TexasCHLforum.com

I watched a very good movie last night called Felon with Stephen Dorff and Val Kilmer. The basic setup is that a homeowner is convicted of murder after accidentally killing an intruder, and it follows what happens to him while he's in prison. Within the first 11 minutes of this movie, I was reminded of just how fortunate we are in Texas that our state law affords us the opportunity to defend ourselves and our homes with deadly force if necessary. As much as we complain about the status of gun laws in the USA and in TX, we are better off than most other people in other states in the USA.

Russell wrote:I watched that movie too. Great movie!

However, I think the same thing could have happened in Texas, as if I remember the movie correctly the whole reason why the guy was arrested was that he chased the burglar out of his house and almost into the street then hit him in the *back* of the head with a bat didn't he?

Yes, that's what happened. I don't know how the use of a baseball bat affects it, but I think this would have been justified in TX under PC 9.23(b)(1)(A),(B):

(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;

At least he wouldn't be completely without any defense in TX as he was in the setting of CA.

It's a clear case. Burglar breaks into the house while it's occupied, steals property, and then attempts to flee. Burglar is killed while trying to escape. This is the same justification as Joe Horn and many other Texans have used in their defense.

AFAIK there is no requirement in TX law that you allow a burglar to escape unimpeded.

INAL but...I think you will still get charged in TX if you "ACCIDENTALLY" shoot an intruder. You can defend yourself if you fear for your life...not if you accidentally shoot someone. I know its just the way you worded it but a court would eat that wording up.

RiveraRa wrote:INAL but...I think you will still get charged in TX if you "ACCIDENTALLY" shoot an intruder. You can defend yourself if you fear for your life...not if you accidentally shoot someone. I know its just the way you worded it but a court would eat that wording up.

The dude accidentally killed the burglar. I didn't say he accidentally shot the burglar.

In the movie, the main character hits the guy with a baseball bat. Certainly that qualifies as "deadly force" but one whack to the head with a baseball bat may not be normally expected to kill, clearly the intent of the guy was to merely stop the burglar.

If you use deadly force on someone, you haven't "accidentally" killed them, even if you HOPED your use of deadly force wouldn't kill them.

If you hit someone with a baseball bat and they die, it's not accidental. If you shoot someone and they die, it's not accidental. Unintended perhaps, but accidental, no.

mr.72 wrote:In the movie, the main character hits the guy with a baseball bat. Certainly that qualifies as "deadly force" but one whack to the head with a baseball bat may not be normally expected to kill, clearly the intent of the guy was to merely stop the burglar.

If it qualifies as deadly force, it isn't going to matter how many times he hit him. If, under any circumstance, hitting someone with a baseball bat could kill them, it can and will be considered deadly force, then it will be portrayed as deadly force no matter what the circumstance. The person wielding the bat would do better to acknowledge the deadly force and lean heavily on just attempting to stop the felony.

PC 9.23(b)(1)(A),(B) doesn't look to me like it applies, since the robber was absconding with items and was not trying to remove "the actor".

The fact that the bad guy was making an escape, and not retreating, would seem to me to be the place where the defense should place the emphasis.

This leads back, circularly, to the "Why didn't you just shoot to wound?" thing that always comes up. The bad guy is in front of you, making shots and waving a gun and had fired a couple of rounds, so you draw and fire, shooting to wound in the guy's shooting arm. The bullet passes through the shooter's wrist, as you intended, and makes him drop his gun, as you intended, and then goes on, partially expanded and "SPINNING LIKE A BUZZ SAW" as the prosecution will portray it, and severs the bad guy's brachial artery right at its juncture with the axial artery, and the BG bleed out within minutes.

Yes, you admirably shot to wound, but the bullet had its own thoughts about what it was going to do and caused the death of this person who had the potential to be rehabilitated and become the next Salk, Darwin, or Einstein, but deadly force is still deadly force and you should have known that your shot could kill.

And firing at someone escaping just adds further complications.