After deadly force

[Dragonfighter]

Here's is my really basic take on this: 'Stuff' can be replaced; life can't.

So, unless my or my family or other person's life is threatened, then I will not be shooting to prevent loss of 'stuff'. I may use my firearm to insure that the threat does not progress from stealing to robbery or assault, but that would be it.

A good example is I come home to find my door open to the house. Discounting the pets, unless I have a family member in there, I will back away from the house and call police. If I see the person taking my television out of the house, I am NOT going to shoot them over taking 'stuff'. Besides, my television is not one of the new nice 3-D flat screens, and if they steal my old one, then I have an excuse to buy a new one!!

This has posed a dilemma for me as well. Property no, but I have firearms in the house that could be used to perpetuate the crime spree and/or hurt someone else. So I see them coming out of the house with a TV (Good luck with that dinosaur BTW) how do I know they haven't already found my weapons? I quit keeping a default weapon in the vehicles over the same concern as I did not want to shoot someone for driving off with my vehicle.

Door open with no discernible movement, call P.D. and then deal with the insurance company. Visible movement would garner a decidedly different reaction, perhaps call and cover egress from a defensible position. I don't know, one step at a time like a mine field.

[slogan_98]

I really appreciate all the feedback although still surprised by the answers. I agree that I would never use deadly force over a theft. That's what I have insurance for and I don't own anything that is worth the cost of the legal defense.
I just have a problem with being treated as a criminal and paying the price when I acted lawfully.
Oh well.

[seamusTX]

I just have a problem with being treated as a criminal and paying the price when I acted lawfully.

Welcome to the forum. We all wrestle with these questions at first.

The way the law is written, offenses are defined in the penal code. Criminal homicide is intentionally killing a human being. Aggravated assault includes shooting at or causing serious bodily injury to a person.

Then, chapter 9 of the penal code defines "justifications excluding criminal responsibility." These are defenses to prosecution.

That means that if you commit the elements of a crime such as homicide you may be justified, but you may also be compelled to prove it in court.

This is an ancient concept. It goes back to the earliest codes of law, including the Bible, that homicide is generally wrong but that justifiable homicide can be explained in a court or to a judge.

I don't know how else these decisions could be made with any guarantee of justice. You're standing over a corpse with a smoking gun and say, "He tried to kill me." Someone has to decide whether your actions were justified or whether you killed the guy because you owed him money or he looked at your girlfriend sideways.

The police do not decide innocence or guilt. They arrest suspects and collect evidence. Prosecutors initially decide whether or not they have enough evidence to go to trial. About half of suspected crimes are not prosecuted because of lack of evidence.

In our system of law, the person or persons who make the decision of innocence or guilt are called "finders of fact." Usually that means a jury. It could be a judge. Homicide and aggravated assault are felonies, so they go before a grand jury before going to trial. That is a double gateway to protect the rights of the accused.

How else could it be done?

In the bad old days (which weren't that long ago) when a politically connected person killed someone in anger or revenge or maybe a drunken fight, a corrupt sheriff, coroner, or judge could decide that the killing was accidental or justified. Sometimes they said deaths were suicides when it was obvious that they were not—like the man who was shot in the back with a shotgun.

The fact is that most people who use deadly force in clear-cut cases of self defense are not prosecuted. If a burglar breaks into your house and you shoot him, you are golden. (Just don't go chasing him down the street if he runs away.) The same goes for robberies of businesses. The defender in these cases usually is not arrested and is no-billed without legal expenses.

It gets murky when a deadly force incident is an encounter on a street, when the actors know one another ("friends," relatives, business associates, people who owe money, etc.), or when the use of deadly force is not clearly justified, as in vandalism, petty theft, or trespassing.

Many of these real-life incidents are documented on this forum, probably thousands of them.

- Jim

[Tamie]

Hello everyone.
I recently decided to get a gun for protection in case we all fall on harder times. My wife and I have struggled with the morality issues and I have done everything by the book so far such as basic safety class, tactical classes to be sure I understood what I was getting into and recently applied and tested for my CHL. I felt like it was a privilage and duty to do this and I assumed(I know) that the Great State of Texas felt the same.

