Use of deadly force authorized! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Use of deadly force authorized!


Lord
07-13-2011, 10:54
I love this article. this happened just late last night... yet more justification for when people ask me, "why do you carry a gun"

http://www.kens5.com/news/local/Police-investigate-rolling-shoot-out-in-west-SA-125481018.html

JuneyBooney
07-13-2011, 10:58
He should have been packing his protector and done what needed to be done.

Resqu2
07-13-2011, 13:46
This wouldn't of worked in VA, call and report it missing.

Lord
07-13-2011, 13:55
In TX we have the right to defend the property. A car here is considered an extension to the home, and considered a major investment for which you have the right to defend. Additionally, it happened at night, which elevates the crime, and the owner has the right to active pursuit. So, given the right to defend, the right to active pursuit, and the authorization to use deadly force in that particular case, the victim acted totally appropriately, and would still more than likely not be charged with a crime if he had connected with any of his shots and wounded or killed any of the suspects.

Now the kicker here is the victim may not have even been a concealed handgun license holder. He would and was still within his rights to go inside his home, get a handgun, shotgun, rifle, or any other means that could be considered usable for deadly force, and engage in the active pursuit of the suspects, and ultimately use deadly force if so warranted in getting his property back.

If VA only gives you the right to call and report, then what's the point of even being able to CCW, or bear arms in your home?

Resqu2
07-13-2011, 14:11
If VA only gives you the right to call and report, then what's the point of even being able to CCW, or bear arms in your home?

Could of shot them during the car jacking IF and only IF I was in fear of my life. I could not of chased them down and had a rolling gun battle which I don't think is a great idea anyway. VA has some great gun laws but Texas has us beat on a few for sure.

Lord
07-13-2011, 14:13
Could of shot them during the car jacking IF and only IF I was in fear of my life. I could not of chased them down and had a rolling gun battle which I don't think is a great idea anyway. VA has some great gun laws but Texas has us beat on a few for sure.

True. I just wish we could get the open carry.

redbaron007
07-13-2011, 15:37
I'm not sure how this would have played in my area.

Around here, there was an instance, a while back, where a bystander went after the people who stole a lady's purse, then fired shots at the tire, but eventually lost the perps. He pleaded to misdemeanor and had his CCW suspended for a year or so. They never caught the perps, IIRC.


:wavey:

red

Sharkey
07-13-2011, 15:53
In TX we have the right to defend the property. A car here is considered an extension to the home, and considered a major investment for which you have the right to defend. Additionally, it happened at night, which elevates the crime, and the owner has the right to active pursuit. So, given the right to defend, the right to active pursuit, and the authorization to use deadly force in that particular case, the victim acted totally appropriately, and would still more than likely not be charged with a crime if he had connected with any of his shots and wounded or killed any of the suspects.

Now the kicker here is the victim may not have even been a concealed handgun license holder. He would and was still within his rights to go inside his home, get a handgun, shotgun, rifle, or any other means that could be considered usable for deadly force, and engage in the active pursuit of the suspects, and ultimately use deadly force if so warranted in getting his property back.

If VA only gives you the right to call and report, then what's the point of even being able to CCW, or bear arms in your home?

Can you elaborate a bit on this "active pursuit". I have never heard of that and have read Chap 9 of P.C. quite a bit.
You can shoot a fleeing felon (under the right circumstances) but never heard of pursuing him.

Concerning your screen name, I have to ask, W.W.J.D. :whistling:

cowboy1964
07-13-2011, 15:59
Wouldn't work here in Ohio either. I think Texas is one of the few places where it does work.

Personally I'm not going to risk my life over chasing down property after the fact. Pretty dumb, IMO.

SGT HATRED
07-13-2011, 16:00
Those darn kids of crime...

glock75
07-13-2011, 21:37
I think Lord was referring to this (highlighted in Bold).

§ 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.

Lord
07-13-2011, 22:12
I think Lord was referring to this (highlighted in Bold).

§ 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.

Burglary was a bad example.... active pursuit, day vs night, use of force vs use of deadly force all still apply.
Being more specific and accurate should be a given, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.
packsaddle: no reason to be an idiot by calling the instructor an idiot. if you're a LEO then maybe you could have shed more light on the subject.

