BG scenerios...

[Jesse1911]

I've been thinking about this type of scenerios, but the most common of all....What if your park at a mall or store parking lot, or are walking towards your car to leave, then all of the sudden you get a gun or a knife pointed at you and a BG asking you to get out, I think I would be fearing for my life and I would defenetly not trust his intentions, but would that be a justified reason to draw and neutralize the threat? I would think so, what would you guys do?

[atxgun]

I would most certainly trust his intentions. That is I would trust that he meant to cause me imminent harm. Justified shooting.

[Glock 23]

What if your park at a mall or store parking lot, or are walking towards your car to leave, then all of the sudden you get a gun or a knife pointed at you and a BG asking you to get out, ?

the only thing going through my head at that point would be "can I draw and fire faster than he can".

I assume if someone is pointing a gun at me, they are planning to kill me. I will always assume that unless its a cop.

[Jesse1911]

Well, I guess its hard to predict what could happen, because every situation is different, buy my point is, If I was to a BG that had a weapon and was trying to take possesion of my property, that it would defenetly be justified...but lets say he/she don't give you a chance to act and throws you out of your car unharmed and starts to drive off, would you at him/her while driving away?

[Keith B]

It depends:

PC §9.41.

Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

PC §9.42.
Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So, you can legally do this if all the right circumstances are met, but I probably wouldn't unless I was still in fear for my life. The risks involved in hitting something other than the BG are probably too high and unless he has a family member in there that had not gotten out, then he can have the car and the police can chase him down.

[petroleumag07]

A gun/knife in your face isn't a property threat, its a bodily threat. I wouldn't even think twice about drawing and any indication of further agression would be dealt with. Hesitation kills.

This may sound odd but I have found keys to be a possible deterrent or at the very least a distraction to violent crime. Part of this came after trying to break up two fighting dogs. When I was growing up, running around the neighborhood and such, my father always told me that stray dogs were not to be messed with. He also told me that if one was advancing towards me faster than I could get up a tree or a playground set, that I could take my hat off and throw it to the side as soon as the dog was within 5 or 10 feet, causing the dog to turn his focus to the hat and allowing me to either hit it or put more space between him and I.

I kinda took that same approach to people with keys. I always walk out to my car with my left (weak) hand holding the keys and my right hand free for my gun. If anyone approaches you suddenly with a weapon or demanding something and time is needed, hurling keys at them is enough to make them flinch at the very least. If you hit them in any sensitive areas you have bought yourself more time, especially considering keys are hard and heavy. If you miss, they will likely go after the keys. Even if they flinch they have given you that much more time to draw your weapon and prepare to defend yourself.

[Liko81]

Two different variables that create four different distinct scenarios; gun vs knife, and walking to your car versus being already in it. In all four cases, you are justified in drawing. The BG has made an implicit threat of death or serious bodily injury to you which justifies use of force. However, firing the gun can place you in a sticky situation. The applicable TPC section:

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I don't want to get flamed for this, but if you are not in your car, Castle Doctrine, which only requires a forceful, unlawful entry or attempt to enter in order to justify your use of deadly force, does not apply. So, when you are walking to your car, you are only justified in drawing when initially confronted by an assailant. If the person has not stabbed or shot you or attempted to stab/shoot you, you're not covered by clause a-2-A of this section. If the person has not yet demanded money or that you come with him, you're not covered by a-2-B either. Now, the likelihood of an assailant simply pulling a weapon and standing there, or having you do something that does not indicate he is about to commit an offense listed in a-2-B, is incredibly slim; attacks happen fast and the BG will likely make some sort of demand before or while drawing on you. But, according to the letter of this law, YOU CANNOT SHOOT until you know you are in imminent danger of being shot, stabbed, kidnapped, robbed, and/or raped. This puts you at even more of a disadvantage, because if the BG has not done something that you can use to infer his intention, you may only draw, and if he's drawn on you he will be first to the trigger anyway. Therefore, being jumped is a BAD idea.

You must ALWAYS be in Condition Yellow while armed, and armed or unarmed when in a high-risk situation. The sea change this makes in the situation is that you will have spotted a potential threat early, and if the situation warrants you are ready to draw before he is and can get the drop on him. Most BGs, facing a drawn and readied handgun, will either run or surrender. If the BG is still stupid enough to keep advancing or to go for his own weapon, you are now in imminent danger of one or more of the above.

[petroleumag07]

If I'm confronted by a weapon, I'm inclined to believe that someone has that weapon for a reason.

You are justified in using force if you reasonably believe that it is a threat. Civilly you can be tried, so you have to ask yourself if you and your family's lives are worth $100,000.

I would love to see a statue removing all civil liability from the shooter in a case that is justifiable. There is no reason that a person who is trying to rob, rape, or kill you should get paid for you defending yourself in a legal manner.

[Jesse1911]

WOW so much legal matters these BG's can get you in and if you think too much about these legal rights while your getting robbed, you might end up

[Liko81]

If I'm confronted by a weapon, I'm inclined to believe that someone has that weapon for a reason.

You are justified in using force if you reasonably believe that it is a threat. Civilly you can be tried, so you have to ask yourself if you and your family's lives are worth $100,000.

I would love to see a statue removing all civil liability from the shooter in a case that is justifiable. There is no reason that a person who is trying to rob, rape, or kill you should get paid for you defending yourself in a legal manner.

Well, there is.

§ 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is
immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that
results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as
applicable.

