TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You did a great job.

Some have asked about how to answer a BG's question "are you a COP." My answer would be "you're under arrest for aggravated robbery. Stay on the ground and live." (Don't say "citizen's arrest" or everyone including the BG will think you're an idiot.) He'll think I'm a COP and as Excaliber said, he probably won't be as willing to get up.

Chas.

Oldgringo wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Keith B wrote:If I am asked that question when trying to legally detain someone, my answer will be 'I am not with a local law enforcement agency. Now be quite and wait for the local authorities to arrive.'

I'd be shouting, "Shut the blamkety blank up and stay or the ground or I will shoot you.". I'd blow right past the question with a command.

...that's kinda' what I was thinkin'. This ain't the time for discussion. If you pull your gun, you'd better be prepared to use it OR lose it.

EEllis wrote:

olafpfj wrote:I've been thinking about the part where the guy asked "Are you a cop?".

The OP answered "No" which seems to be what emboldened him to get back up.

Are there any legal issues if the OP or anyone else in that situation had answered "Yes"?

Others may have a better insight than I do but my understanding is that calling yourself a cop is generally ignored unless you use that to try and do something or get away with something. Basically you can walk around with a hot or a shirt saying your police but it doesn't get you arrested till you actually do something. In a case like this it would be way down my list of concerns but I would answer anything the bad guys ask. They don't get to ask anything. It's them trying to find a way to regain some control and you don't want to allow that. I'm the guy pointing a gun at them and that's all they need to know.

§ 37.11. IMPERSONATING PUBLIC SERVANT. (a) A person
commits an offense if he:
(1) impersonates a public servant with intent to
induce another to submit to his pretended official authority or to
rely on his pretended official acts; or
(2) knowingly purports to exercise any function of a
public servant or of a public office, including that of a judge and
court, and the position or office through which he purports to
exercise a function of a public servant or public office has no
lawful existence under the constitution or laws of this state or of
the United States.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree.

Javier730 wrote:

ELB wrote:

Javier730 wrote: ... I could say to everyone, be very vigilant. I let my guard down for a few seconds and that bad man got way too close to my wife than he should have.

This is not something to beat yourself up over either -- it is just not humanly possible to be 100% "on" all the time and live in a generally peaceful society. (And that guy could have looked perfectly mild right up until he got to the door and put on a bandana...) I'll wager if you ask AndyC or any other combat vet, it's probably hard to stay 100% switched-on all the time even in bandit country where one is really motivated to pay attention. It's one reason you have a gun and train with it - to cover the times when you can't otherwise avoid the threat. You done good.

What you commented on is probably what really bothered me most. My wife said to me, "I thought you didnt see me. I thought you were not gonna come to me." That is really the worst part for me.

Javier730 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Javier, how are you and your wife doing? I'm sure you're both pretty shaken up.

Thanks for asking, we are actually doing pretty good. Not as shaken up as I thought we would be. Its a real eye opener for my wife though. She never had a problem with firearms but she never felt the need to carry one. That has since changed. As for me, the situation doesnt have me shaken up, I am really just kind of second guessing what I did. I keep thinking about what happened and replaying the situation in my head over and over. I hate to sound like a bad person but thinking back, I feel like I should of shot him because I would hate to find out that he hurt someone in the future. I know that police officers are not lawyers, and that they do not have a full understanding of the law, but 2 officers said that I would have been justified had I shot, and that in doing so I could have prevented him from hurting someone in the future. Another officer said I should of shot, not because of the reasons I said, but for the fact that at the distance the bad guy was, he could got to me before I could react. The comments made I know were just there opinion but they made sense and everything they told me was something I was already thinking about. Im almost 100% sure I could of squeezed off at least once if he tried something when he first got up though. Not really a traumatizing experience but it sure is something I will never forget.

OldCurlyWolf wrote: (3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily

Though not often used now, the way I was taught, lo those many years ago, was a Weapon or the Threat of a Weapon made it aggravated robbery. It is still in the law, just not as directly as before. IMHO, This scenario would qualify as Aggravated robbery even though no one saw a weapon. The threat was there.

(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.

LAYGO wrote:
Thank you for clarifying. I have something stuck in my head that "unless it was aggravated, use of deadly force is not justified". I can't recall. Kidnapping? (because of the potential of it being a domestic situation?)

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

BigGuy wrote:Javier, sounds like you did a good job. Glad it worked out for you.

Question for the legal eagles. If the perp had continued to advance on him after standing back up, at what point would he have been justified in firing.
My concern is that despite the mental decision that I should fire, rather than let somebody continue to advance to within striking distance, I would delay to the point that even an unarmed assailant could engage me. Intellectually I'm committed to the idea of protecting myself. I'm just not confident that I'm as committed viscerally.
Javier says he was committing to fire when the perp stopped advancing. I just wonder at what point I would have actually pulled the trigger, and am a little afraid that in that situation, I might have made the decision a little too late.

LAYGO wrote:

Keith B wrote:

LAYGO wrote:You did a great job.

Had they caught the guy, would he have been with aggravated robbery because he "said" he would shoot?

No. Texas has Robbery and Aggravated robbery. Threat only is still robbery until he actually produces a weapon

Ah, ok, thanks.

It has to be Aggravated Robbery to be justified correct?

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.

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 he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
.......
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
...........

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.


9.33. Defense of Third Person
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

McKnife wrote:

Keith B wrote:

LAYGO wrote:You did a great job.

Had they caught the guy, would he have been with aggravated robbery because he "said" he would shoot?

No. Texas has Robbery and Aggravated robbery. Threat only is still robbery until he actually produces a weapon

See the definitions below

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

To me, it looks like the threat of a weapon implies a fear of imminent bodily injury, which would classify this as aggravated robbery.

LAYGO wrote:You did a great job.

Had they caught the guy, would he have been with aggravated robbery because he "said" he would shoot?

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

jamminbutter wrote:Well done!

One memory from my CHL class does come to mind...The instructor indicated not to use pronouns such as "you" when telling someone that you will shoot. The premise is that by doing so may be deemed a "threat" and you would be the one in trouble.