CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

[Paladin]

LTC's are not LEO's.

Highly dependent upon circumstances before we step in slinging bullets.

Shooting at a fleeing car?

Do you know for certain where your misses are going to end?

Bad idea.

It is very true that any LTC shooting at a fleeing car even in these circumstances is taking liability upon themselves if stray rounds hit the wrong people or damage property. Fortunately the LTC's in this case had the appropriate skills.

It is also a bad idea to let a murderer get away to hurt or kill someone else. I can assure you that if the murderer got away, and later killed one of your loved ones, your opinion would be different.

[J.R.@A&M]

Nope - I'd have shot at him, too! Deadly force is perfectly legal to prevent the fleeing of one who has just used unlawful deadly force,

Please cite the relevant law that justifies this.

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

link

Of course in places like Austin the local DA may interpret the law differently

What imminent harm is being avoided by shooting at a fleeing car?

[J.R.@A&M]

Nope - I'd have shot at him, too! Deadly force is perfectly legal to prevent the fleeing of one who has just used unlawful deadly force,

Please cite the relevant law that justifies this.

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

link

Of course in places like Austin the local DA may interpret the law differently

What imminent harm is being avoided by shooting at a fleeing car?

And I can't see that preventing/precluding hypothetical harms would count.

IANAL.

[J.R.@A&M]

LTC's are not LEO's.

Highly dependent upon circumstances before we step in slinging bullets.

Shooting at a fleeing car?

Do you know for certain where your misses are going to end?

Bad idea.

It is very true that any LTC shooting at a fleeing car even in these circumstances is taking liability upon themselves if stray rounds hit the wrong people or damage property. Fortunately the LTC's in this case had the appropriate skills.

It is also a bad idea to let a murderer get away to hurt or kill someone else. I can assure you that if the murderer got away, and later killed one of your loved ones, your opinion would be different.

In hindsight I absolutely agree. But unless you are Tom Cruise in Minority Report and the precog's tell you that the fella is going to commit murder, it strikes me as too hypothetical to legally exercise deadly force here in the present.

[Paladin]

LTC's are not LEO's.

Highly dependent upon circumstances before we step in slinging bullets.

Shooting at a fleeing car?

Do you know for certain where your misses are going to end?

Bad idea.

It is very true that any LTC shooting at a fleeing car even in these circumstances is taking liability upon themselves if stray rounds hit the wrong people or damage property. Fortunately the LTC's in this case had the appropriate skills.

It is also a bad idea to let a murderer get away to hurt or kill someone else. I can assure you that if the murderer got away, and later killed one of your loved ones, your opinion would be different.

In hindsight I absolutely agree. But unless you are Tom Cruise in Minority Report and the precog's tell you that the fella is going to commit murder, it strikes me as too hypothetical to legally exercise deadly force here in the present.

The LTC's witnessed a murder. They were attempting to prevent the murderer who ran down an innocent woman from driving himself and his murder weapon away from the scene and becoming a continuing threat to the community. The reason courts lock murderer's up in prison and bar them from owning firearms are the same. There is nothing hypothetical in that.

[johncanfield]

It turns out this crazy old coot is 89 years old, even if he gets a death sentence he will expire from natural causes before the appeals run out. I pray I'm never in a situation where it's a shoot or no shoot decision.

[J.R.@A&M]

LTC's are not LEO's.

Highly dependent upon circumstances before we step in slinging bullets.

Shooting at a fleeing car?

Do you know for certain where your misses are going to end?

Bad idea.

It is very true that any LTC shooting at a fleeing car even in these circumstances is taking liability upon themselves if stray rounds hit the wrong people or damage property. Fortunately the LTC's in this case had the appropriate skills.

It is also a bad idea to let a murderer get away to hurt or kill someone else. I can assure you that if the murderer got away, and later killed one of your loved ones, your opinion would be different.

In hindsight I absolutely agree. But unless you are Tom Cruise in Minority Report and the precog's tell you that the fella is going to commit murder, it strikes me as too hypothetical to legally exercise deadly force here in the present.

The LTC's witnessed a murder. They were attempting to prevent the murderer who ran down an innocent woman from driving himself and his murder weapon away from the scene and becoming a continuing threat to the community. The reason courts lock murderer's up in prison and bar them from owning firearms are the same. There is nothing hypothetical in that.

The LTC's witnessed a murder. They were attempting to prevent the murderer who ran down an innocent woman from driving himself and his murder weapon away from the scene...

I do not disagree with the above facts. But the conclusion about "...becoming a continuing threat to the community" is hypothetical because it hasn't happened yet. All you know at that moment is that he is fleeing. You think that it's reasonable to conclude that he WILL commit assault/murder again. I disagree and would not test that legal theory, nor put more bullets in the air, by shooting at him while he departs. I would be talking to 911 dispatch relaying his license plate as he drove away.

[Abraham]

Hey guys, shoot all you care to when you think you're doing the right thing. (even though you're not at personal risk, but you must correct wrongs, you have a gun, so why not?) It'll be your problem when things go horribly wrong...as they often will.

