CHLer Arrested

[03Lightningrocks]

I'm not. To prevent the commission of the robbery, yes, I would have done it because of the physical bodily injury. After the robbery was over and he was high-tailing it away, no. Doesn't matter what physical item he stole and the value.

I'm disappointed because, like most people in this thread, I'm more conservative in what actions I would take vs what the law allows...but I recognize and respect the rights of others to decide what to do when they are acting within what that law allows. I definitely don't want to be in the same position of acting within the law, only to be charged because the majority of people would not have acted that way as Monday quarterbacks.

And the robbery was not over, even if the robber was running away.

So if your wife and child were what stopped that bullet, it would still be OK with you?

[Superman]

So if your wife and child were what stopped that bullet, it would still be OK with you?

Emotional arguments...sounds familiar.

That is a weak argument that can be used for about anything. Why do you carry a gun at all then? Everyone is someone's father/mother/son/daughter (even the robber).

But to answer your question, I would obviously not like my wife and/or child killed by a stray bullet, but I would not blame the CHL holder...I would blame the robber. Negligence on the part of the CHL holder would have to be shown for me to have any beef with the robbery victim...and I don't think he was negligent in this instance (unwise maybe, but not negligent).

[Carzan]

So if your wife and child were what stopped that bullet, it would still be OK with you?

Emotional arguments...sounds familiar.

That is a weak argument that can be used for about anything. Why do you carry a gun at all then? Everyone is someone's father/mother/son/daughter (even the robber).

But to answer your question, I would obviously not like my wife and/or child killed by a stray bullet, but I would not blame the CHL holder...I would blame the robber.

That brings up an interesting point. That (blame the criminal) is exactly what they did in New York. They did not blame the cops! Even though the officers had the training yet still opened fire in a crowded area using innocents as a back stop. So if this guy was technically legal in shooting why wouldn't the robber be charged with the results of stray bullets? Unfortunately the answer is simply because the shooter is not a police officer so he doesn't have the luxury of being automatically innocent to those who run the justice system.

And once more for the record I don't believe he should have ever fired nor should he have even drawn.

[jmra]

If a guy punches you and runs, he is no longer a threat..

You are assuming a lot when you state "he is no longer a threat." How does one come to that conclusion? Is it how far away he runs after hitting me or the time elapsed since he hit me? Is it if he runs around a corner...or three corners? Or is it if he says "uncle"? If I'm a victim of the "knockout game," are you suggesting I can't do anything because it's just one punch and then they run?

"It" is what a jury says it is. Good luck with that.

[jmra]

I'm not. To prevent the commission of the robbery, yes, I would have done it because of the physical bodily injury. After the robbery was over and he was high-tailing it away, no. Doesn't matter what physical item he stole and the value.

I'm disappointed because, like most people in this thread, I'm more conservative in what actions I would take vs what the law allows...but I recognize and respect the rights of others to decide what to do when they are acting within what that law allows. I definitely don't want to be in the same position of acting within the law, only to be charged because the majority of people would not have acted that way as Monday quarterbacks.

And the robbery was not over, even if the robber was running away.

What about the rights of the person with a bullet in their house? Don't they have a right not to be shot at?
The law allows you to defend yourself but it also says you are responsible for that bullet until it stops. That should have been made very clear in your CHL class.

[03Lightningrocks]

But to answer your question, I would obviously not like my wife and/or child killed by a stray bullet, but I would not blame the CHL holder

No. Nothing emotional about it. Quite simply. Is saving a stolen cell phone worth risking a human life for? Very easy question. And not the least bit emotional.


You would be blaming the wrong person. The robber did not shoot them. The guy who lost his cell phone did.

[03Lightningrocks]

If a guy punches you and runs, he is no longer a threat..

You are assuming a lot when you state "he is no longer a threat." How does one come to that conclusion? Is it how far away he runs after hitting me or the time elapsed since he hit me? Is it if he runs around a corner...or three corners? Or is it if he says "uncle"? If I'm a victim of the "knockout game," are you suggesting I can't do anything because it's just one punch and then they run?

"It" is what a jury says it is. Good luck with that.

Sounds to me like somebody did not pay attention in class. You cannot shoot a person to extract your revenge or get even. If they are running away, it is done, over... Finished.

[jmra]

So if your wife and child were what stopped that bullet, it would still be OK with you?

Emotional arguments...sounds familiar.

That is a weak argument that can be used for about anything. Why do you carry a gun at all then? Everyone is someone's father/mother/son/daughter (even the robber).

But to answer your question, I would obviously not like my wife and/or child killed by a stray bullet, but I would not blame the CHL holder...I would blame the robber.

