TexasCHLforum.com

Taypo wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:Your.not much good to your family when you are in jail. You can't soot a person in the back here unless you are a COP

He wasn't trying to shoot anyone in the back. He was returning fire.

You seem to to be doing everything you can to put some kind of guilt on the homeowner. So far you've accused him of shooting at fleeing suspects, spraying and praying and now shooting people in the back. Is there something you'd like to share with the group?

I put no guilt on the home owner. However, the article stated the perps were driving away when the home owner returned fire. It was pounded into my head during me CHL class that I should never fire as a person was fleeing. It is not as the perps were continually firing.

As far as section 9 of the penal code, I see justifiable deadly force but no mention of shooting in the back....please before specific

MONGOOSE wrote:

Taypo wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:Your.not much good to your family when you are in jail. You can't soot a person in the back here unless you are a COP

He wasn't trying to shoot anyone in the back. He was returning fire.

You seem to to be doing everything you can to put some kind of guilt on the homeowner. So far you've accused him of shooting at fleeing suspects, spraying and praying and now shooting people in the back. Is there something you'd like to share with the group?

I put no guilt on the home owner. However, the article stated the perps were driving away when the home owner returned fire. It was pounded into my head during me CHL class that I should never fire as a person was fleeing. It is not as the perps were continually firing.

As far as section 9 of the penal code, I see justifiable deadly force but no mention of shooting in the back....please before specific

Sorry for the delayed response; got sidetracked.

The two relevant sections I'd highlight are PC 9.32 (relevant to this news article) & 9.42 (specific to using deadly force when the other is fleeing; however, the phrase "...shooting someone in the back..." won't be found in the Penal Code).

I feel PC 9.32 is fully relevant to his defense based on the article stating that the fella was shooting at him while driving away. 9.32(a)(2)(A) provides justification if the actor reasonably believed that using deadly force was immediately necessary "...to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;..." (this is the section that I see as relevant to the original discussion, based on the news article).

If for a moment we stray away from the actual incident as reported (for a discussion of where I see that 9.32 would still apply & provide for "shooting someone in the back", which is a poor choice of wording, but I'll use it since it's the gentlemanly debate I'm responding to); I can still see the same cited subsection as allowing the actor to continue to engage as long as the other continues to use, or attempts to use, deadly force. For example, if the attacker was running to cover or a position of advantage and the engagement was still ongoing; or we can look to the next sentence at subsection 9.32(a)(2)(B) '...to prevent the other's imminent commission of .... murder...". (Note that I'm not saying that you can just shoot someone in the back willy-nilly; there still must be an actual threat of death/serious bodily injury). Once the other actor ceases to use unlawful deadly force, as in they had broken contact & run away, then I would agree that the justification of PC 9.32 no longer applies.

PC 9.42 isn't relative to the incident in the OP's news article, however it more clearly states (to rebuke your CHL Instructor's assertion that you 'can't shoot someone who is fleeing') that it is justified to use deadly force (when & to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary) "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property"; however, this is qualified by the 'AND' "he reasonably believes that either (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; OR (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury". For example, if a large fella snatches a purse, the lady who owns the purse may be justified in using deadly force to prevent the purse-snatcher from running off with it, provided the totality of the circumstances (size or strength disparity, etc) would show that if she used a lesser amount of force it would have put her at substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury (ie, a 5' / 100 lb lady attempting to tackling & fight a 6' / 200 lb man to prevent him from running off with her purse).

Now please understand that I'm not a lawyer; I just try to be as thorough & deliberate as possible when providing CHL instruction so the client understands as clearly as possible what the PC states. I would firmly stand by the assertion that it's not a 'best practice' to shoot someone whose fleeing with your property, but it's not a legal or moral one (so I'm NOT saying the Legislature got this one wrong; I love the value of individual liberty & rights we enjoy as Texans); killing another human being is a bitter pill to swallow, so rather than shooting a dumb kid who's frontal lobes haven't kicked in yet for Criminal Mischief at Night I generally suggest they consider how that might affect them emotionally, perhaps for the rest of their life. Killing a person to preserve your own life or the life of another is much easier to resolve internally.

I'm also not blindly faithful to LEOs, however I did take offense to the assertion that "cops can shoot people in the back". So, I apologize for my curt, one-line initial response.

