TexasCHLforum.com

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.

AndyC wrote:You just said it better (as always)

Actually, in my estimation, just the opposite is true! I always appreciate your sage insights.

Group Hug!

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.

Let me clarify the distinction between "legal justification" versus "personal choice".

"Personal choice": A number of people have expressed their opinion that he was better off not shooting because it turned out OK and will not need to go through mental anguish or legal costs associated with a shooting. Some people, like the cop, expressed the opposite opinion for various reasons. Point is, these are all opinions on what personal choice to make, and everyone can debate opinions forever.

"Legal Justification": He would have been justified in shooting the moment he walked through the door and was certain it was a robbery. He could have shot him without warning him. He could have shot him without ordering him to the ground. He could have shot him the moment he started to rise. He could have shot him at any moment. The instant a criminal starts a robbery, they become a legally justified target.

Keith already quoted the statute, so I am not going to quote it again, but as he pointed out, robbery is one of the enumerated crimes. I'll also point out that use of deadly force is "presumed reasonable" when the other person is committing "aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery".

"Presumed reasonable" means charges should not be brought unless the prosecuting attorney has evidence that proves that presumption wrong. For example, don't say to the cops, "Naw, man, I was never scared. I knew that punk was never a threat." Bad move.


These "presumed reasonable" clauses are one way that Texas self defense law is vastly more friendly to legitimate self defense than almost any other state.

So back to the opinions, at least when you are doing the "Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, should I shoot" mental dance it helps if you are intellectually solid on where the legal line for justification gets crossed. Choices and decisions that are made while understanding the legal facts are informed choices.