Deadly Force question

[ralewis]

Is Force or Deadly force justified to prevent somebody from fleeing after committing an assault with a deadly weapon (and the usual list of crimes for which deadly force is justified to prevent the commission of).

I thought I knew the answer, but I got into a discussion with a friend. And now we're both a little confused.

[Beiruty]

better to use deadly force to prevent commission of violent crime by a felon.

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT recommend to do the same as in this case:

There was case in Dallas where father and his son pursued (down the street) who attacked their house with a brick, the peruse resulted in death of both those who attacked. They were acquitted under castle doctrine. DO NOT DO IT.

Story: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archive ... n-dou.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

complete discussion and warning not do what they did:

http://www.bosilloinvestigations.com/in ... &Itemid=54" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tbrown]

Is Force or Deadly force justified to prevent somebody from fleeing after committing an assault with a deadly weapon (and the usual list of crimes for which deadly force is justified to prevent the commission of).

I thought I knew the answer, but I got into a discussion with a friend. And now we're both a little confused.

Generally no. If the crime already stopped, you're too late to use deadly force. An exception is if the fleeing felon is still threatening other people, then it may be legal to use force to stop that violent crime still in progress.

[Beiruty]

Is Force or Deadly force justified to prevent somebody from fleeing after committing an assault with a deadly weapon (and the usual list of crimes for which deadly force is justified to prevent the commission of).

I thought I knew the answer, but I got into a discussion with a friend. And now we're both a little confused.

Are you talking about citizen arrest, i.e. holding someone at a gun-point?

[C-dub]

And then there's this.

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
(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.

It may not be the best idea, but is justified.

[ralewis]

Is Force or Deadly force justified to prevent somebody from fleeing after committing an assault with a deadly weapon (and the usual list of crimes for which deadly force is justified to prevent the commission of).

I thought I knew the answer, but I got into a discussion with a friend. And now we're both a little confused.

Are you talking about citizen arrest, i.e. holding someone at a gun-point?

something like that. Say you are at Walmart the the guy in front of you hits the cashier over the head with baseball bat or something then flees. Is deadly force justified to stop/detain the individual until the cops arrive?

[Beiruty]

Is Force or Deadly force justified to prevent somebody from fleeing after committing an assault with a deadly weapon (and the usual list of crimes for which deadly force is justified to prevent the commission of).

I thought I knew the answer, but I got into a discussion with a friend. And now we're both a little confused.

Are you talking about citizen arrest, i.e. holding someone at a gun-point?

something like that. Say you are at Walmart the the guy in front of you hits the cashier over the head with baseball bat or something then flees. Is deadly force justified to stop/detain the individual until the cops arrive?

You may draw and order the BG to freeze, if he is not compliant and decided to flee like a deer, I am not sure what to do but call 911

[tbrown]

And then there's this.

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
(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.

It may not be the best idea, but is justified.

That applies only if they are escaping with property. Not for assault, aggravated assault, murder or rape.

[Oldgringo]

And then there's this.

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
(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.

It may not be the best idea, but is justified.

It shouldn't take a whole lot of money or time to convince a jury of your peers that you were justified in shooting the BG. If you have any kind of caring employer at all, they'll probably understand and hold your job open too.

Just kiddin'...

[C-dub]

And then there's this.

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
(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.

It may not be the best idea, but is justified.

That applies only if they are escaping with property. Not for assault, aggravated assault, murder or rape.

Yes, but the OP also threw this in.

(and the usual list of crimes for which deadly force is justified to prevent the commission of).

I thought, possibly incorrectly, that this would fit in there.

[ralewis]

And then there's this.

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
(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.

It may not be the best idea, but is justified.

That applies only if they are escaping with property. Not for assault, aggravated assault, murder or rape.

Yeah. That's what I kind of thought and where I ended the discussion with my friend. I find it odd that you can use deadly force to stop somebody from stealing your dog, but not for murdering the clerk at the convenience store....

So, I guessed it could go like this:

-you can attempt to stop them from fleeing, but if they don't flee you can't shoot. Drawing and attempting to detain I guess is FORCE not DEADLY FORCE.

-UNLESS they attempt to use deadly force on you then you can use deadly force.

[C-dub]

So, I guessed it could go like this:

-you can attempt to stop them from fleeing, but if they don't flee you can't shoot. Drawing and attempting to detain I guess is FORCE not DEADLY FORCE.

-UNLESS they attempt to use deadly force on you then you can use deadly force.

That works. One of the guys around here had that happen. The BG had broken into their car and when confronted ran. The owner chased and when the BG turned and challenged with a weapon ( I don't remember what) the owner fired off a couple of rounds. I don't think he hit the BG, but no charges were filed and I think the officers even stated what a shame it was he didn't hit the BG.

[tbrown]

Yeah. That's what I kind of thought and where I ended the discussion with my friend. I find it odd that you can use deadly force to stop somebody from stealing your dog, but not for murdering the clerk at the convenience store....

You can use deadly force to stop them from murdering the clerk at the convenience store, but once the deed is done you're not allowed to get revenge.

[Beiruty]

Also stopping them form using deadly force on 3rd parties (OTHERS). I guess, it would justified to shoot the guy on the spot while swinging a bat at someone. But if he disengage and flee the scene, it could be too late.

[bkj]

This may be as close as you can get

PC §9.03. CONFINEMENT AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. Confinement
is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor takes
reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he
knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested for
an offense.

PC §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.