SouthernBoyVA
07-14-2011, 05:57
Could of shot them during the car jacking IF and only IF I was in fear of my life. I could not of chased them down and had a rolling gun battle which I don't think is a great idea anyway. VA has some great gun laws but Texas has us beat on a few for sure.

This is not correct. In Virginia, you do NOT have to be in imminent fear of your life before you may use deadly force. Imminent fear of serious bodily harm is sufficient cause for deadly force to be returned.

If you are attacked by several BG's while in your car, you best avenue is to get the hell out of Dodge. You don't have to since Virginia is a "true man" state (no duty to retreat), but if you can get away, you would be better served to do so. If not, you can use deadly force since robbery is a felony crime which can be cause for your deadly force actions.

Sippo
07-14-2011, 06:02
I think Lord was referring to this (highlighted in Bold).

§ 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.

Exodus 22:2-3 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed. But if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

That's the principle from the Law Giver... thought you might be wondering where the legislators may have learned it.

packsaddle
07-14-2011, 06:58
Just doing it at night converts to aggravated burglary.

There is no such thing as "aggravated burglary" in Texas.

Your instructor is an idiot.

jms123
07-14-2011, 07:22
The only problem here I see, is the bad guy got away.

REA9mm
07-14-2011, 07:32
I wonder if the guys insurance company will try to screw him out of compensation for the car by saying he caused the damage by shooting at it.

Cap'n
07-14-2011, 07:47
I wonder if the guys insurance company will try to screw him out of compensation for the car by saying he caused the damage by shooting at it.

I wondered the same thing.

Lord
07-14-2011, 08:47
There is no such thing as "aggravated burglary" in Texas.

Your instructor is an idiot.

It was an example.. and maybe a bad one. Reacting like you did to a simple explanation, mr semantic, doesn't that make you the idiot?

Sharkey
07-14-2011, 08:59
Yeah I was aware of Sec. 2B and I guess you could interpret it that way.

We understood it to mean - basically you catch this guy in the act and there is no other way to secure your property other than the use of deadly force (hence the word fleeing "immediately"). Pursuing them or chasing them, would seem to open up a can of worms and after exchanging rounds with someone, the can of worms has already spilled over.

Your D.A. is going to have a lot of sway on presenting it to a GJ and even though TX might be way more open in property owners protecting their property than other states, I'm not sure this would fly in a lot of counties in TX. Maybe he'll get lucky and get that ADA that taught the class to present it to the GJ.

We use to jokingly say - we could get a grilled cheese sandwich indicted in our Grand Jury. :shocked:

Lord
07-14-2011, 11:24
Yeah I was aware of Sec. 2B and I guess you could interpret it that way.

We understood it to mean - basically you catch this guy in the act and there is no other way to secure your property other than the use of deadly force (hence the word fleeing "immediately"). Pursuing them or chasing them, would seem to open up a can of worms and after exchanging rounds with someone, the can of worms has already spilled over.

Your D.A. is going to have a lot of sway on presenting it to a GJ and even though TX might be way more open in property owners protecting their property than other states, I'm not sure this would fly in a lot of counties in TX. Maybe he'll get lucky and get that ADA that taught the class to present it to the GJ.

We use to jokingly say - we could get a grilled cheese sandwich indicted in our Grand Jury. :shocked:

perhaps, but I've read about and have seen in the news cases where an active pursuit resulted in the suspect being shot and killed as they attempted to drive away with a vehicle in the process of stealing it.

David Armstrong
07-15-2011, 12:46
I love this article. this happened just late last night... yet more justification for when people ask me, "why do you carry a gun"

http://www.kens5.com/news/local/Police-investigate-rolling-shoot-out-in-west-SA-125481018.html
I fail to see why engaging in a strictly voluntary shootout on the streets is a good reason to carry a a gun. Yes, the law says it is OK to act in this situation, but one sure needs to question why someone would think it a good idea to do so. Sure didn't help get the car back undamaged, and may have even increased the damage.

