I STOPPED A ROBBERY LAST NIGHT

[Keith B]

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

See the definitions below

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

To me, it looks like the threat of a weapon implies a fear of imminent bodily injury, which would classify this as aggravated robbery.

Better read it again. You didn't complete the requirement showing that it only escalates to aggravated IF the person is 65 years of age or older or disabled

[TomV]

Major kudos to you Javier.

[LAYGO]

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?

[gthaustex]

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?

Robbery and Aggravated Robbery are both on the laundry list of offenses that can justify deadly force.....

[Keith B]

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.

[BigGuy]

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. Intellectually I'm committed to the idea of protecting myself. I'm just not confident that I'm as committed viscerally.
Javier says he was committing to fire when the perp stopped advancing. I just wonder at what point I would have actually pulled the trigger, and am a little afraid that in that situation, I might have made the decision a little too late.

[Keith B]

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. Intellectually I'm committed to the idea of protecting myself. I'm just not confident that I'm as committed viscerally.
Javier says he was committing to fire when the perp stopped advancing. I just wonder at what point I would have actually pulled the trigger, and am a little afraid that in that situation, I might have made the decision a little too late.

Every situation is different, so can't answer that.

From the OP's description, I personally would have done similar to him. If someone is advancing on you, if you feel they are just trying to get by you to the door and no one else is in danger, then move out of the way and let them go. I don't care about Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground, get away from the threat.

If you can't move out of the way, then you have to make the call of when you are in fear for your life or serious bodily injury. The guy had been in the process of robbing the place and said he had a gun, so basically you already have justification to use deadly force if needed. All indications are he might be trying to use his alleged weapon or take yours. If they are going to attack me or someone else, then I am gonna shoot to stop the threat.

[mojo84]

Fire a warning shot!!

[BigGuy]

Andy, thanks. I saw your earlier post, and I think it was your, "Nononono... please don't make me shoot you, please don't...." line that struck home with me.
I know I started out asking this as a legal question. The truth is, I'm not worried about legal concerns stopping me as much as I am simply being able to shoot somebody. Now please understand, I agree intellectually that shooting somebody trying to harm me or mine is acceptable. In fact, if the danger is to a loved one, I don't think I'd have any hesitation. But if it's an innocent stranger who is being threatened, or myself, I can't shake this sneaking fear that I'd hesitate. And somewhere in the back of my mind is the question, "If that's the case, am I really emotionally qualified to CC?"
I hope I'm not off topic, but Javier's post just seemed to be the perfect example of, "Nonono...don't make me shoot you." My stomach was in knots reading it as I was putting myself in his situation. If the bad guy wants to run away, there's no question I'll let him. If he wants to run over me, I'd like to believe I'd stop him. I just wish I was more certain of it.

[LAYGO]

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.

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?)

[SewTexas]

Javier, how are you and your wife doing? I'm sure you're both pretty shaken up.

[OldCurlyWolf]

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

See the definitions below

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily

Though not often used now, the way I was taught, lo those many years ago, was a Weapon or the Threat of a Weapon made it aggravated robbery. It is still in the law, just not as directly as before. IMHO, This scenario would qualify as Aggravated robbery even though no one saw a weapon. The threat was there.

[Keith B]

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]

(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily

Though not often used now, the way I was taught, lo those many years ago, was a Weapon or the Threat of a Weapon made it aggravated robbery. It is still in the law, just not as directly as before. IMHO, This scenario would qualify as Aggravated robbery even though no one saw a weapon. The threat was there.

You didn't follow though on the whole content

(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.