Man says he killed mugger fleeing on bike in South Dallas

[dicion]

I know I would have difficulty shooting a guy in the back. But if he had taken shots at me, all bets are off.

This is a situation that I would not have such difficulty. I would not hesitate to shoot a fleeing robber in the back, after being forcefully dispossessed of my property, even if he did not take shots at me.

Why? you ask? Well, it's simple.

If he's going to rob me at gunpoint, he's going to do it again. Whats to say that he won't kill the next person, even if he doesn't kill me?
What's to say that he's not going to change his mind, and turn around, after deciding not to leave witnesses?
Whats to say that he's not going to use the information in my wallet to now find my house, and burgle it, or remove witnesses again?
I routinely carry big ticket item receipts in my wallet, so I can file them when I get home. If he sees that I just bought $2500 in electronics equipment, and has my address...

If I have the legal justification to prevent him from possibly murdering someone in the future, (maybe me or my family) I'll do it. Plain and simple.

Some people may consider it morally wrong, or or in bad taste to shoot someone in the back.
I consider it morally wrong and bad taste to rob someone to begin with, so I'd only be following the golden rule in this case.

[Pawpaw]

When someone commits armed robbery, they are changing the rules of the game. The new rule he set is "there ain't no rules".

[Purplehood]

I like to think I am a tough-guy, but I can not guarantee that I would shoot someone if I did not feel that it was absolutely necessary. It is all based on the exact circumstances.
The time I caught a burglar in my brothers house frantically trying to remove the giant TV in the front-room typifies how I feel about this topic.
When he realized I was behind him, he grabbed a power cable and turned around with it cocked as if he were going to hit me with it. At the same time he realized I was holding a Glock 27 on him. The look in his eyes told me that he figured out who the potential winners and losers were going to be, and he hightailed it out the open front-door.
I guess that if I had really pushed things I could have justified taking a shot at him when he raised the cable to swing it at me (though I would have had to lie and say I felt it was endangering my life).
The bottom-line is that I am not going to shoot just because I can. I am sure that if he had had a gun and I was convinced he was going to use it he would have been shot. And yes, I realize that you shouldn't be trying to guess and lose the draw, but hey, that is how it is.

[74novaman]

In the end, we all have to make our own judgments as to when its justified. Others may have opinions, but they don't have to live with the results of that decision. You will.

[dicion]

I guess that if I had really pushed things I could have justified taking a shot at him when he raised the cable to swing it at me (though I would have had to lie and say I felt it was endangering my life).

There is no armed or fear of loss of life requirement to Lethal force in response to Burglary, only that they be 'in the commission of'. If they're Burglarizing, you're justified.
He could be armed with an orange. If he breaks into your house, you're justified. End of story.

Just clearing that up for ya


Relevant Sections of code:

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

Sec. 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

As you can see, they can be unarmed, and legally committing Burglary.

[PRO]

. Regardless of the DA, the civil case will soon come.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

Sec. 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.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.[/color]

I didn't know this. It removes a weight from my mind that could have caused me to hesitate. Thank you.

I believe he was completely justified in his actions, however, back and head shots can cause a public outcry.

[Keith B]

Worrying about a civil lawsuit is NOT the thing you want to be thinking about in a self defense situation. When deciding to carry, you have to make up your mind that if the situation warrants defending your or another's life that you will shoot to stop the threat. Learning to recognize the right and wrong situations and being able to respond to them properly is key. Hesitating when your life is on the line because you are not sure if you should shoot or not will cause you to be the one that ends up dead.

[Purplehood]

I guess that if I had really pushed things I could have justified taking a shot at him when he raised the cable to swing it at me (though I would have had to lie and say I felt it was endangering my life).

There is no armed or fear of loss of life requirement to Lethal force in response to Burglary, only that they be 'in the commission of'. If they're Burglarizing, you're justified.
He could be armed with an orange. If he breaks into your house, you're justified. End of story.

Just clearing that up for ya


Relevant Sections of code:

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

Sec. 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

As you can see, they can be unarmed, and legally committing Burglary.

I obviously failed to make my point. It was this:

Even if I thought I was legally justified, I wouldn't necessarily shoot someone. I know I wouldn't hesitate if I thought it was necessary, but I really feel that I have a higher threshold to cross before I would.

And that is just me...I ain't knocking others for what their particular threshold level is.

[PRO]

On the civil point, those in Austin know about the sanders case and the officer who is being sued in Federal court for "Wrongful Death," even though the GJ no billed him and he was justified. The city of Austin as well as the officer will be relieved that there is a law to prevent this. Except it hasn't prevented it.

