TexasCHLforum.com

Middle Age Russ wrote:

I think some of it comes from not having a plan for certain situations.
I also think that without a plan a person's anger and emotions may, in the heat of the moment, cause them to react in a certain way that they will regret.
That is one reason I think that discussing these types of scenarios on the forum can be useful.

Visualization / playing the what-if game is a great tool for anyone who chooses to carry a deadly force option. Not only can it help reduce impulsively acting when we shouldn't, it can also help us move more quickly to a sound decision and act when we need to.

BCGlocker wrote:Why are CHL holders continuing use deadly force again persons committing property crimes? In this case three fleeting criminals that present no threat to anyone.

We are not LEOs, this is NOT our jobs. Our job is protecting our loved ones, and ourselves period! Personally, I will never use deadly force again anyone commits property crime again me let alone against someone else's property.

locke_n_load wrote:

WildBill wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

What if you shoot driver because you fear they may go on to run someone else over or hijack/shoot another victim???
Always wondered that.

This might work if your lawyer could convince the jury that you are a mind reader.

If you were in a dead end street or alley and there was no other way to get out other than to run over you ... maybe.

Sometimes the best strategy is "Run Forrest Run!"

My questions stems not so much from a shoplifter running out of a store. I'm talking about someone who has already hijacked someone at gunpoint, shooting at police officers, etc... I don't think it would be a stretch to say you were worried about all drivers/pedestrians/police officers - they had a real chance of immediate bodily injury, would you be protected by law to shoot if your life wasn't immediately in danger? Like he is already passing you in a parking lot and you have a clear shot, no one in background, etc.?

You just witnessed a guy with a knife rob a little old lady and when she tried to resist, he stabs her and starts to run down an alley... Could you shoot in the back because you were afraid for the life of the very next person down the street he might encounter?

Maybe it depends on the definition of "imminent"?

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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.

locke_n_load wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

What if you shoot driver because you fear they may go on to run someone else over or hijack/shoot another victim???
Always wondered that.