TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:Perhaps this should be a thread of its own, but a question occurred to me in re-reading about this incident.

When did this robbery stop being "imminent"? And...when, if ever, did the justification to use deadly force disappear prior to arrival of police and/or the suspect ran off?

PC 9.31/9.32/9.33 says, paraphrasing, an actor is justified in using deadly force to protect himself or others if he reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent the use or attempted use of unlawful force against himself or others, and (in this case) to prevent the imminent commission of robbery or aggravated robbery.

"Imminent commission of robbery" seems pretty clear here.

So when did the "imminent commission of robbery" stop? When the suspect walked out the door? Then shooting the suspect as he got up off the floor could fall under the "robbery" justification for self-defense. (I'm not talking about tactics here, or whether it was a good idea in the long run, just the legal aspect).

But if "imminent commission" stopped when the suspect laid down on the floor, then legally shooting him as he got up would have to rely on the actor's (Javier's) reasonable belief that it the suspect was attempting to use deadly force against the actor or others. I think it would be reasonable since the suspect had indicated he had a gun in his pocket, and it might still be there, but it seems a stronger legal justification if "imminent commission of robbery" is still in play.

I would think after years of robberies and trials there is some answer to this in case law/precedent, but I do not know it.

One could remove some ambiguity by stating clearly to the BG on the ground that any uncommanded move will be seen as an attempt to reach and use his weapon and he will be shot. Then the BG has a decision to make, and the witnesses have a point of reference that will likely be helpful.

Javier730 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.
I said no to him followed closely but something similar to what you posted. He still stood up though. I figured maybe the adrenaline he had was making him not think straight.

What most likely happened was he was trying to assess the likelihood of getting shot if he got up. He probably wouldn't have risked it with an LEO, but figured a citizen might be less decisive and not want to shoot. Although he was right in this case, he took a really big gamble and was lucky that you held your fire.

I'd answer his question with, "NO TALKING!. DON"T MOVE!"

Positioning is important too because he can use a look at your eyes and body language to assess intent. That's why you want to force him to look away from you and quarter yourself away from his feet on the side he's not facing so he can't do that. That also increases the reaction time available to you if he decides to do something hostile because he has to locate you and orient himself to you in order to attack.

Those are some of the finer points that can be put into the mental file for the next time. This encounter might not have been a textbook case, but reality usually isn't.

The bigger picture is that performance is ultimately judged by results, and you did fine under the circumstances and with your level of training. No one got hurt, you didn't have to shoot, and you don't have any legal or mental health bills.

I call that a clean win.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 2 matches

Re: I STOPPED A ROBBERY LAST NIGHT

Re: I STOPPED A ROBBERY LAST NIGHT