That brings up an interesting point. That (blame the criminal) is exactly what they did in New York. They did not blame the cops! Even though the officers had the training yet still opened fire in a crowded area using innocents as a back stop. So if this guy was technically legal in shooting why wouldn't the robber be charged with the results of stray bullets? Unfortunately the answer is simply because the shooter is not a police officer so he doesn't have the luxury of being automatically innocent to those who run the justice system.

And once more for the record I don't believe he should have ever fired nor should he have even drawn.

The officers were in the wrong and should have been held accountable. To suggest that we shouldn't be held accountable because they weren't is to make the argument that two wrongs make a right.

[jmra]

If a guy punches you and runs, he is no longer a threat..

You are assuming a lot when you state "he is no longer a threat." How does one come to that conclusion? Is it how far away he runs after hitting me or the time elapsed since he hit me? Is it if he runs around a corner...or three corners? Or is it if he says "uncle"? If I'm a victim of the "knockout game," are you suggesting I can't do anything because it's just one punch and then they run?

"It" is what a jury says it is. Good luck with that.

Sounds to me like somebody did not pay attention in class. You cannot shoot a person to extract your revenge or get even. If they are running away, it is done, over... Finished.

once they turn tail you are on shaky ground to say the least. As for the phone, I have stated many times on this forum that I would not shoot solely to retrieve property. It simply isn't worth it.

[stroo]

"Carzan wrote:
But to answer your question, I would obviously not like my wife and/or child killed by a stray bullet, but I would not blame the CHL holder


No. Nothing emotional about it. Quite simply. Is saving a stolen cell phone worth risking a human life for? Very easy question. And not the least bit emotional.


You would be blaming the wrong person. The robber did not shoot them. The guy who lost his cell phone did."

Actually if someone did die, the robber could be found guilty of felony murder even though the CHL's errant shot hit the person who was killed. So they both could be criminally liable.

[03Lightningrocks]

"Carzan wrote:
But to answer your question, I would obviously not like my wife and/or child killed by a stray bullet, but I would not blame the CHL holder


No. Nothing emotional about it. Quite simply. Is saving a stolen cell phone worth risking a human life for? Very easy question. And not the least bit emotional.


You would be blaming the wrong person. The robber did not shoot them. The guy who lost his cell phone did."

Actually if someone did die, the robber could be found guilty of felony murder even though the CHL's errant shot hit the person who was killed. So they both could be criminally liable.

I don't think that is correct. You may be confusing the charging of an accomplice to a crime of murder if his fellow accomplice kills someone.

[stroo]

Nope. Charging an accomplice is one kind of felony murder. But it is broader than that. If you commit a felony and someone dies as a result, you become guilty of felony murder regardless of who actually killed the person.

[Superman]

If a guy punches you and runs, he is no longer a threat..

You are assuming a lot when you state "he is no longer a threat." How does one come to that conclusion? Is it how far away he runs after hitting me or the time elapsed since he hit me? Is it if he runs around a corner...or three corners? Or is it if he says "uncle"? If I'm a victim of the "knockout game," are you suggesting I can't do anything because it's just one punch and then they run?

"It" is what a jury says it is. Good luck with that.

Weak argument...jury's can do whatever they want, no matter what the law says. So of course it's whatever the jury says it is.

[jmra]

If a guy punches you and runs, he is no longer a threat..

You are assuming a lot when you state "he is no longer a threat." How does one come to that conclusion? Is it how far away he runs after hitting me or the time elapsed since he hit me? Is it if he runs around a corner...or three corners? Or is it if he says "uncle"? If I'm a victim of the "knockout game," are you suggesting I can't do anything because it's just one punch and then they run?

"It" is what a jury says it is. Good luck with that.

Weak argument...jury's can do whatever they want, no matter what the law says. So of course it's whatever the jury says it is.

I think you are a little confused about who is on the weak side of the debate in this thread. The only weak argument I've seen so far is yours. You can say/believe whatever you want, but the fact remains that the guy endangered multiple peoples lives. The law does not give you the right to do that even in a self-defense situation.
The funny thing is you claim that my argument is weak but in the same post you agree with my argument. Doesn't give you much credibility, does it?

[Superman]

TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 9.41 : Texas Statutes - Section 9.41: PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 9.42 : Texas Statutes - Section 9.42: DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(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.

That's my reasoning above. I think he's good under 9.41 and 9.42. A stray bullet is a negligence issue, and since no one was hit, I think that would be a hard case to make too. Although I understand that the argument is whether the blue comes into play or not. The blue part is why we all would have erred on the side of caution and not done what he did. He may have "reasonably believed" differently than some of us.