No one knows what's going to be going through their heads when that time comes. Although I had to pull my service revolver many times, while with SAPD, I only was forced to fire it once. All the other times that I was justified in firing, I didn't. I was constantly thinking, sizing it up, finding ways to defuse the situation, planning what cover was around, bystanders who may be in the line of fire, ECT. Just because you can fire, doesn't mean you should.

[Keith B]

On the civil point, those in Austin know about the sanders case and the officer who is being sued in Federal court for "Wrongful Death," even though the GJ no billed him and he was justified. The city of Austin as well as the officer will be relieved that there is a law to prevent this. Except it hasn't prevented it.

No one knows what's going to be going through their heads when that time comes. Although I had to pull my service revolver many times, while with SAPD, I only was forced to fire it once. All the other times that I was justified in firing, I didn't. I was constantly thinking, sizing it up, finding was to defuse the situation, planning what cover was around, bystanders who may be in the line of fire, ECT. Just because you can fire, doesn't mean you should.

Police officers and cities don't have the defense to civil liability in a shooting, even in a justified case, like CHL'ers do.

[dicion]

I obviously failed to make my point. It was this:

Even if I thought I was legally justified, I wouldn't necessarily shoot someone. I know I wouldn't hesitate if I thought it was necessary, but I really feel that I have a higher threshold to cross before I would.

And that is just me...I ain't knocking others for what their particular threshold level is.

Oh, no, I understood your point, and I agree, every person has their own threshold, their own level that they need to decide what to do.
The time to discuss this with yourself and make a decision is right now, when you can think clearly, and not when you're in said situation

I just wanted to correct your statement that you thought you needed to 'fear for your life' in order to shoot a burglar.
Didn't want to give other persons who may be reading this an incorrect interpretation of the law, that they need to see a gun or other deadly weapon before they are legally justified in shooting. Waiting until they see a gun may be too late in some cases.

Personally, and this is just me, if someone busts in my front door, or breaks in through a window, they're going to be suffering lead poisoning. I'll leave it to the LEO's to find out of he has a weapon on him or not. I could care less.

[Excaliber]

I guess that if I had really pushed things I could have justified taking a shot at him when he raised the cable to swing it at me (though I would have had to lie and say I felt it was endangering my life).

There is no armed or fear of loss of life requirement to Lethal force in response to Burglary, only that they be 'in the commission of'. If they're Burglarizing, you're justified.
He could be armed with an orange. If he breaks into your house, you're justified. End of story.

Just clearing that up for ya


Relevant Sections of code:

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

Sec. 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

As you can see, they can be unarmed, and legally committing Burglary.

I obviously failed to make my point. It was this:

Even if I thought I was legally justified, I wouldn't necessarily shoot someone. I know I wouldn't hesitate if I thought it was necessary, but I really feel that I have a higher threshold to cross before I would.

And that is just me...I ain't knocking others for what their particular threshold level is.

I'm with you here.

My personal rule is that I'd only use deadly force when there's no other reasonable option available to protect innocent life. That easily meets the letter of the penal law in Texas and keeps me square with those higher laws I try to stay on the right side of.

My agency explicitly trained that "can shoot" doesn't mean "must shoot", and encouraged out of the box thinking to get the job done. This helped prevent the "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" approach that can lead to unnecessary shootings.

Like most police officers, I could have lawfully shot a number of qualifying criminals during my LEO years, but those situations didn't meet my personal criteria, and, also like most LEO's, I was able to find other ways to sort things out for my entire career.

I know that was largely luck. A number of the officers I worked the same posts and shifts with were confronted at various times with clear "no other reasonable option" situations where I wouldn't have hesitated to do exactly what they did. I was simply fortunate enough not to have been working those assignments on those days.

[PRO]

Police officers and cities don't have the defense to civil liability in a shooting, even in a justified case, like CHL'ers do.

This is why I'm on this forum. I've been out of the loop for years and didn't know the protections afforded CHL'ers. Does make me wonder why a law firm in Houston offering CHL insurance states they will represent you in the criminal and civil process. I'll email them, because I know this is the land of the lawsuit and if someone can sue you they will sue you.

[3dfxMM]

Police officers and cities don't have the defense to civil liability in a shooting, even in a justified case, like CHL'ers do.

This is why I'm on this forum. I've been out of the loop for years and didn't know the protections afforded CHL'ers. Does make me wonder why a law firm in Houston offering CHL insurance states they will represent you in the criminal and civil process. I'll email them, because I know this is the land of the lawsuit and if someone can sue you they will sue you.

With the aforementioned exceptions for LEOs and governments, I believe those protections extend to all justified shootings by law-abiding citizens, not just to CHL'ers.

[Bob in Big D]

Thank you for all the responses. You have cleared up alot for me personally.

That is also why I am on this forum.