TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Keith B wrote:

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?)

You got it. Kidnapping is not a justification for use of force or deadly force, but aggravated kidnapping is.

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

These are all protection of the person. Protection of property brings in a totally different set of guidelines, including some things that are only justified at night.

Keith B wrote:

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?

No, deadly force would be jsutified in this case.

The OP pulling the gun is only Use of Force. It would not not become Use of Deadly force until he used it.

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.

Now, justification for use of force or deadly force comes in these statutes (will only post the parts related to robbery)

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.

So, use of deadly force would be justified in the case of robbery or aggrivated in progress.

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