TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:

Crapshoot wrote:

Purplehood wrote:No fair calling me out on generalizations!

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 5&start=15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; <---- 11th post down.

Do I detect a degree of cynicism here?

I'm like an elephant. Big, round, and a great memory. But I couldn't resist ribbing ya.

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote:

heliguy972 wrote:Under TX CHL statues, he could have shot her while she was in his truck, and walked away clear...

I don't think so. It occurred at 10:30 a.m., and was just a theft. Your only justification woul dhave been that she was in possession of property and it could not reasonable be recovered any other way. Since she took off running when she saw the gun, the "recovery" occurred without deadly force, so it was not justified that way.

I'm a bit confused about this statement. Are you saying that if he had shot while she was running away from his truck he was not justified? I understand and agree with this. Or, are you saying that he was not justified in shooting when they were coming at him in their own truck because his truck was not in jeopardy any longer?

Sorry for the confusion. i was pointing out that since the incident was daytime, shooting a theif in general is not justified. Since the woman took of running, shooting to recover property is not justifiable.

When the truck is coming at him, then it is shooting to protect his life and is justified. This is where it went from defense of property to defense of person. As an aside, i still think shooting a moving vehicle is poor tactics. Dodging the truck is a better option. The truck cannot swerve as fast as the person on foot, and if you hit the driver, you have a 3000 lb uncontrolled missile (like the burglary suspect in San Antonio who got in the car after being shot, died nearly wiping out a house).

srothstein wrote:

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote:

heliguy972 wrote:Under TX CHL statues, he could have shot her while she was in his truck, and walked away clear...

I don't think so. It occurred at 10:30 a.m., and was just a theft. Your only justification woul dhave been that she was in possession of property and it could not reasonable be recovered any other way. Since she took off running when she saw the gun, the "recovery" occurred without deadly force, so it was not justified that way.

I'm a bit confused about this statement. Are you saying that if he had shot while she was running away from his truck he was not justified? I understand and agree with this. Or, are you saying that he was not justified in shooting when they were coming at him in their own truck because his truck was not in jeopardy any longer?

Sorry for the confusion. i was pointing out that since the incident was daytime, shooting a theif in general is not justified. Since the woman took of running, shooting to recover property is not justifiable.

When the truck is coming at him, then it is shooting to protect his life and is justified. This is where it went from defense of property to defense of person. As an aside, i still think shooting a moving vehicle is poor tactics. Dodging the truck is a better option. The truck cannot swerve as fast as the person on foot, and if you hit the driver, you have a 3000 lb uncontrolled missile (like the burglary suspect in San Antonio who got in the car after being shot, died nearly wiping out a house).

I thought that was the case in this episode, but wanted to make sure I understood the situation as you had interpreted it. Thanks Steve.

casingpoint wrote:

So he was justified in pulling his weapon on the female while in his truck?

The FBI thinks so. Killing of a suspect during the commission of a felony is justifiable homicide, according to the agency. Your local DA may not agree with that, but the FBI is right. It's one of those five per cent things Obama says you know in your heart.

Always a good read:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... able_N.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doesn't much matter what the FBI thinks about it. The state of Texas is the people that do the arresting prosecuting and judging.

"He reached for his waistband."

It's worked for generations of cops.

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote:

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote:

heliguy972 wrote:Under TX CHL statues, he could have shot her while she was in his truck, and walked away clear...

I don't think so. It occurred at 10:30 a.m., and was just a theft. Your only justification woul dhave been that she was in possession of property and it could not reasonable be recovered any other way. Since she took off running when she saw the gun, the "recovery" occurred without deadly force, so it was not justified that way.

I'm a bit confused about this statement. Are you saying that if he had shot while she was running away from his truck he was not justified? I understand and agree with this. Or, are you saying that he was not justified in shooting when they were coming at him in their own truck because his truck was not in jeopardy any longer?

Sorry for the confusion. i was pointing out that since the incident was daytime, shooting a theif in general is not justified. Since the woman took of running, shooting to recover property is not justifiable.

When the truck is coming at him, then it is shooting to protect his life and is justified. This is where it went from defense of property to defense of person. As an aside, i still think shooting a moving vehicle is poor tactics. Dodging the truck is a better option. The truck cannot swerve as fast as the person on foot, and if you hit the driver, you have a 3000 lb uncontrolled missile (like the burglary suspect in San Antonio who got in the car after being shot, died nearly wiping out a house).

I thought that was the case in this episode, but wanted to make sure I understood the situation as you had interpreted it. Thanks Steve.

I believe he was justified in both pulling the weapon on the person stealing the truck, and in shooting at them when the vehicle was headed his way.
Since pretty much everyone agrees on the ladder, I will not discuss it. However, the former, I believe was justified under the following laws:

Copied straight out of the 2009-2010 CHL Book.


Basically, he was justified to use Force to stop the theft, correct?

Then he was justified to use the threat of deadly force by producing his weapon, as that is only actually force.

He WOULD NOT have been justified in actually FIRING his weapon, unless the situation changed to something that would justify deadly force.

Had the woman then produced a weapon of her own, it would be justified.
Had the car been backed into the spot, and the woman put it in drive with the owner standing in front of it, it would be justified.

That second reason is why it's always a good idea to back into parking spots :)

I agree. The truck owner, and any CHL, can pull the weapon as a threat of deadly force any time force is justified, IMO. When I was discussing justification, I was referring to the actual shooting, which was not justified until the truck was headed his way.

There are two problems with drawing the weapon when the use is clearly not justified (such as the day time theft case). The first problem is that any pistol is useless when you are not willing to pull the trigger. It takes up your hands and may stop you from being able to use the force that is justified (such as grabbing or punching the thief - not necessarily recommended tactics though). And, as much as some would like to do so sometimes, you cannot shoot someone for just disobeying your orders to stop when you have a gun pointed at them.

The second possible problem is that pesky court case Charles has referred to a few times (McDermot IIRC). I am not familiar with the case like Charles is, but I think the ruling basically was that you could not draw the pistol until deadly force was authorized. I agree with you that the law reads otherwise, but courts always like to go with already decided precedent when they can. So be very careful in this area because of that.