Fear of action

[tim2599]

(First off, this may not be the right place to put this but I couldnt find an appropriate place to post.)

Has anybody at any point had the thought cross their mind that if they shoot someone and it is 100% lawful and justified that they will still end up screwed, criminally and likely civilly. It's been on my mind for some unknown reason. Is it normal to wonder about that(worrisome thinking)? I just don't want this to affect my judgement and put myself and others at unnecessary risks by hesitating

Can anyone give me some "advice" or wisdom or something to help ease my nerves.
Its really been bothering me.

Thanks!

[DocV]

I believe that is a natural concern and is one shared by many. I balance that concern with the knowledge that protecting my family is worth whatever personal cost I might incur.

[seamusTX]

I haven't said hello, so hello.

This was discussed a while back: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13128" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The significant change between earlier years and now is the Texas presumption of what is generally called Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground. If someone breaks into your home, business, or vehicle, the use of deadly force is presumed to be reasonable.

Grand juries seem to go along with this 99% of the time, if the question even gets to a grand jury.

It's something of a cliché, but you have to decide whether you would rather be prosecuted, sued, killed, robbed, kidnapped, or (this applies mostly to women) raped.

- Jim

[tbrown]

(Can anyone give me some "advice" or wisdom or something to help ease my nerves.
Its really been bothering me.

I think it's something people should consider before carrying a gun. If they would rather end up dead than maybe face criminal and civil trials, they can avoid that fate worse than death by not carrying. On the other hand, if somebody would rather deal with the legal system than be killed by a criminal, they need to be prepared to deal with the legal system. It's up to each individual to decide what they're willing to deal with.

[chuck j]

If a society is civilized the thought of harming another human being is not a matter to take lightly let alone to kill . Times you live in could dictate your actions , I am 61 years old was raised with guns , owned many and never considered carrying a firearm till 4 years ago . Protection of my family in the times we live in made me consider and finally obtain a CHL , I do not regret that decision but think it's a sad reflection on the society of today .

[tomtexan]

(First off, this may not be the right place to put this but I couldnt find an appropriate place to post.)

Has anybody at any point had the thought cross their mind that if they shoot someone and it is 100% lawful and justified that they will still end up screwed, criminally and likely civilly. It's been on my mind for some unknown reason. Is it normal to wonder about that(worrisome thinking)? I just don't want this to affect my judgement and put myself and others at unnecessary risks by hesitating

Can anyone give me some "advice" or wisdom or something to help ease my nerves.
Its really been bothering me.

Thanks!

You gotta ask yourself, would you rather be judged by twelve or carried by six?

[chuck j]

I agree .

[chasfm11]

If a society is civilized the thought of harming another human being is not a matter to take lightly let alone to kill . Times you live in could dictate your actions , I am 61 years old was raised with guns , owned many and never considered carrying a firearm till 4 years ago . Protection of my family in the times we live in made me consider and finally obtain a CHL , I do not regret that decision but think it's a sad reflection on the society of today .

I'm a bit older and even when I got my CHL didn't consider carrying every day.

Before I took my CHL, I read "In the Gravest Extreme" I'd recommend it. Use of a firearm against another human is definitely a sobering thought process or, at least, it should be. That it is not for so many criminals is the reason that I don't leave the house without mine now.

[JP171]

I haven't said hello, so hello.

This was discussed a while back: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13128" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The significant change between earlier years and now is the Texas presumption of what is generally called Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground. If someone breaks into your home, business, or vehicle, the use of deadly force is presumed to be reasonable.

Grand juries seem to go along with this 99% of the time, if the question even gets to a grand jury.

It's something of a cliché, but you have to decide whether you would rather be prosecuted, sued, killed, robbed, kidnapped, or (this applies mostly to women) raped.

- Jim

how is that you think that only applies to women???

it applies to everyone male or female

[tomtexan]

I haven't said hello, so hello.

This was discussed a while back: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13128" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The significant change between earlier years and now is the Texas presumption of what is generally called Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground. If someone breaks into your home, business, or vehicle, the use of deadly force is presumed to be reasonable.

Grand juries seem to go along with this 99% of the time, if the question even gets to a grand jury.

It's something of a cliché, but you have to decide whether you would rather be prosecuted, sued, killed, robbed, kidnapped, or (this applies mostly to women) raped.

- Jim

how is that you think that only applies to women???

it applies to everyone male or female

I believe he said mostly, not only.

[RJGold]

It's a huge responsibility to carry a deadly weapon.

Think about the scenarios where you would be willing to use deadly force and make sure you are at peace with those decisions before you have to make them.

Don't worry about all the "what if's" after you use your weapon, they will happen but there is nothing you can do about them.

The important thing is to know without a doubt why you would draw and fire and be ready to do that if needed.

[JALLEN]

Part of the comfort has to come from understanding exactly when deadly force can be used and when it cannot. The laws in each state vary significantly. We have to worry about what the law provides in Texas, assuming we are in Texas when the event occurs.

Take the trouble to read and understand, and intermalize the legal standards so you are comfortable knowing when you are on solid grounds and when you are solidly on not good grounds. Read the news articles about shoots as they happen, try to understand what about each situation made it a good shoot or a not good shoot, or a close call. Ties don't go to the runner here, BTW.

(Edit: gave my spell checker another shot at it!)

[srothstein]

Has anybody at any point had the thought cross their mind that if they shoot someone and it is 100% lawful and justified that they will still end up screwed, criminally and likely civilly.

I can help put your mind at ease, I hope. I know of cases which met the letter of the law and most people would find them very unreasonable, and the people were not charged. for example, there was a case in San Antonio about ten years ago where a bar owner heard noises from the outside of his bar at around 2:00 a.m. He went out and found a young man spray painting the side. He shot the tagger, killing him. He was not indicted because the law allows deadly force to stop criminal mischief at night. In my experience, Texas juries and grand juries tend to uphold the right to self-defense. Even with the political pressure and gray area in the case, it took the Travis County DA four grand jury attempts to get an indictment on a CHL who followed a car burglary suspect and shot him when he turned to take action against the CHL.

Ont he civil side, I would point out that the law clearly finds you not liable for damages if the shooting was justified. It does not stop the law suit by law, but very few lawyers will take the case knowing they cannot win so it is very good protection. On a more personal note, I have been involved int he deaths of three suspects while a police officer. I have never been sued for any of them, despite the deep pockets of the city tempting the families.

You are right to be concerned about potential problems. It will help you stay on the good side of the law by delaying your actions in a gray area. But, lawsuits when you are truly right are much rarer than we think. This is why they make so much news when they do happen.

[MaxBerlin]

I think it's silly to shoot someone for graffiti. It's not life threatening by any measure and the idea of "criminal mischief at night" complicates matters for everyone.

There should be the imminent threat of harm or death, kids setting off fireworks or flaming bags of pooh doesn't deserve the death penalty yet alone an 'emotional response' by a trigger happy CHL holder. It dilutes all of us. The reasonable CHL holders that want to only use this responsibility as a true last resort.

[rotor]

News report yesterday of man breaking into an apartment at night, got bashed in head with a baseball bat and sent to the hospital with serious head injuries. I guess the apartment owner did not have a firearm. You use what you have againt the bg and hopefully it is enough to stop him. The legal aspect though is the same, the bg can still sue for injuries in a civil suit.