TexasCHLforum.com

TomsTXCHL wrote:IMO we are being disingenuous to critique my exploration of this hypothetical, which again I have raised only in an effort to understand "the rules".

Don't let yourself get perturbed for people pointing out a subtle language issue that can create legal problems. When a situation arises where use of deadly force is justified, the deadly force is justified to stop the threat. If the threat happens to die, then that is an unfortunate consequence of being placed in a position where a person is forced to use deadly force to protect him/herself.

The death is a byproduct of the intent to stop the threat, one did not use deadly force with only the intent to kill.

This is a subtle moral difference that has legal consequences. I know it sounds like a petty or picayune distinction, but the issue of intent can only be described in words that need to distinguish the intent.

Let me make an analogy from 2000 years of Catholic moral theology. Everyone knows the Catholic Church regards the deliberate killing of an infant in the womb, aka abortion, is wrong. The intention to kill the child is what makes it wrong.

However, if a pregnant woman discovers she has uterine cancer or similar serious medical issue requiring an immediate hysterectomy, the intention is to provide medical treatment even though a secondary consequence is the baby dies. That is considered acceptable in Catholic moral theology because of the distinction in intent.

TomsTXCHL wrote:Also, what you have told us here is that if e.g. we were in a restaurant where an armed robbery is taking place, and which has potential to escalate as some of these incidents involved robbing of all PATRONS as well as the "cash register", that if I could draw and get a bead on the BG w/gun I need only shoot to kill. No warning needed. Headshot.

Using deadly force is presumed reasonable in response to aggravated robbery.

TomsTXCHL wrote:If yes I do like that a lot better than announcing my presence "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" which in all likelihood results in the BG changing position and giving me now a moving target.

If use of deadly force is justified, we do not have a duty to announce our presence, give warnings, take warning shots, or try to arrest. We are not the Police.

We do have the right to use deadly force as specified in Texas Penal Code Chapter 9. Knowing and understanding exactly what these statutes say can make the difference between living in your own home or living in the gray bar hotel. Every CHL should study them. One should not simply be told about them in a 4 hour class and believe they are good to go. I re-read them at least once a month.

TomsTXCHL wrote:

TNacp99 wrote:I saw no evidence that the woman's life was in danger in the video.

But a physical attack upon a [truly] elderly person could easily result in death..

This is the point I am making in the previous post. Whether or not her "life was in danger" has nothing to do with the legal standard in this situation. If someone chooses to use deadly force in defense of a third person, one does not need to stand there and debate whether her life is in danger, or is she old enough that she is in greater danger, or is grandma fighting back pretty well, or does the other party seem like they are going to escalate.

None of that debate is necessary. That fact that it is a robbery in and of itself is sufficient justification.

Since it is clearly justified, now one can choose to not intervene, draw and order them to stop, or draw and shoot them down. All three choices are legally justified once one determines a robbery is in progress.

The same is true for all six enumerated crimes.

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Just because we have a gun doesn't mean that its use is required. If I did pull my gun, shooting would not be my first option. I would only fire the gun in the event I couldn't stop the assault or they turned on me. My primary goal would be to stop the assault of the old lady and the purse would be secondary.

Yea, there definitely seems to be two camps on this:
1) Pull -> Fire
2) Pull -> Evaluate -> Fire

cb1000rider wrote:... I should say that when drawing, there appears to be two camps..

Please note that when I stated that Texas law justifies walking up and shooting someone in the act of committing robbery, I am not stating that is necessarily the best course of action or the only course of action.

I am simply observing that, before one even draws your handgun, it is preferable to know what level of force is justified and what level of force is presumed justified. That gives you firmly grounded legal choices. One simply must be well-grounded in exactly what the statutes do and do not say.

I see many comments in this thread where is at least appears that various authors are not fully aware of where the legal lines are drawn and what standards must be met to justify the use of deadly force. A CHL is placing their freedom at risk if they are walking around carrying a handgun and have a fuzzy knowledge of Texas Penal Code Chapter 9.

Back to your observation, if these are my three choices:

0) Be a good witness.
1) Pull -> Fire
2) Pull -> Evaluate -> Fire

Then, should a person choose options 1 or 2, they better know before drawing where they stand.

CHLLady wrote:I agree with you to a point. If she's punching you with a closed fist like a man, I'm all for equal force. If she's slapping, I can hardly see a face punch knocking her out or breaking her jaw as equal force. Subdue with equal force, if at all possible. This is the karate philosophy my kids have learned and I agree with it 100%.

With respect, I believe that is a naive philosophy. When dealing with predators, making it a "fair fight" is a poor recipe for disaster. Your kids deserve to have their mom come home unharmed. I consider a "fair fight" or "equal force" to mean I failed to properly address the situation.

TVGuy wrote: I would have been perfectly fine using pepper spray on the attacker, but doubt pulling a weapon would have been justified unless she further escalated the attack.

I respectfully suggest you spend some time learning TPC §9.31, §9.32, and §9.33.

Robbery is one of the six enumerated crimes where deadly force is not only justified, but it is also "presumed to be reasonable".

Walking up, pulling out your gun, and popping that robber in the head without any warning is 100% justified under Texas law.

Every CHL should have the six enumerated crimes memorized: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.