bithabus
07-15-2011, 12:56
yes but here's a clearer explanation. When I took my CHL class, we were fortunate enough to have the Assistant District Attorney teach part of the class. Any of you in San Antonio may recognize this from Sammy Miller's classes. In any case, he explained it to us in plainer English as such: night time does play a part in it, as it can take a crime and turn it from simple to aggravated. i.e. a burglary during the day, would become an aggravated burglary if you were in the home and warned an intruder to not enter and they did anyway, OR, if they entered the premises at night. Just doing it at night converts to aggravated burglary. He went on to describe a certain situation where if someone comes to your front yard and steals something and runs away from you, and you pursue him to get it back. The active pursuit is where you are now pursuing someone who just committed the crime, just as the guy that was carjacked in the article posted above. Believe it or not, he described the same activity (stealing from your yard) and occurring at night; it elevated the crime, and now you can actively pursue and use deadly force to reclaim your property. Moreover, if you can maintain the same active pursuit, meaning if the perp committed the crime on Wednesday night, and you pursued and remained in pursuit without letting up for say, 3 days, the use of deadly force is STILL authorized. As odd as this may sound to some, this was literally explained to us by the assistant DA himself. I've even consulted some friends who were in the class with me, to ensure my memory of the discussion was accurate, and they concur with my explanation. The ADA gave very clear and easy to understand explanations of simple vs aggravated, and the use of force vs use of deadly force and when each is authorized.
A lot of this is wrong. Burglary during the night does not automatically become aggravated burglary. In fact, in Texas there is no such thing as agg. burglary. You can use deadly force to stop burglary at any time of day. You can pursue a thief at any time of day, but you can only use deadly force against him at night.

Lord
07-15-2011, 14:41
A lot of this is wrong. Burglary during the night does not automatically become aggravated burglary. In fact, in Texas there is no such thing as agg. burglary. You can use deadly force to stop burglary at any time of day. You can pursue a thief at any time of day, but you can only use deadly force against him at night.

ok going to edit my original post because none of you seem to take heed that it's JUST AN EXAMPLE... albeit a bad one, but an example nonetheless.... and you're also wrong. You're clear to use deadly force during the day as long as the situation warrants it, and it's a defense to prosecution if in the act of using deadly force, the reasonable bystander argument holds true. At night, it's authorized. Period.

David Armstrong
07-15-2011, 16:41
ok going to edit my original post because none of you seem to take heed that it's JUST AN EXAMPLE... albeit a bad one, but an example nonetheless.... and you're also wrong. You're clear to use deadly force during the day as long as the situation warrants it, and it's a defense to prosecution if in the act of using deadly force, the reasonable bystander argument holds true. At night, it's authorized. Period.
IMO it's a pretty good example...of what not to do. But it certainly doesn't provide a justification for carrying a gun. As for who is right or wrong, that depends a lot on where you live.

Donn57
07-15-2011, 16:43
The reasoning for people thinking it is a good idea to risk lives over a piece of insured property escapes me.

This guy could have gotten himself, his friend, and innocent bystanders killed over a car.

Lord
07-15-2011, 16:50
IMO it's a pretty good example...of what not to do. But it certainly doesn't provide a justification for carrying a gun. As for who is right or wrong, that depends a lot on where you live.

I have a spare tire under the bed of my truck. Fortunately, I've never had a flat where I needed to get the spare out and change the tire, but there is a degree of comfort knowing that it's there should I need it. The same holds true for carrying a pistol. i would rather have it and never need it... than one day really need it, and not have it. That means even in a situation where the decision of force vs deadly force must be decided upon.

David Armstrong
07-15-2011, 17:07
I have a spare tire under the bed of my truck. Fortunately, I've never had a flat where I needed to get the spare out and change the tire, but there is a degree of comfort knowing that it's there should I need it. The same holds true for carrying a pistol. i would rather have it and never need it... than one day really need it, and not have it. That means even in a situation where the decision of force vs deadly force must be decided upon.
All of that is nice, but it has nothing to do with chasing somebody down the street shooting at them over a car. Read Donn57's post again.

Lord
07-15-2011, 17:10
All of that is nice, but it has nothing to do with chasing somebody down the street shooting at them over a car. Read Donn57's post again.

I'm afraid I would still pursue, and if necessary, use deadly force.
I would even go so far as to say, maybe these guys will think twice next time they consider carjacking someone.
I also saw one post above commenting that the real tragedy here is that the bad guys got away.