Also read Chapter 86. It is too long to quote here, but the most important part is:

§ 86.002. RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO CONVICTED
PERSON PROHIBITED. (a) A claimant who has been convicted of a
felony or misdemeanor may not recover damages for an injury
sustained during the commission of the felony or misdemeanor if the
injury would not have been sustained but for the commission of the
felony or misdemeanor.
(b) Subsection (a) does not bar the claimant from recovering
damages if the claimant shows that:
(1) the damages arose from an act entirely separate
from any act intended to result in the:
(A) prevention of the commission of a felony or
misdemeanor by the claimant; or
(B) apprehension of the claimant during or
immediately after the commission of the felony or misdemeanor; and
(2) the damages did not arise from a premises defect or
other circumstance that the claimant was exposed to as a result of
the commission of the felony or misdemeanor.

In short, if you as a criminal actor suffer damages from the use of force or deadly force against you that is justified by Chapter 9, or suffer injury or damages while in and directly related to the commission of a felony or misdemeanor, no lawsuit you claim will be heard in Texas courts.

So, you break into my house, I shoot you. You cannot sue me for personal injury, you cannot sue me for damage to your clothing caused by the bullet hole, blood stains and the medical staff who cut the clothes off, and you cannot sue me for lost wages, medical bills or pain and suffering. If the bullet I fired happened to also break the windshield of your car, you cannot sue me for that either. I really don't even need a lawyer as long as I know how to file a motion for summary judgement, OR I pay a lawyer 100 bucks to draft and sumbit one. If you are subsequently convicted of a crime (which requires that I didn't kill you), I can even recover that under Chapter 86.004, so I can counter-sue you for legal costs and garnish wages, put a lien on your house, and confiscate and sell your property at auction. In other words, if you are a criminal it does not pay to waste the court's time or anyone's money. Simply go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass GO, and definitely do not collect $200 much less the 50 grand you sued me for.

If you break into my house and I shoot and KILL you, I'm out a little more money, but I have the same immunity under the next section of Chapter 86. If your next of kin sue me, I spend $100 to have the same lawyer file the same motion for summary judgement under the same chapters of the CPRC. Then it's my turn; I sue your estate and next of kin for court costs, damages resulting from forcible entry, and 90 cents per bullet expended. However, if you broke into my house in the first place, you probably have very little of value and I am unlikely to recover much, and the liability of your next of kin who inherit those things is limited to that property or its value. It most likely will not cover total damages especially if I am also shot and have to go to the hospital.

Any lawyer hired by the assailant would know this. The assailant will therefore likely not find a single person willing to take the case, because they have very little chance of winning and they have VERY little chance of getting any money from their client once the other guy's countersuits are settled.

[Jesse1911]

This also reminds me of a phrase my instructor told us..." if you have to use deadly force,its better if only ONE of YOU shows up to court" get it?

[petroleumag07]

Gracias senor

[longhorn_92]

This also reminds me of a phrase my instructor told us..." if you have to use deadly force,its better if only ONE of YOU shows up to court" get it?

My instructor also said -
"Always shoot to stop! Always shoot center mass. Now, I can't help it that God placed vital organs in the middle of "center mass". IF the (BG) stops... good, you have done your part - and if the (BG) is killed, that's not your problem. Have the BG take THAT up with God!"

[aardwolf]

If a bg threatens you with deadly force it doesn't matter if he wants your car, your wallet or directions to the nearest Taco Cabana.

You have the moral and legal right to use force or deadly force to prevent the bg's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.

[Liko81]

If a bg threatens you with deadly force it doesn't matter if he wants your car, your wallet or directions to the nearest Taco Cabana.

You have the moral and legal right to use force or deadly force to prevent the bg's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.

That's the problem. A BG pulling a gun and threatening to use it has not used or attempted to use deadly force until the trigger is pulled. The THREAT of deadly force is equivalent to the use of force other than deadly force according to TPC Section 9.04.

Now, I grant you that having a gun pulled on you is a likely precursor to one of the crimes justifying the use of deadly force. He may want you to come with him (aggravated kidnapping, and if you're female, aggravated sexual assault), he may want your wallet, purse or car (aggravated robbery), or he just may be looking to make a name for himself among his homies (murder). Whatever he wants, he is attempting to commit an aggravated violent felony simply by the act of pulling a gun.

THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE; there are NO absolutes in the aftermath of a gunfight. You can still be found guilty of murder/manslaughter and/or be sued for wrongful death. How rabid the prosecution is depends on the jurisdiction; Houston/Harris County are infamous for going after anyone who pulled a trigger, and Dallas is similar; if someone's dead in those jurisdictions, someone's going to go to jail. If the BG is still alive, and he has a good cover story, you have now found yourself in a world of legal smelly brown stuff. Unless you can prove your version of events, you can very well lose in civil court if the other guy is not found guilty of a crime (and the prosecution would have to prove the same thing to a higher standard than you would have to in civil court in order for that to happen), and you can bet the Brady Bunch will offer any support they can to both the DA and your assailant.

This is all a prerequisite to the same point; you must ALWAYS maintain Condition Yellow if you are carrying, in order to get the drop on the BG. If a situation where a potential BG is approaching you or your car, or lurking nearby, does not feel right, you give them one "friendly" warning to stop where they are, and if they do not heed it you draw and either repeat the command, not-so-friendly, or you order them to the ground and call the police. Even if you're wrong and you end up drawing on someone who turns out to be legitimately asking for help with his car or for directions, the penalty for brandishing is FAR less than the penalty for manslaughter and you are far less likely to be sued (what would they claim? That you're liable for the cleaning bill for their soiled pants?)