Here is the problem. The law here in Texas is very specific as to the use of deadly force. The CHL instructor went the extra mile regarding when to use it and when it just doesn't make sense. Even when the law says you are justified.
What shocked me was when they explained why it may not make sense. Because in Houston ALL shootings have to go before the grand jury even when you weren't charged and the police determine that the shooting was justified. Even the police have to do this when they shoot on duty? Now I really don't have a problem with the authorities being completely sure but it is my understanding that the legal process to undergo all that scrutiny will cost me 10K to 15K on the average. So the law says you can shoot to protect your property but unless it isn't insured and and worth more than the legal fees will be you are advise to stay in the house and call 911.

So the legal community(politicians) passed laws to allow me to protect myself and my family but if I have to do it and by the book I have to create a financial hardship at best to defend myself in court ?

Please help me out with my thinking here. What have the rest of you CHL or not decided regarding the use of deadly force and the legal, financial aftermath?

If I saved myself or my family, I'm willing to deal with the financial aftermath. I'm curious about one of your comments though. Are you and your attorney allowed to be at the grand jury proceedings in Houston?

[thatguy]

As most of us, I would use deadly force only to preserve human life. I put together some thoughts on the issue.

1. Deadly force is used only as a LAST RESORT.

2. Training and pracitce build confidence that leads to good judgement. The better trained a person is, the longer their gun will remain in its holster. Luck favors the prepared mind.

3. I will not be thinking about legal consequences if I am being attaced. It WILL be neccessary to have an attorney if someone is involved in a shooting, there is no such thing as a "cut and dry" shooting. My plan is to stay alive, call 911 for an ambulance and the police, have my gun made safe and put away before the police arrive (lest they shoot me), invoke my right to silence and an attorney present before I answer any questions and then call my attorney.

CHL Instructor
NRA Life Member-Patron
NRA Certified Personal Protection Inside the Home and Outside the Home Instructor
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
Chief Range Safety Officer
IDPA competitive shooter
TSRA Member
Red Blooded Texan-American

[Kythas]

My personal short form guideline that was arrived at after a great deal of thought is:

The firearm is a last resort tool to be used only when there is no other reasonable way to protect innocent life.

This has worked well for me in many encounters at all levels up and down the use of force spectrum over nearly 40 years of daily carry as both an LEO and a civilian

Yes, I know it's much more restrictive than what is allowed under Texas law. I like it that way. To my way of thinking, until that threshold is reached, I have other reasonable options available and I am morally (even if not legally) obligated to use them until it's clear they aren't sufficient to resolve a given threat.

The guideline is short enough to remember easily under extreme stress ( a point that's hard to appreciate until you've tried to remember all the elements of aggravated assault during one ), and to my knowledge it meets or exceeds all legal requirements everywhere in the U.S. It sets a standard for action that I can live with afterwards should the need ever arise.

It's also readily (though not cheaply) defensible in the courts, and is generally understandable to the good folks in the media and your neighbors as well. These are all important to what your life will be like after a deadly force encounter.

IANAL. Your mileage may vary.

My FTO taught me much the same thing when I got out of the academy. He said when you pull the trigger it better be very clear in your mind that you have no other options available to you. Shooting another human being is an act that will change at least two lives forever.

His advice during my probationary period served me well in LE and still does to this day. I'd wonder if you were he if I didn't know better, Excaliber.

[Excaliber]

My personal short form guideline that was arrived at after a great deal of thought is:

The firearm is a last resort tool to be used only when there is no other reasonable way to protect innocent life.

This has worked well for me in many encounters at all levels up and down the use of force spectrum over nearly 40 years of daily carry as both an LEO and a civilian

Yes, I know it's much more restrictive than what is allowed under Texas law. I like it that way. To my way of thinking, until that threshold is reached, I have other reasonable options available and I am morally (even if not legally) obligated to use them until it's clear they aren't sufficient to resolve a given threat.

The guideline is short enough to remember easily under extreme stress ( a point that's hard to appreciate until you've tried to remember all the elements of aggravated assault during one ), and to my knowledge it meets or exceeds all legal requirements everywhere in the U.S. It sets a standard for action that I can live with afterwards should the need ever arise.

It's also readily (though not cheaply) defensible in the courts, and is generally understandable to the good folks in the media and your neighbors as well. These are all important to what your life will be like after a deadly force encounter.

IANAL. Your mileage may vary.

My FTO taught me much the same thing when I got out of the academy. He said when you pull the trigger it better be very clear in your mind that you have no other options available to you. Shooting another human being is an act that will change at least two lives forever.

His advice during my probationary period served me well in LE and still does to this day. I'd wonder if you were he if I didn't know better, Excaliber.

My take on this is far from unique. Many thoughtful LEO's have arrived at the same conclusions.