David Armstrong
07-15-2011, 17:13
I'm afraid I would still pursue, and if necessary, use deadly force.
Go right ahead. Folks do all sorts of rather foolish things on a regular basis. Personally I've never understood the rational behind making things worse when you don't need to, but that is just me.

Lord
07-15-2011, 17:23
Go right ahead. Folks do all sorts of rather foolish things on a regular basis. Personally I've never understood the rational behind making things worse when you don't need to, but that is just me.

the rationale may just be that there was something precious and irreplaceable in the car; possibly the fact that the owner put a lot of time, effort, and money into owning that car, and didn't want to lose anything in the decreased value that the insurance company would put on it. You consider it irrational to have done what he did, but then again, you were not there. You did not feel the adrenaline rush that he must have, nor were you there to be emotionally charged as he probably was. His actions were even evaluated by law enforcement, and they agree that he acted properly and correctly, and was not charged with a crime. It's easy to criticize someone's actions from a separated and after the fact point of view... especially if you were not even there to witness the incident as it occurred. Maybe the individual had been victimized before and had simply had enough and this was enough to spur him into action. It could be any number of things that prompted the events to roll out as they did, we don't know. But the law was on his side, and I think he did what I believe I would have done. Deadly force was authorized, he used it, they got away but barely and with nothing to show for their actions, and maybe they learned a lesson too. You should not be too critical of him if you can't truly empathize with the circumstances.

David Armstrong
07-15-2011, 17:45
the rationale may just be that there was something precious and irreplaceable in the car; possibly the fact that the owner put a lot of time, effort, and money into owning that car, and didn't want to lose anything in the decreased value that the insurance company would put on it.
When you have to start making things up to justify an act you already have lost all rationale. The only irreplaceable is a life, as far as I'm concerned, and putting your life, the life of your friends, and the life of everyone on the road in danger over a car is not rational at all. And I fail to see how putting bulletholes in your car and having it wrecked doesn't decrease the value.
You consider it irrational to have done what he did, but then again, you were not there. You did not feel the adrenaline rush that he must have, nor were you there to be emotionally charged as he probably was.
Yes, I was not there. And anyone who cannot control their emotions in this kind of a situation or who bases what they do on an adrenaline rush has got other problems.
His actions were even evaluated by law enforcement, and they agree that he acted properly and correctly, and was not charged with a crime.
Correction. He has not been charged with a crime. That does no mean that anyone, including LE, agrees that he acted properly and correctly. I've run across lots of folks who did stupid things that were not a crime and I did not arrest them. Has nothing to do with acting properly and correctly.
It's easy to criticize someone's actions from a separated and after the fact point of view... especially if you were not even there to witness the incident as it occurred. Maybe the individual had been victimized before and had simply had enough and this was enough to spur him into action. It could be any number of things that prompted the events to roll out as they did, we don't know. But the law was on his side, and I think he did what I believe I would have done. [quote]
Again, all which is nice but has nothing to do with justification to carry a gun or anything else. Stupid is stupid, and quite frankly chasing someone down the road trading shots with them over a car is, IMO, stupid. I don't have to be there to know that.
[quote] Deadly force was authorized, he used it, they got away but barely and with nothing to show for their actions, and maybe they learned a lesson too. You should not be too critical of him if you can't truly empathize with the circumstances.
I empathize quite well with the circumstances. What, you think this is the first guy to get a car stolen? Happens all the time without folks getting into a gunfight. One of those really important lessons of life is that just because you can do something doesn't mean it is a good idea to actually do it. As for "nothing to show for their actions", you might want to look at that same idea from the point of the owner....he endangered himself and others with nothing to show for his actions.

Lord
07-15-2011, 17:57
As for "nothing to show for their actions", you might want to look at that same idea from the point of the owner....he endangered himself and others with nothing to show for his actions.

Ah, now it makes sense... you're in law enforcement. IMO he does have something to show for his actions. But I won't go there because it's clear you are the quintessential LEO...(no offense to the others).

