TexasCHLforum.com

Deadly force is used to STOP deadly force..
No deadly force is used by a thief when he is fleeing... you cannot
pull out just the beginning of the law of 9:42 A person is Justified in using Deadly force etc etc Then a Colon :
After each place where it implies deadly force there is either a colon or semi colon we learned in the 3rd grade what they were..
The simple way to explain a colon is "We aint done YET"

The law is not complete until you see a period and a new penal code begins
Example coming into my home at night and some one is running out the back door after breaking in with a crow bar and has relieved me of a small Painting worth $2,000. I am carrying my handgun ( licensed or not) I was a track star down the alley about half way he sees and understands I am gonna catch him he turns around with the crow bar and rears it back Bang
If you shoot him in the back there will be no defense..

I know, I know Joe Horn and others have beat the rap with Grand juries

Sorry if I started a contest here.
Each person can interpret the law the way they want. But in the system it will be interpreetd for you!!

o b juan wrote:Deadly force is used to STOP deadly force..
No deadly force is used by a thief when he is fleeing... you cannot
pull out just the beginning of the law of 9:42 A person is Justified in using Deadly force etc etc Then a Colon :
After each place where it implies deadly force there is either a colon or semi colon we learned in the 3rd grade what they were..
The simple way to explain a colon is "We aint done YET"

The law is not complete until you see a period and a new penal code begins
Example coming into my home at night and some one is running out the back door after breaking in with a crow bar and has relieved me of a small Painting worth $2,000. I am carrying my handgun ( licensed or not) I was a track star down the alley about half way he sees and understands I am gonna catch him he turns around with the crow bar and rears it back Bang
If you shoot him in the back there will be no defense..

I know, I know Joe Horn and others have beat the rap with Grand juries

Sorry if I started a contest here.
Each person can interpret the law the way they want. But in the system it will be interpreetd for you!!

So, in essence, the point of that part of the PC is to make it safer for the crooks to break into folks' homes, take their property, and get away with it? Are we living in California here, or are we living in Texas? Now, let me stop here and say, I sincerely hope I NEVER have to shoot anyone, I'd be a happy man if I lived my entire life without that. Also, unless a family member or myself were injured by them, if the crook ran for it even carry my property, I'd let the crook go. But if the law is WRITTEN in such a manner as to make it "safer" for criminals, then that in itself sets a bad precedent that no one can be secure in their homes, and that just doesn't sound very Texan to me.

o b juan wrote:Deadly force is used to STOP deadly force..
No deadly force is used by a thief when he is fleeing... you cannot
pull out just the beginning of the law of 9:42 A person is Justified in using Deadly force etc etc Then a Colon :
After each place where it implies deadly force there is either a colon or semi colon we learned in the 3rd grade what they were..
The simple way to explain a colon is "We aint done YET"

The law is not complete until you see a period and a new penal code begins
Example coming into my home at night and some one is running out the back door after breaking in with a crow bar and has relieved me of a small Painting worth $2,000. I am carrying my handgun ( licensed or not) I was a track star down the alley about half way he sees and understands I am gonna catch him he turns around with the crow bar and rears it back Bang
If you shoot him in the back there will be no defense..

I know, I know Joe Horn and others have beat the rap with Grand juries

Sorry if I started a contest here.
Each person can interpret the law the way they want. But in the system it will be interpreetd for you!!

Claiming that we are only reading the beginning of 9.42 until the colon... and then basing your claims only on one subsection of 9.42; are you intentionally trolling? Pawpaw already posted the entirety of 9.42 and bolded in red the relevant section being discussed. And when you see the word 'OR' it means, you only need to satisfy one requirement of a list, not EVERY requirement.

o b juan wrote:Deadly force is used to STOP deadly force..
No deadly force is used by a thief when he is fleeing... you cannot
pull out just the beginning of the law of 9:42 A person is Justified in using Deadly force etc etc Then a Colon :
After each place where it implies deadly force there is either a colon or semi colon we learned in the 3rd grade what they were..
The simple way to explain a colon is "We aint done YET"

The law is not complete until you see a period and a new penal code begins
Example coming into my home at night and some one is running out the back door after breaking in with a crow bar and has relieved me of a small Painting worth $2,000. I am carrying my handgun ( licensed or not) I was a track star down the alley about half way he sees and understands I am gonna catch him he turns around with the crow bar and rears it back Bang
If you shoot him in the back there will be no defense..

I know, I know Joe Horn and others have beat the rap with Grand juries

Sorry if I started a contest here.
Each person can interpret the law the way they want. But in the system it will be interpreetd for you!!

Instead of making condescending and insulting remarks about punctuation, I suggest you take a class in reading comprehension.

Further I recommend, when you have a chance, you attend one of Charles' use of force seminars. There you will have these and many other portions of the penal code explained by a true subject matter expert. Under Texas law, there are several narrowly defined circumstances when deadly force is authorized to stop other than deadly force. You just bumped into one of them.

The original post
"A car jacking victim was arrested for murder after he was robbed at gun point. Apparently after the armed criminal left in his van, he drew his weapon and fired at his van leaving. The van crashed into parked cars a few miles away. He was being interviewed by police about his armed robbery when they found his van and arrested him for murder."

" fired at his van leaving. "

I did not know that texas law allows you to shot at someone fleeing from armed robbery.

Would any one here do that ..?

Each person can interpret the law the way they want. But in the system it will be interpreted for you!!

breaking your last comment down.

the jacking victim was arrested in California, firing at a fleeing suspect is not allowed there.

You didn't know that Texas law allows it, now you do

would any one do that? I would say that probably would vary by incident and person

o b juan wrote:The original post
"A car jacking victim was arrested for murder after he was robbed at gun point. Apparently after the armed criminal left in his van, he drew his weapon and fired at his van leaving. The van crashed into parked cars a few miles away. He was being interviewed by police about his armed robbery when they found his van and arrested him for murder."

" fired at his van leaving. "

I did not know that texas law allows you to shot at someone fleeing from armed robbery.

Would any one here do that ..?

Each person can interpret the law the way they want. But in the system it will be interpreted for you!!

So, I'll ask again, in more brief form: is the intent of the law to protect the perpetrator of a crime?

I wont argue or continue Do as each thinks you should as you see it .

"Each person can interpret the law the way they want. But in the system it will be interpreted for you!!"

Talk about being passive-submissive, those can't be desirable traits.