to be a mind reader?

BTW, if something was stolen PC 9.42 gives explicit justification.

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;

The code uses the phrase "immediately necessary". What he "might" do is not a justification. There is no justification to shoot a fleeing person who does not have stolen property.

Also, in your quote you left out the parts where you must reasonably believe the deadly force was immediately necessary, AND you must reasonably believe there is no other way to protect or recover the property, or that using force less than deadly force would expose you or another to a sunstantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.