I could go on and on about the cases I've covered where people were assaulted, hurt, maimed, and even killed because the only place a police officer could be found was at the local diner. Now I do agree that at times you guys need to take a lunch or just a break, but I don't believe that you all need to do it at the same time. Additionally, if the LEO's were where they should have been, in plain sight, patrolling and watching, protecting and serving, you would give the criminals pause when they think about hurting, stealing, killing, etc. No, you are painfully absent, or sitting with your cruiser facing one way, while another LEO pulls his up along side facing the other way for a 2-3 hour BS session on the taxpayers' dime. I've seen it happen. I've listened to the 911 call where a family of children were being actively murdered and the dispatcher caught it all on tape. Where were the police? 6 of them were all at Jim's having coffee etc. there were no survivors that night.

The fact of the matter is the law was on his side. That is indisputable. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, he did what I would have done, and what millions of other would have done. Sorry but we don't have the mentality that many LEO's do when it comes to criminals infringing on my right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. if you're not going to be there for me to do the job we pay you to, then I will have to do it for you.

<end rant> and end of conversation as far as I am concerned. he acted properly, and you're the only one that seems to have the big problem with it. Do your job, then critique when someone steps in and does it for you.

David Armstrong
07-15-2011, 18:15
Ah, now it makes sense... you're in law enforcement. IMO he does have something to show for his actions. But I won't go there because it's clear you are the quintessential LEO...(no offense to the others).
Actually I'm a mild-mannered college professor these days.
I could go on and on about the cases I've covered where people were assaulted, hurt, maimed, and even killed because the only place a police officer could be found was at the local diner. Now I do agree that at times you guys need to take a lunch or just a break, but I don't believe that you all need to do it at the same time. Additionally, if the LEO's were where they should have been, in plain sight, patrolling and watching, protecting and serving, you would give the criminals pause when they think about hurting, stealing, killing, etc. No, you are painfully absent, or sitting with your cruiser facing one way, while another LEO pulls his up along side facing the other way for a 2-3 hour BS session on the taxpayers' dime. I've seen it happen. I've listened to the 911 call where a family of children were being actively murdered and the dispatcher caught it all on tape. Where were the police? 6 of them were all at Jim's having coffee etc. there were no survivors that night.
Ahh, now it makes sense. You're one of those folks who thinks they know the law and policing because they watch Cops on Saturday night and has no idea what the job is.
The fact of the matter is the law was on his side. That is indisputable.
And nobody has disputed that. What is disputed is if what he did was a good idea or not.
Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, he did what I would have done, and what millions of other would have done.
Sorry, but I really doubt millions of others would be silly enough to shoot up their own car and wreck it. In fact, on a fairly gun centric forum, you are getting comments like "Personally I'm not going to risk my life over chasing down property after the fact. Pretty dumb, IMO" and "The reasoning for people thinking it is a good idea to risk lives over a piece of insured property escapes me. This guy could have gotten himself, his friend, and innocent bystanders killed over a car".
Sorry but we don't have the mentality that many LEO's do when it comes to criminals infringing on my right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. if you're not going to be there for me to do the job we pay you to, then I will have to do it for you.
Yes, your anti-LEO diatribe has been duly noted. It has nothing to do with this issue, however, but it is nice to know where you stand.
<end rant> and end of conversation as far as I am concerned.
Be still, my beating heart!:yawn:
he acted properly, and you're the only one that seems to have the big problem with it.
No, he didn't act properly, he endangered others for no reason, gained nothing out of the deal, and may have actually suffered additional loss because if it. And I don't have a big problem with it. I do have a problemw with people trying to use it as an example for stuff that has no relationship to it.
Do your job, then critique when someone steps in and does it for you.
I'd point out how little sense that makes, but since you have ended the conversation I'll let it slide.

Mister_Beefy
07-15-2011, 18:36
they used to hang horse thieves.

if the car is the modem replacement for a horse, well....

AZson
07-15-2011, 18:41
In TX we have the right to defend the property. A car here is considered an extension to the home, and considered a major investment for which you have the right to defend. Additionally, it happened at night, which elevates the crime, and the owner has the right to active pursuit. So, given the right to defend, the right to active pursuit, and the authorization to use deadly force in that particular case, the victim acted totally appropriately, and would still more than likely not be charged with a crime if he had connected with any of his shots and wounded or killed any of the suspects.

