TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:

C-dub wrote:That is commendable, Andy, and shows a clear head and an honorable man. I wouldn't shoot anyone over a radio or a few simple things either. Unfortunately, there are many who would and I think the law, today (9.42), says that if you believe there is no reasonable expectation to recover the stolen property that deadly force may be used. You would not have been justified to recover her property, but unless I'm wrong you would be justified today to recover your property.

Well, legally I could have shot - South Africa has (or had) a category of crimes called Schedule 1 Offences (eg murder, rape, armed robbery, theft, forgery, etc) for which one may shoot (and perhaps) kill the criminal if it were otherwise impossible to perform a citizen's arrest. I'd long before decided, however, that I wouldn't shoot anyone solely because it was "legal" - there are higher standards to which I subscribe.

Thanks for the clear head comment, but it's not totally accurate. The technique called visualisation is a very valuable facet of self-defence preparation to me (playing the "what if" game with yourself for various scenarios eg "if he does this, what would I do and what would then happen" kind of thing) - and I'd already played out that kind of scenario mentally long beforehand and was psychologically more prepared for it than I perhaps otherwise would have been

AndyC,

Having been in a vaguely similar situation and having done exactly the same thing, I would say that trigger-aware is better than trigger-happy.

Why are so many on this board so eager to shoot somebody? Over what a wallet and a few lousy bucks? No wonder the anti gun crowd think we are a bunch of mouth breathing, slope browed, blood thirsty, cretins.

Don't carry your whole life's story in your wallet, credit cards can be canceled. It's a good idea to carry ID and licenses separately from your wallet that way they only get "stuff" not information.

In my book, shooting a Bad Guy in the back even if he did just rob you, is cold blooded murder. Something you'll have to answer to in the court system and to God Almighty.

MoJo wrote:Why are so many on this board so eager to shoot somebody? Over what a wallet and a few lousy bucks? No wonder the anti gun crowd think we are a bunch of mouth breathing, slope browed, blood thirsty, cretins.

Don't carry your whole life's story in your wallet, credit cards can be canceled. It's a good idea to carry ID and licenses separately from your wallet that way they only get "stuff" not information.

I

n my book, shooting a Bad Guy in the back even if he did just rob you, is cold blooded murder. Something you'll have to answer to in the court system and to God Almighty.

Well put, Amen and +1 MoJo!

Don't you have the right to run after the bad guy to recover your property? If so, he is armed and now you are armed. He is felon and you are not. if the problem escalated and and shot and or killed the guy, aren't you justified.

Beiruty wrote:...if the problem escalated and and shot and or killed the guy, aren't you justified.

You may well be legally justified and skate, as we say.

However, in the dark and silence of the night, you will have to answer to your conscience. And someday you will have to answer to your deity, whoever that may be.

- Jim

Yeah, but because if this and a couple of other threads I'm beginning to see the tactic of keeping information, as MoJo put it, separate from stuff like money and credit cards. I don't carry much money anymore anyway. I found $12 in my wallet today and was surprised. I didn't think I had any money in there. I use my check card for almost everything these days. I don't carry pictures in my wallet. They are in my computer or on a memory stick with other things. My wallet is actually way to big for the amount of things I carry in there now anyway.

edit: Jim & I were typing at the same time. My "yeah" was in response to Beiruty.

When I lived in Chicago I carried a mugger roll. That is an old wallet with $10-20 dollars in it and no indentifying information.

I no longer do so, but if I lived in a city like Houston or DFW, I would. It's cheap insurance.

If you want to shoot the robber after handing it over, see my previous message in this thread.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Beiruty wrote:...if the problem escalated and and shot and or killed the guy, aren't you justified.

You may well be legally justified and skate, as we say.

However, in the dark and silence of the night, you will have to answer to your conscience. And someday you will have to answer to your deity, whoever that may be.

- Jim

As usual, Seamus Jim focuses on the real point, and not the straw man.

I would speculate that under the generally applicable early common law in this nation of civilized men, the original case posed could amount to at least manslaughter, if not murder. This area of the law has been muddied up, or clarified, if you will, depending upon your viewpoint, by state legislatures everywhere, even ours in Texas of course. By that I mean shooting a fleeing felon in the back when no real personal danger is posed to your self or others, was not a slam dunk justifiable homicide before legislative meddling/clarification.

To my endless regret questions like these are too often converted in the reader's mind into, "can I legally end this fleeing person's life by back-shooting him?", to use a revered Texas expression.

That is not the question which should be asked. Jim has explained well just what the real question is.

Quite seriously, think about finding yourself in such a situation, and suppose that it had been unanimously "decided" by the members of this forum that the back-shootling would be "legal." Then back off and privately ask yourself whether you would, on the basis of that decision, shoot the fleeing felon in the back.

I hope my prediction of your decision is the right one. In the history of our great state jury nullification has often been used by a defendant's peers to enter a finding of not guilty when the jury knew well that the weight of the evidence justified a finding of guilty. Perhaps that is the way it should have been left.

With respect,

Jim, too

There are some circumstances in which I would have no moral problem shooting a BG in the back. For example, a BG comes into church shooting and somehow I wind up behind him. I would have no problem shooting the BG in the back to protect others. The wallet scenario might be legally justified because it is at night and you are recovering property. I wouldn't shoot in that case though.

57Coastie wrote: I sometimes become seriously concerned about some of the wise cracks I see here

I feel like you're referring to my first post in this thread .
Yes , it was a wise crack , but if you look at my follow up post here , you'll see that I did follow it with a serious answer.

Thanks, Jim/57Coastie.

The script writers put it well in whatever John Wayne movie that was: "Don't shoot anybody who don't need shootin'."

The hard part is figuring out who needs shootin'. Twenty bucks or a potted plant doesn't do it for me. Attempted murder or violent assault, you picked the wrong guy on the wrong day.

- Jim

USA1 wrote:

57Coastie wrote: I sometimes become seriously concerned about some of the wise cracks I see here

I feel like you're referring to my first post in this thread .
Yes , it was a wise crack , but if you look at my follow up post here , you'll see that I did follow it with a serious answer.

Since on this forum my silence might be considered an admission, I reckon it is incumbent upon me to respond, most seriously and honestly, that I mentioned no names and I did not intend to suggest any names. My statement was shot from a shotgun and not a rifle. My comment was based upon several years of membership here, and certainly not on just one thread. I stand by it, and I still do not intend to insult any particular member.

With respect,

Jim

seamusTX wrote:Thanks, Jim/Coastie57.

The script writers put it well in whatever John Wayne movie that was: "Don't shoot anybody who don't need shootin'."

The hard part is figuring out who needs shootin'. Twenty bucks or a potted plant doesn't do it for me. Attempted murder or violent assault, you picked the wrong guy on the wrong day.

- Jim

I think it's already been said here, but I want to reiterate. You have the best and most concise way of putting things sometimes. I was about 2 paragraphs into a post that basically said the same thing that you did in two sentences. Thanks for sharing!

T.

57Coastie wrote:

USA1 wrote:

57Coastie wrote: I sometimes become seriously concerned about some of the wise cracks I see here

I feel like you're referring to my first post in this thread .
Yes , it was a wise crack , but if you look at my follow up post here , you'll see that I did follow it with a serious answer.

Since on this forum my silence might be considered an admission, I reckon it is incumbent upon me to respond, most seriously and honestly, that I mentioned no names and I did not intend to suggest any names. My statement was shot from a shotgun and not a rifle. My comment was based upon several years of membership here, and certainly not on just one thread. I stand by it, and I still do not intend to insult any particular member.

With respect,

Jim

Thank you for your response .