TexasCHLforum.com

I'm not going to second guess the OP. I know in advance what I'm willing to shoot someone over, and a car stereo or a TV isn't one of those things. But to each his own. That is my decision. Someone else's decision may be different, and no less legitimate in my book.

For me, there are differences when it comes to the presentation of a threat by the BG. If I surprised someone in my home (like purplehood's account) unplugging the TV, I would not shoot him if he ran out the door. But if I ran to the door in pursuit so that I could get a good description for the police, and he turned on my front lawn toward me and was raising an object in his hand that looked "gun-like" in a perceived attack, I might shoot him........or, I might duck back behind the wall and take cover. It kinda depends.

Also, there are some times when I'm going to shoot without question. If someone kicks down my door, he's going to get shot. A lot. It doesn't matter what he's there to take. If someone sneaks into my house at night, he's going to get shot. A lot. Doesn't matter what he's there to take. Anybody who would break into a home when he has every reasonable expectation of encountering the homeowner is an immediate threat to that homeowner and family. Lethal force is immediately justifiable.

That same person breaks in during daylight hours, not expecting to run into the home owner, and I might order him to the floor and hold him for police. If he does not comply, and if non-compliance is anything other than running out of my house, he's going to get shot. A lot.

If Gemini's bullet had connected with the bad guy, his outcome before the law might have been less smooth. Even with a sympathetic PD and ADA, he might still have to face a grand jury, and even getting no-billed costs a LOT of money. IF I WERE IN HIS SHOES, and there was no visible property being taken, I'd have to ask myself if the loss of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees might be worth the loss of random cash or jewelry he had stuffed in his pockets. But again, that is a decision that only he can make.

One thing is for certain.....I don't think I would have lit out after the bad guy. I'm too fat to run, and homey don't play that.

But at the end of the day, my shoot/don't shoot decision making is largely the product of my own morality and the accountability I feel to God. So it is a spiritual matter rather than a material matter. Although it is in my sinful nature to try and ignore it, even a thief is part of God's creation.....not the thieving part, but the human being part. Others are certainly free to disagree, and I am NOT trying to turn this into a discussion of religion. I am merely explaining where I am coming from. In my paradigm, Christ went to the Cross even for thieves, rapists, and murderers. I don't want to kill one of God's human creations unless one of three conditions is met: A) my own life is immediately threatened; OR B) the life of a loved one or friend is immediately threatened; OR C) the life of an unknown third party is threatened and I have some knowledge of the background information which would make that shooting justifiable. I refuse to take part in the dispensation of street justice. That's why we have courts and juries, and that is why I would probably have a clear conscience and not be morally conflicted about having had to shoot somebody. I have already considered the moral implications, and internally adjudicated my willingness to shoot.

Granted, none of us should be shooting to kill. We shoot to stop a threat. But even though gunshot survival rates are fairly high, shooting someone is use of deadly force, and use of deadly force acknowledges that the subject against whom the force is applied runs a significant probability of dying as a result of that application of force.

My guess is that gemini raised his gun and fired instinctively in reaction to a perceived threat. There is no doubt that the other guy was a bad guy. Sure, a flashlight might have helped, but maybe not. Bright light means high contrast shadows. Hard to say for sure. Let me break down something he said in his OP:

gemini wrote:He partially turned toward me, he had something in his hands, when he turned I couldn't tell if it was a knife, screwdriver or what and I immediately pulled my gun up and fired, from about waist high.

Apparent weapon reasonably believed to be in act of presentation by thief.....gemini fires.

gemini wrote:I was still moving when the shot was taken. I did not hit him. I believe the round landed about 1 foot to his right in the parkway grass. Needless to say, I have never seen a man run that fast before. I stopped, placed my left hand into full grip, raised the weapon and had my night sights aimed square in the middle of the fleeing mans back. He was about 45 ft from me at this time. I did not fire the second shot. Not that it wasn’t legal, not that I didn’t have a clear shot,but in that absolute fraction of a second I decided no.

Second shot easily makable, possibly justifiable (lawyers required to sort that one out), but according to gemini's personal moral make up, the shot isn't morally justifiable, and he refrains from shooting second time.

One can debate the wisdom of chasing the thief. I'm not sure that I would. But once he was committed to the chase, I think that he made pretty reasonable decisions to shoot/not shoot.

That's one of the interesting things about this incident: that there were two distinct points during the same single incident at which gemini had to make a shoot/no shoot decision, and that he chose to fire ONE round and pause, then chose NOT to shoot the second round. Lots of people in that situation might have shot the mag dry on the first shot.

Anyway... I'm rambling.... but I think that he acquitted himself fairly well, and I think he would likely agree that he is relieved in hindsight that he didn't actually hit the bad guy.

jimandyen wrote:I agree.
It's always a good thing to be aware of one's surroundings. Being relatively new to this (CHL and the laws)
and not having any formal training I had another question of gemini or anyone else in the know.

Gemini said he had "tunnel vision" on the bad guy during the incident. Is that good?
How do special training schools or police prepare for this?

I understand you have to be focused and there are a lot of what ifs.
(Ex...An accomplice, A helpful neighbor with his gun, background, bystanders etc.)
Again not trying to judge just understand.

It's not a matter of "good" or "bad." Tunnel vision is a byproduct of the adrenaline dump, and very likely it is unavoidable for most people. I've never been in combat, but I would imagine that soldiers/marines who have seen enough combat that they don't experience the same ferocity of adrenaline surge as an inexperience civilian would have—or who are under fire for such a long period that the response wears off—stop experiencing tunnel vision under battle stress at some point. But for most of us, particularly those of us who have never been under fire in anger or who never have been fractions of seconds away from pulling the trigger on someone, that adrenaline dump is probably the norm, and tunnel vision is a normal part of that dump.

Edited to add: Certainly the more frequent and realistic your training regimen, the less likely you are to experience that dump so dramatically when the real deal happens. You'll just default to your level of training........which for old farts with not much money like me is kind of scary, because we don't have either the ducats or the physical capacity to train like that.

jimandyen wrote:Thanks for the reply gemini. Just wondering. One fear I have if I was in that situation (or another similar) would be where the bullet ends up. My wife and I go over different bad guy situations and then change what the background would be to see if we would make the same decisions. I guess more training on my part would help but I wonder sometimes if I would hesitate because of that. Am I alone in these thoughts..?

No, you're not alone. I think about background all the time when I'm out and about. It's not that it is always at the forefront of my mind, but rather that I catch myself doing it, and realize that I've been doing it all along. Part of the reason for that is that as part of just being generally aware of my surroundings, I am always looking for "what doesn't fit"—meaning whatever doesn't belong in the picture. It's going to be 103 in Grapevine today, and the "low" tonight will be 80º......so that guy slouching around over there with his face hidden in a black hoodie is something that "doesn't fit" the picture. But that general scanning also takes in the rest of what is in the background.

And certainly, whatever was there would have a profound influence on whether or not I would shoot, and how I would shoot if shooting was the right response.

gemini, thanks for the update. I had forgotten about this thread until I saw that you had posted in it again. I went back and reread your opening post. I think you did everything pretty much right.