But, you've got an LTC so shoot away, by all means. Oh, so sorry, one of your rounds hit an innocent bystander because you assumed the role of L.E. Good luck with that, you're going to need it, along with a great lawyer/lawyers and loads of money spent by you.

Just remember, an LTC doesn't make you an LEO.

Yeah, I know, it should make you at least an assistant LEO, right?

You are Don Quixote with a gun who must right all wrongs!

[Paladin]

LTC's are not LEO's.

Highly dependent upon circumstances before we step in slinging bullets.

Shooting at a fleeing car?

Do you know for certain where your misses are going to end?

Bad idea.

It is very true that any LTC shooting at a fleeing car even in these circumstances is taking liability upon themselves if stray rounds hit the wrong people or damage property. Fortunately the LTC's in this case had the appropriate skills.

It is also a bad idea to let a murderer get away to hurt or kill someone else. I can assure you that if the murderer got away, and later killed one of your loved ones, your opinion would be different.

In hindsight I absolutely agree. But unless you are Tom Cruise in Minority Report and the precog's tell you that the fella is going to commit murder, it strikes me as too hypothetical to legally exercise deadly force here in the present.

The LTC's witnessed a murder. They were attempting to prevent the murderer who ran down an innocent woman from driving himself and his murder weapon away from the scene and becoming a continuing threat to the community. The reason courts lock murderer's up in prison and bar them from owning firearms are the same. There is nothing hypothetical in that.

The LTC's witnessed a murder. They were attempting to prevent the murderer who ran down an innocent woman from driving himself and his murder weapon away from the scene...

I do not disagree with the above facts. But the conclusion about "...becoming a continuing threat to the community" is hypothetical because it hasn't happened yet. All you know at that moment is that he is fleeing. You think that it's reasonable to conclude that he WILL commit assault/murder again. I disagree and would not test that legal theory, nor put more bullets in the air, by shooting at him while he departs. I would be talking to 911 dispatch relaying his license plate as he drove away.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Noting the license plate and calling 911 is a perfectly reasonable action and the action with the least personal liability.

My hat is off to those brave and bold enough to risk themselves for the community

[Abraham]

"Noting the license plate and calling 911 is a perfectly reasonable action and the action with the least personal liability

I agree.

In my opinion stray rounds that had no reason to be fired, potentially wounding or killing an innocent isn't something I'd define as brave and bold, but unnecessary and extremely dangerous to the innocent.

But hey, when you have an LTC, might as well get the LTC badge or/or sash while you're at it.

Why not?

You toot-de-doo, you have an LTC!

[K.Mooneyham]

Nope - I'd have shot at him, too! Deadly force is perfectly legal to prevent the fleeing of one who has just used unlawful deadly force,

Please cite the relevant law that justifies this.

Couldn't 9.42 be cited, since the woman was run over multiple times it might have been seen as a murder in progress, and the article says the assailant was charged with such?

PENAL § 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.

Edited to add this:

PENAL § 9.33. Defense of Third Person

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect;  and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person

I'm not saying whether it was a smart thing to do, or they thought they had a "superman badge", or whatever...I'm merely speaking to justification.

[J.R.@A&M]

I wonder how many police depts have policies against firing at fleeing cars, and how many of those are for the purpose of minimizing liability?

[G26ster]

I see nothing in the posted news artice that says the shots were fired when the man was "fleeing." It said:

"As the woman was leaving the property, the man got into his Ford Focus and ran her over several times, authorities said. A witness with a concealed handgun license began firing at the driver and his car to get him to stop and blew out one of the man's tires."

OK, stop what? Stop fleeing, or stop running over the woman?

Also, I see nothing in the posted statutes that says it OK to use deadly force to prevent someone fleeing AFTER committing a crime using deadly force? What am I missing?

[Allons]

I see nothing in the posted news artice that says the shots were fired when the man was "fleeing." It said:

"As the woman was leaving the property, the man got into his Ford Focus and ran her over several times, authorities said. A witness with a concealed handgun license began firing at the driver and his car to get him to stop and blew out one of the man's tires."

OK, stop what? Stop fleeing, or stop running over the woman?

Also, I see nothing in the posted statutes that says it OK to use deadly force to prevent someone fleeing AFTER committing a crime using deadly force? What am I missing?

In the article, it says Sandoval said: " He saw the man calmly getting out of his vehicle to see the woman's body stuck under the car before the man drove off. " I would assume that he would not get out of the car to check the body after shots were fired at him. Could be wrong though.

[Paladin]

I am trained in First Aid, CPR and AED in order to help others.

But I know several people who would never render basic first aid or CPR to someone who needed it. These individuals I know are very well versed in "Good Samaritan Laws" but they simply would never take any risk to help anyone who was hurt or dying. They are completely self centered and that is their right.

But I am alive today because someone did CPR on me. I and many other people wouldn't be here today if everyone took the route of self centeredness.

Having values gives meaning and purpose.



Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage are Army Values. Adding in Compassion gives us a set of truly timeless warrior values.

LTC holders are law abiding with a clean criminal history by their very nature. I am not willing to throw fellow LTC's under the bus due to some hypothetical concerns about bystanders being hurt (none were).

I make no apologies for respecting their selflessness and personal courage. I am alive today because of others selflessness.