TexasCHLforum.com

...when requalifying I put the front sight on the target...focused on the target, and squeezed...din't try to align the sights...worked just fine at those ranges...

...just applying the written law to the facts as you gave them to us to consider...I assumed you were accurate...You said you couldn't see what was in his hand (though you guessed a bit)...now you want to make hints about light sources...taking the "facts" as you presented them in one hand and the law in the other...a high school senior would come to the same conclusions...it doesn't add up...and rather than discuss the facts, you went off into sarcasm and such...

...once again...it's not interpreting anything...it's seeing if the requirements of the law are met by the facts as you presented them...they're not... that's just reading and comparing...simple as filling a grocery list...

...first off, you and I and 97% of the others on the board know what the Castle Doctrine name means...it's commonly used by professionals across Texas ( i.e. http://www.ianinglis.com/article-texas- ... rine.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) and if you weren't upset you wouldn't pull a picky snit about it... second, your comments about internet anonymity, etc..are childish...I don't know your name or face either, but when someone quotes the law chapter and verse...maybe you could see past the fact that he is an old fat grey-haired guy and actually read the law as pertains to your post...and learn from the law...without getting all upset...most of us here learn from others' posts...does the law say I'm wrong in what I claim...or not??? that's the bottom line...you have the option of ignoring the post...while we're not "internet authorities", we commonly share points in the law for the common good...and, hopefully, adjust where we're wrong...

...as to your question about the "justified shoot" question...the law doesn't specify where you have to hit them...you just have to be able to convince a Grand Jury why you took careful aim at the center of a man's back and shot him as he ran, when you didn't even see him have anything in his hand,even some of your property, much less a weapon, and he had harmed noone...don't think that'll be too easy...

...as to your nuggets of truth and reason:

9:32 (2) key words "reasonably believes"......only kicks in AFTER you satisfy (1) which says you have to be justified under 9:31

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.....anyways, he used nor attempted any unlawful deadly force......

9.41: key words "reasonably believes"....read WHAT you must reasonably believe...you're not terminating a trespass or unlawful interference with the property...he's done that...he's gone...fleeing...you're not recovering property...you didn't see him take any...forget (1) and (2)...which are required elements...they don't apply either...


9.42: again, key words "reasonably believes"
9.42 (A) key words "to prevent"
9.42 (B) key words "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately........".....again...these three don't apply because you can't satisfy 9:41, so 9:42 can't apply
...what you're doing here is picking and choosing phrases throughout the law to support your "position"...ignoring the qualifying material...and you don't qualify to claim these phrases...it's like saying 1=2 without the +1...it doesn't work...

...when using the law, you can't pick and choose and take here a little or there a little...you have to follow it through like diagramming a sentence...putting things in the right order...the ifs, thens, and ands all mean something...

...you got a pass...you got away with what you did...great...my point to you or anyone else who's willing to pick up the law and read it, is that it's not like you think it is...you got a weekly quiz...the Grand Jury's more like a final...and, had your bullet hit, or you'd taken the second "legal" shot aimed right at his back, you'd have been in a world of hurt...if you don't care enough to learn...maybe someone else here will...I've done my evil deed...I can't help it if you don't like it or me...I'm just quoting the law...not interpreting...quoting...be mad and sarcastic as you want to be...or think about it and learn...not from me...from the law you'll be judged by...I'm on your side...like it or not...no apologies or regrets from me...if ONE person gets it...it's worth it...what have I got to lose by trying???

...as kindly as I can put it...you messed up...you went into a situation where you couldn't see with a gun in your hand...without a light, you couldn't see well enough to see what, if anything, he had in his hand...coulda been a weapon or a car key ring...if your shot had hit him, you could have gone to prison...if we carry a gun, we MUST carry a good light...when the DA asks you in front of the Grand Jury..."I thought he had..." won't get it...it's not like he'd shot at you and then fled...then turned and extended his hand again...you had seen no weapon, suffered no threat...and BANG...it could have landed a good man in prison...and an unjustified shooting is not protected by Castle Doctrine against civil suit...I'm glad that it went like it did...but if you don't get a pocketable powerful light and keep it with you at night...next time could go poorly...the shot was not justified by law...nor would have been the second shot that you said would have been legal...there was no justification to shoot at all...especially in the back... this "theft" from auto doesn't make the deadly force list with the facts you gave us...and your future's on the line...


WOW....BANG!!!!! Why in the world do I disagree with most of the guys on this one??? You said yourself that you didn't know if there was a theft or vandalism going on...you never mentioned seeing anything gone from the truck or in the guy's hands as he fled...(where's the theft during the nighttime??? where's the "recovery attempt?") you can't tell a Grand Jury either that he had stolen anything or was fleeing with any property...so those two, hence the right to use force...are out...so where's the justification of force...much less deadly force...and did his turning as he fled threaten you and cause you fear? Why?
...work through the force and deadly force law with the facts as you gave them to us...how would you convince the Grand Jury that this young man should be dead...or even wounded??? We're on your side...nobody had any business in your son's truck in the night...what if he was sleeping off a drunk??? You have to be able to make a Grand Jury "be there"...see the danger, feel the fear, and understand why a reasonable man would have shot...work your way through PC 9:41..where's the dispossession? of what?he wasn't trespassing...he was fleeing---preventing is out...HE has terminated any trespass by fleeing...where's the tangible, moveable property??? you have to be able to show that 9:41 covers you before the right to deadly force kicks in (9:42(1) AND (2) and following...have we satisfied (1) yet??? I don't see how...

...are you outraged yet? work through it...can you convince a retired schoolteacher why you fired a shot? A lot to think about...you got the good ole boy treatment...they knew you were a good guy...he was a bad guy...he was wrong to be in the truck...we agree to that point...but no further...can you show in 9:31 why you used force???if you can't...stop reading at 9:32(1)

I'm being sincere, not sarcastic...

...only my wife and I disagree on EVERYTHING...

...for a theft...with no intrusion into my home, no threat or harm to another, no evidence of a weapon...I agree...nothing in my truck or yard is worth a life...same when I worked in a pawn shop...if they snatched it and ran...911 and describe them well...the second he shows aggression, the game's over...but a thief I won't shoot...the one exception being if he's stolen a gun and so is armed...

...there are no warning shots in my world...there are warnings and there are shots...under no circumstances will I discharge a weapon without intending to stop the person or animal I am facing...