Thanks for the reply. I have no problem with the home owners actions. As I said, it was just told to me not to ever shoot when a person in fleeing, or has their back to you, That may have to die with liberal, anti gun attitude out here. I just don't want to see anyone with their rump on the ringer. I wasn't being argumentative to take up for the low life perps.

Prayers sent.

Also, IIRC, if 2+ BGs break in to my house and I shoot one of them and he dies his cohorts can be charged with and held responsible for his death.

My frustration with LEOShootings arises with two recent shootings here. One man wa shot and killed while on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind his back( the officer was finally fired. Another mentally ill man was shot and killed in his Mim's house. The police were mistakenly at the house. The police say he had "something "in his hand. Three months latter we still have not been tol what that something was.....the police won't be arained until Jan. at the earliest, and the victim was shot twice in the back and once in the buttocks. What no shots to his front?

MONGOOSE wrote:... You can't soot a person in the back here unless you are a COP

This is incorrect.

MONGOOSE wrote:My frustration with LEOShootings arises with two recent shootings here. One man wa shot and killed while on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind his back( the officer was finally fired. Another mentally ill man was shot and killed in his Mim's house. The police were mistakenly at the house. The police say he had "something "in his hand. Three months latter we still have not been tol what that something was.....the police won't be arained until Jan. at the earliest, and the victim was shot twice in the back and once in the buttocks. What no shots to his front?

I thought you said it was OK to shoot people in the back if you're a cop? Why are they being arraigned?

Taypo wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:My frustration with LEOShootings arises with two recent shootings here. One man wa shot and killed while on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind his back( the officer was finally fired. Another mentally ill man was shot and killed in his Mim's house. The police were mistakenly at the house. The police say he had "something "in his hand. Three months latter we still have not been tol what that something was.....the police won't be arained until Jan. at the earliest, and the victim was shot twice in the back and once in the buttocks. What no shots to his front?

I thought you said it was OK to shoot people in the back if you're a cop? Why are they being arraigned?

Sure. 6-8 months after the fact. Details of what the kid was supposedly holding won't be released and the POs are still on the job being paid by tax payers. True billed- the DA sure is trying -right

"The article states that they were shooting while driving away. This makes returning fire quite legal."

If someone is firing at me, I don't care what direction they are headed. They are still a lethal threat and should be dealt with as such.

I understand that the bullet struck the trunk and then went through the back seat. The kid was unfortunate enough to be sitting in the path of the bullet.

doncb wrote:"The article states that they were shooting while driving away. This makes returning fire quite legal."

If someone is firing at me, I don't care what direction they are headed. They are still a lethal threat and should be dealt with as such.

I understand that the bullet struck the trunk and then went through the back seat. The kid was unfortunate enough to be sitting in the path of the bullet.

You may be correct. I was instructed to never fire or advance on a retreating subject.

MONGOOSE wrote:

doncb wrote:"The article states that they were shooting while driving away. This makes returning fire quite legal."

If someone is firing at me, I don't care what direction they are headed. They are still a lethal threat and should be dealt with as such.

I understand that the bullet struck the trunk and then went through the back seat. The kid was unfortunate enough to be sitting in the path of the bullet.

You may be correct. I was instructed to never fire or advance on a retreating subject.

Just because a person appears to be retreating does not mean they are no longer a threat. They can still fire, or just be re-positioning to get a better angle of fire, circle back around, etc. Each situation will be different and you must rapidly assess each one as it is occurring.

As for shooting someone in the back, there is no law or rule that says you can't if they are perceived to be a threat to your or another person's life. A good example is if someone got between you and your spouse and you had to shoot the person in the back to stop the attack on your loved one.

So, whoever taught your class either made the statements blatantly without regard to individual circumstances, OR, you misheard/misunderstood the instructor in their statement. I would not rule out the latter as there is a lot of information thrown at students in a short period of time, so we often have students who think they hear one thing when we actually said something else.

Was the homeowner armed with a gun all along? How could he return the fire so darn quickly coming as a surprised I assumed.

kopking10 wrote:Was the homeowner armed with a gun all along? How could he return the fire so darn quickly coming as a surprised I assumed.

Hopefully. CHL, Castle doctrine, both.

Fleeing from a felony crime. Seems ligit to me