Now the kicker here is the victim may not have even been a concealed handgun license holder. He would and was still within his rights to go inside his home, get a handgun, shotgun, rifle, or any other means that could be considered usable for deadly force, and engage in the active pursuit of the suspects, and ultimately use deadly force if so warranted in getting his property back.

If VA only gives you the right to call and report, then what's the point of even being able to CCW, or bear arms in your home?

Same here, we have the castle law. All we have to say is we felt threatened and we can use deadly force even if the other person does not have a gun or weapon.

dnuggett
07-15-2011, 19:20
Anyone else besides me think that there may be some details left out or unknown by the news reporters? Like who fired first? Was the victim following at a distance so as to communicate the cars whereabouts to police and then things got hairy once the thieves realized they were being followed?

There is a lot that isn't said here to be arguing about who is right or wrong. Personally I think arguing about right and wrong with so little detail is pointless, unless you two are just playing make believe.

dnuggett
07-15-2011, 19:23
Same here, we have the castle law. All we have to say is we felt threatened and we can use deadly force even if the other person does not have a gun or weapon.

Do you really believe that is all that is required? Explaining your thought process will without fail prove you were in danger?

doktarZues
07-15-2011, 19:26
I fail to see why engaging in a strictly voluntary shootout on the streets is a good reason to carry a a gun. Yes, the law says it is OK to act in this situation, but one sure needs to question why someone would think it a good idea to do so. Sure didn't help get the car back undamaged, and may have even increased the damage.

Exactly what I was thinking. Had the OP not said it with such gusto I probably would have skipped to the next thread.

beatcop
07-15-2011, 19:30
Car vs. dead

That sums it up....if they are threatening you, sure defend yourself if you so choose.
If they drive away I'm not sure chasing them down with another vehicle and exchanging fire is the wisest idea...may be legal, but certainly not a good idea.

I can see the caddy or the "good guy" ramming someone or their property when the operator gets shot. That's why PD use of force policies don't encourage shooting at vehicles/drivers when there is no exigency....the car turns into a 3000 pound unguided missile....let alone the stray shots flying around.

Sharkey
07-15-2011, 21:32
Same here, we have the castle law. All we have to say is we felt threatened and we can use deadly force even if the other person does not have a gun or weapon.

Hey do what you want, you're the one who has to answer for your actions. I think there is a bit more to it. Does the person have the means, proximity, and lethality?

In all this discussion, I'll leave with one bit of advice, you might consider taking Ayoob's LFI class. It was well worth the money in learning the legal use of force and the aftermath that goes with killing someone in self defense.

bithabus
07-15-2011, 23:59
ok going to edit my original post because none of you seem to take heed that it's JUST AN EXAMPLE... albeit a bad one, but an example nonetheless.... and you're also wrong. You're clear to use deadly force during the day as long as the situation warrants it, and it's a defense to prosecution if in the act of using deadly force, the reasonable bystander argument holds true. At night, it's authorized. Period.
I have no idea what you're talking about. None of this makes sense. What do you mean "reasonable bystander argument"? What does "at night it's authorized, period" mean? I get the feeling you are another victim of a worthless CHL instructor, all too common in our state.

The best way to learn is to read the chapter on justifications for yourself. Here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

crsuribe
07-16-2011, 00:35
Life is not about making good decisions. It's about enjoying it. And this guy pretty much lived his own movie. Mad props to him.

See you all later on CoD. I gotta eat my dinner first.

GIockGuy24
07-16-2011, 00:48
Could of shot them during the car jacking IF and only IF I was in fear of my life. I could not of chased them down and had a rolling gun battle which I don't think is a great idea anyway. VA has some great gun laws but Texas has us beat on a few for sure.

Remember the shopping mall security guard firing a warning shot in VA? The court ruled that deadly force is permitted to make a citizens arrest. A citizens arrest in VA requires witnessing (or person knowledge of) what is believed to be a felony. Any force allowed by law enforcement, including deadly force is permitted when making a citizens arrest. That pretty much covers anything that is a felony in VA. You can chase down somebody to make a citizens arrest (if you witness them committing a felony) and deadly force is permitted. In the end it doesn't make much difference.

