TexasCHLforum.com

AJSully421 wrote:

rotor wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

rotor wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:Someone actively taking, or attempting to take, your pistol is a lethal force situation. Why? The answer is simple. What would a reasonable person think is going to happen next? A reasonable person would believe that the person who just stole a pistol is going to use it to cause serious bodily injury or death to the gun owner or an innocent third party. Clearly articulate that to any jury and you should be OK.

If you shove the guy off of you, and while you are drawing your pistol, he decides to stop and run away, then shooting him at that point is murder.

If you shove the guy off of you, and while you are drawing your pistol, he regains his footing and comes barreling at you, shoot until he stops.

Not long ago the Chicago police showed a video of a BG running from police with a gun in hand. He never turned around but while running away took a shot backwards and hit a LEO. They were using this video to show that a fleeing suspect with a gun can still kill the chasing LEO. Therefore I would conclude that someone running away with a stolen gun could still cause serious bodily injury or death and that it would not be "murder" to shoot.

I agree if someone is shooting at you you can shoot back at them... even shooting them in the back. But in my example, you and the guy are wrestling for your retained handgun, you shove him off of you, you still have your handgun, you draw on him and shoot while he is unarmed and running away... that is murder.

Now, if he snatches your primary and runs away and you pull a BUG, sure, go to town.

I agree with what you are saying now. I thought the BG was running away with your primary gun and you had a BUG that you were pulling.

Well, you are right because having two guns was the OP's original premise. I projected my situation because I only carry a G19 and a spare mag, no BUG. I wear cowboy boots, but have been thinking of wearing some other shoes and ankle carry a G26 as a bug. But I REALLY like wearing boots.

Beiruty wrote:Newbees, welcome all here.
Short answer: yes
1) Robbing is crime that justifies the use of the threat of deadly force or the use of deadly force.
2) Robbing you of deadly weapon is even more more of reason to to respond with threat of use of deadly force or use of deadly force.
3) Threat of deadly force is just a force.
4) if the criminal succeed in getting hold of your weapon, any further crime he commits is an aggravated crime.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Ranting to myself: Oh my God! Are some the CHLer instructors so none-proficient in teaching the basics of the justified use of force?

tbryanh wrote:If the gun grabber was pointing the pistol at me or threatening to kill me, I would shoot him to protect my life. If he was fleeing with his back turned toward me and did not appear to be a threat, I'm not sure I would shoot him to retrieve my property.

It seems that you might be spinning a roulette wheel by shooting the gun grabber in the back. You don't know who he is. If he turns out being a hardened criminal who has committed violent crimes, you are probably in the clear. If he turns out being a teenager who has no criminal record, you might be in trouble.

I'm not an attorney, and I am just guessing, but I can imagine that shooting the teenager in the back might get you lots of bad publicity in the media, a grand jury might indict you, a prosecutor might prosecute you, and a jury might find you guilty of a crime, maybe not murder, but maybe manslaughter or something similar.

Even though the law as written probably allows you to shoot the gun grabber in the back, juries can nullify the law if they want to.