TexasCHLforum.com

Javier730 wrote:Dont shoot if they are fleeing but make sure they are not just running for cover.

if they are running away I will be headed the opposite direction while maintaining cover. Hopefully the cops are in route.

Tic Tac wrote:A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

Few years back in very similar scenario, A Dallas father and his son were acquitted of murder under the Texas laws (Castle doctrine). The father went to jail for for another charge, possession of firearms by a felon.

Here is the story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/communit ... s-2976.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is my opinion that once the threat has been removed, the incident should be concidered over, as far as using deadly force is concerned. I know if it were me, I would have not shot. I feel that using that type of force to stop someone who is stealing my mower in the middle of the night, is not going to be worth the hassle of what's to follow. Now if they enter my home and or attack my family, I would use that force which "I" feel is necessary to stop the inturders advancement. Again this is just my opinion...

Beiruty wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

Few years back in very similar scenario, A Dallas father and his son were acquitted of murder under the Texas laws (Castle doctrine). The father went to jail for for another charge, possession of firearms by a felon.

Here is the story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/communit ... s-2976.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one was shot while retreating in that case. How or to what is this case similar?

jbarn wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

Few years back in very similar scenario, A Dallas father and his son were acquitted of murder under the Texas laws (Castle doctrine). The father went to jail for for another charge, possession of firearms by a felon.

Here is the story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/communit ... s-2976.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one was shot while retreating in that case. How or to what is this case similar?

2 where shot and killed, as far I remember.

Beiruty wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

Few years back in very similar scenario, A Dallas father and his son were acquitted of murder under the Texas laws (Castle doctrine). The father went to jail for for another charge, possession of firearms by a felon.

Here is the story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/communit ... s-2976.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one was shot while retreating in that case. How or to what is this case similar?

2 where shot and killed, as far I remember.

I'm sorry, you will have to be more clear for my thick head....

jbarn wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

Few years back in very similar scenario, A Dallas father and his son were acquitted of murder under the Texas laws (Castle doctrine). The father went to jail for for another charge, possession of firearms by a felon.

Here is the story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/communit ... s-2976.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one was shot while retreating in that case. How or to what is this case similar?

2 where shot and killed, as far I remember.

I'm sorry, you will have to be more clear for my thick head....

Don't know if it was while retreating, but one of the dead was shot in the back. Maybe that is what Beiruty is pointing out.

Police believe one wound in his back was inflicted as Garcia lay on the ground.

TBM

Correct. I am not sure if they are retreating or not. But as mentioned, one was shot in the back. In any case, pursuing and shooting at someone is unwise and the only legal justifying is the case of after a theft of property at night where the property can't be retrieved with other means. In my book call your insurance co is a better choice. Your cost is at max is your deductible.

I would probably draw my weapon, and not shoot unless I had a life or death situation. Too many times I see scenarios where people are looking for a reason to shoot.( I'm not saying you are) but it does pop up here often enough to address it. I understand no one wants to make a mistake, that's why my personal policy is to never shoot, unless I have no other choice. Mistakes can happen easily. The other night I was talking on the phone and walking on the side of my house, when this young man parked in front of my house. He got out and ran up my driveway and was out of sight for a few seconds, when all of a sudden he ran back down my driveway carrying something in his hand. I shouted HEY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? He informed me he was going to a hot tub party next door and made the mistake of being at the wrong house. He was wearing swim trunks and no shirt, and had a six pack of beer in his hands. I told him to have a good night.

If I have to shoot someone, I am counting on losing my house and at least one of my cars simply in legal fees. If it is a simple clear good shoot. So I will shoot if I have to, in order to protect my life and my kids lives because we are all worth more than a house or a car. However if his rear is showing I will probably keep a sight on him but I don't want to pull that trigger.