AZson
07-16-2011, 07:49
Do you really believe that is all that is required? Explaining your thought process will without fail prove you were in danger?

Simply put, yes. they passed this law to put an end to car-jackings, you do not have to run.

AZson
07-16-2011, 07:56
Hey do what you want, you're the one who has to answer for your actions. I think there is a bit more to it. Does the person have the means, proximity, and lethality?

In all this discussion, I'll leave with one bit of advice, you might consider taking Ayoob's LFI class. It was well worth the money in learning the legal use of force and the aftermath that goes with killing someone in self defense.

This is not a do want you want situation, it is the law passed here in AZ. In fact they can not arrest you, they must get an Grand Jury to indite you before they can arrest you. Unlike the old days of hauling you down to station and grilling you.
You also can brandish a weapon if you feel your intimidated and not get arrested, it is written in the LAW.
They passed that law when some scumbag gang bangers where harassing an older man on the highway. He showed them a gun and they called 911 and he got arrested.
We have the greatest gun laws in the nation.
Better then TX.
Why do you think the violence from mexico has not spilled into our state?

dnuggett
07-16-2011, 08:22
Simply put, yes.


Simply put, you are wrong. Your actions must still be reasonable. How you felt or perceived the situation is part of the picture, but not all of it. Believe it or not, what actually occured is important. Re-read your laws in AZ you don't know them as well as you pretend to.

When reading pay attention to the whole section but special attention to the parts where you see reasonable person mentioned. Also you may note where lethal force is not justified, regardless of what you thought was occurring.

beatcop
07-16-2011, 08:43
Sometimes there's more to a law than just the ink. There are court decisions that occur that refine the law and subtle scenario factors that may be missed.

Imho I cannot morally support killing someone over property (in and of itself). If you think that's ok, fine, but I call into question your decision making process.

There are too many ways a scenario like the caddy chaser can go wrong:

-you could be mistaken for the aggressor. You are pursuing someone while firing at them..I would possibly engage YOU if I was on duty.

-you could hit a bystander. You would be reduced to poverty in civil court and would ruin someone's life over a car?

It comes down to one thing, "It ain't worth it".

If your life & limb is in jeopardy, go ahead and defend yourself, but I don't think it's a good idea to try to affect a Citizens Arrest in most cases that I can think of.

beatcop
07-16-2011, 08:58
Life is not about making good decisions. It's about enjoying it. And this guy pretty much lived his own movie. Mad props to him.

See you all later on CoD. I gotta eat my dinner first.

:whistling:

There are plenty of folks that subscribe to this philosophy...they get arrested with regularity, take drugs, ruin their lives and others.

Training, maturity, responsibility, and consideration for the rest of the people that have to share the planet with this "movie star" are factors in a civilized society...

Toorop
07-16-2011, 09:20
IMO it's a pretty good example...of what not to do. But it certainly doesn't provide a justification for carrying a gun. As for who is right or wrong, that depends a lot on where you live.

I agree. If nobody was in danger then why start shooting? Every shot you fire may hit someone who is nothing more than an innocent bystander. Why take the risk and start shooting up the neighborhood? It would be different if your loved one was in the car or someone else was obviously at risk, but in this case it was not justified in my opinion. Legally he might be in the clear, but in all honesty this was a bad idea.

Toorop
07-16-2011, 09:24
the rationale may just be that there was something precious and irreplaceable in the car; possibly the fact that the owner put a lot of time, effort, and money into owning that car, and didn't want to lose anything in the decreased value that the insurance company would put on it. You consider it irrational to have done what he did, but then again, you were not there. You did not feel the adrenaline rush that he must have, nor were you there to be emotionally charged as he probably was. His actions were even evaluated by law enforcement, and they agree that he acted properly and correctly, and was not charged with a crime. It's easy to criticize someone's actions from a separated and after the fact point of view... especially if you were not even there to witness the incident as it occurred. Maybe the individual had been victimized before and had simply had enough and this was enough to spur him into action. It could be any number of things that prompted the events to roll out as they did, we don't know. But the law was on his side, and I think he did what I believe I would have done. Deadly force was authorized, he used it, they got away but barely and with nothing to show for their actions, and maybe they learned a lesson too. You should not be too critical of him if you can't truly empathize with the circumstances. So if some kid steals a candybar from the the local storefront at night you would be OK with the owner grabbing his shotgun and starts chasing the kid while firing shots through a neighborhood? I mean he is probably tired and upset as he puts a lot of work in that store front and the kid just took his property. Obviously he is in the right because it is legal, wouldn't you agree?

