Hypothetical situation

[glockrell]

Well as you all know...crime has been on the rise for some time now. I know the law as a CHL holder inthat I have the right to protect myself and my propety. So here is the iffy situation:

Lets say that I am outside outside my vehicle. Then I am confronted by a bad guy with a gun. He demands my keys and money. Upon handing over my keys, he begans to walk toward my car to take off.

Would I be held liable If I:

A- shot him in the back to retrieve my car and money

B- Yelled out, and then fired upon him once he turned around, with his weapon

C- Fired upon my own car, figuring a window and entire interior cleaning is cheaper than replacing the whole car


This all my sound crazy, but I always think about what I would do in various situations. I hear about things that happen in the news and wonder about ways to protect myself and belonging, however I'd hate to make a split minute decision that would be seen by a grand jury as excessive.

Please with all due respect, place yourself in the scenario(s) that I have presented and then give my your thoughts, both person and from the legal prospective.

Thanks,

[glockrell]

SORRY FOR THE TYPO, THE ENDING SHOULD READ: Please with all due respect, place yourself in the scenario(s) that I have presented and then give ME your thoughts, both personal and from the legal prospective.

[Hi Plainsman]

Why did you hand over your keys/wallet etc to begin with?????

[lws380]

Well as you all know...crime has been on the rise for some time now. I know the law as a CHL holder inthat I have the right to protect myself and my propety. So here is the iffy situation:

Lets say that I am outside outside my vehicle. Then I am confronted by a bad guy with a gun. He demands my keys and money. Upon handing over my keys, he begans to walk toward my car to take off.

Would I be held liable If I:

A- shot him in the back to retrieve my car and money

B- Yelled out, and then fired upon him once he turned around, with his weapon

C- Fired upon my own car, figuring a window and entire interior cleaning is cheaper than replacing the whole car


This all my sound crazy, but I always think about what I would do in various situations. I hear about things that happen in the news and wonder about ways to protect myself and belonging, however I'd hate to make a split minute decision that would be seen by a grand jury as excessive.

Please with all due respect, place yourself in the scenario(s) that I have presented and then give my your thoughts, both person and from the legal prospective.

Thanks,

I can't answer the legal stuff as I'm not certain. But all your options A, B, and C seem like bad ideas to me. C is likely to get you arrested! Keep your car insurance current and be thankful you did not get killed or hurt.

I think one of the most important things about getting a CHL is situational awareness and training. If you think just getting a CHL is all you need, you are probably mistaken. Learning how to not get in a situation or being prepared before you are attacked will help you as much as having a CHL. Get all the additional training you can.

[Hi Plainsman]

[
I think one of the most important things about getting a CHL is situational awareness and training. If you think just getting a CHL is all you need, you are probably mistaken. Learning how to not get in a situation or being prepared before you are attacked will help you as much as having a CHL. Get all the additional training you can.

That was kinda what I meant.

[atxgun]

I believe the ability to protect your property in that situation is only valid if it is night time (according to the wording of the law). Furthermore you must have reason to believe the property cannot be otherwise recovered.

Even if you say you did not believe it would be recovered the court would look at if a "reasonable person" might expect it to be recovered.

Also shooting him after he is going to your car would null any claims to self defense you had as he is now retreating. Maybe under some extraordinary circumstances like you were out in the middle of the desert where it's 120 degrees out and you might fear you would die if left stranded. Of course if you're in that situation where is this armed mugger going to come from really.

So really the only defense you would have would be the property one and that might be a hard sell.

[Frost]

You are describing robbery not theft, so it does not matter if it was day/night. You are not protecting property you are protecting yourself from a robbery; I believe it would be lawful to shoot him.

Options B and C are terrible ideas. I mean really really bad ideas.

[magicglock]

B and C are not good options. I'm not a lawyer but I do believe I read about a similar case in one of the gun magazines recently. It would be reasonable to argue that you shot the actor with the belief that he had your keys, wallet (which would provide your address), and your vehicle (transportation to your residence). All of these factors could lead a reasonable person to believe that this person intended not only to steel your car but have access to your home, family, and contents of the house. I am not saying that this is the best argument but not far fetched. The magazine article depicted a similar situation in which the CHL holder was charged and found not guilty under this presumption. I think I would do everything in my power to prevent the actor from leaving and exposing myself and my family to a possible future threat. my .02

[Frost]

Sec. 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.

No need for hypothetical about future threats. He is still committing robbery as he walks to your vehicle. At least that is how i see it. Lawyers can have funny ideas about what words mean.

[Morgan]

I agree with Frost, you're free and clear to shoot the bad guy. NEVER fire warning shots. What if you fire a warning shot and your gun, which is really reliable, jams that one time? I'd rather the round be in the bad guy than in my car. You said he has a gun, why give him a reason to train it on you?

Hi Plainsman, I'd assume he "gave him the keys" because the scenario he laid out was that the bad guy "has a gun" so I'd guess he meant, "Bad guy approaches you with a gun pointed at you and demands your keys and wallet." I'm nowhere near fast enough to draw on someone who's got their gun trained on me.

[pedalman]

Hi Plainsman, I'd assume he "gave him the keys" because the scenario he laid out was that the bad guy "has a gun" so I'd guess he meant, "Bad guy approaches you with a gun pointed at you and demands your keys and wallet." I'm nowhere near fast enough to draw on someone who's got their gun trained on me.

Wasn't it Bill Jordan who said, "You can't outdraw a drawn gun."?

[Hi Plainsman]

Looks like my reading comprehension skills were lacking last night, totally missed the part about the bad guy even having a gun, let alone assuming it was already drawn.

[atxgun]

Looks like my reading comprehension skills were lacking last night, totally missed the part about the bad guy even having a gun, let alone assuming it was already drawn.

Good thing this question wasn't on the SAT

[casingpoint]

Texas law is clear, you could shoot this person in the back to stop him. But I'd let the cops retrieve your keys and your wallet if I were you. As to whether or not you should shoot him in the back or anywhere else, you have to weight the administrative aspects carefully. The cops don't want the paperwork. The DA doesn't want the case. You don't want the legal fees. As Joe Horn found out, you really don't want to shoot anybody.

[Captain Matt]

Texas law is clear, you could shoot this person in the back to stop him. But I'd let the cops retrieve your keys and your wallet if I were you. As to whether or not you should shoot him in the back or anywhere else, you have to weight the administrative aspects carefully. The cops don't want the paperwork. The DA doesn't want the case. You don't want the legal fees. As Joe Horn found out, you really don't want to shoot anybody.

It sounds like the best solution is to let the good guy go with a pat on the back. The police and DA can spend their time finding and arresting and locking up the robbers, rapists and other violent criminals after their first offense, so they never run into an armed citizen as their 7th or 8th or 175th intended victim.