David Armstrong
07-16-2011, 09:32
So if some kid steals a candybar from the the local storefront at night you would be OK with the owner grabbing his shotgun and starts chasing the kid while firing shots through a neighborhood? I mean he is probably tired and upset as he puts a lot of work in that store front and the kid just took his property. Obviously he is in the right because it is legal, wouldn't you agree?
Hey, stop that! How dare you try to bring logic and reason into the Steely-Eyed Dealer of Death Super Vigilante dreams of some poor guy!:wow:

ScottieG59
07-16-2011, 11:12
If someone steals my car or truck, my only concern is that I do not get it back after is has been messed up. I have insurance. I would not leave anything of value in my vehicles and I do not leave my kids alone in vehicles. My small deductible is no big deal and theft is not held against me.

Police in many areas have seen the dangers of vehicle pursuit. In some cases, it is unavoidable, but in other cases, it creates more risk with little gained.

In this case, let the cops do the report, collect the insurance check and move on. No insurance? Get the police report and car value and write it off on your taxes. There are security systems like LoJack that may have helped. A chase and shootout over a car and big speakers in the trunk is just plain irresponsible. Given that every single shot seemed to have missed the intended target, where did the rounds go?

AZson
07-16-2011, 18:09
Simply put, you are wrong. Your actions must still be reasonable. How you felt or perceived the situation is part of the picture, but not all of it. Believe it or not, what actually occured is important. Re-read your laws in AZ you don't know them as well as you pretend to.

When reading pay attention to the whole section but special attention to the parts where you see reasonable person mentioned. Also you may note where lethal force is not justified, regardless of what you thought was occurring.

Don't pretend nothing, I read them and even called the Governor to get them passed. I have a reasonably Idea of what intimidation is, I have a pretty good hold on common sense, I know enough I can end any confrontation I didn't start or encouraged with me or my family.
I know this law was put into place so that I could defend my self righteously and not have to hesitate with the thought going to jail if I shoot a scumbag.
It may frustrate you not to have as liberal gun laws as we do, but some day you might.

It's to bad they passed that non-open carry law in TX. It's like they took a step back on gun rights.

Bruce M
07-16-2011, 19:10
... His actions were even evaluated by law enforcement, and they agree that he acted properly and correctly, and was not charged with a crime. ...


and maybe they learned a lesson too. ...

As previously suggested there is world of difference acting properly and not being charged with a crime. Sometimes civil court helps show the difference.

And using one's gun to help someone "learn a lesson" may end up with a lesson for the gun owner.

dnuggett
07-16-2011, 19:23
Don't pretend nothing, I read them and even called the Governor to get them passed. I have a reasonably Idea of what intimidation is, I have a pretty good hold on common sense, I know enough I can end any confrontation I didn't start or encouraged with me or my family.
I know this law was put into place so that I could defend my self righteously and not have to hesitate with the thought going to jail if I shoot a scumbag.
It may frustrate you not to have as liberal gun laws as we do, but some day you might.

It's to bad they passed that non-open carry law in TX. It's like they took a step back on gun rights.

I'm not sure where the Texas/Arizona jealousy comments come from, but as far as you and I go that jealousy is all in your head. Cooperation among states is key, not the my state is better than yours mentality your post seems to display. As a member of the NRA, 2nd Amendement Foundation, Texas State Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association I spend some hard earned time and money backing up what I believe, so let's not pretend you know how I feel about states' rights or issues.

I would think someone with a "good hold on common sense" would realize that your state of mind and what you feel happened is not the entirety a self defense shooting in Arizona or anywhere else. You seem to be backpedaling on that a bit since this time you chose to explain that you would act properly given common sense and defend your self "righteously."

As far as your open carry comment I think it's a shame we need permission from the government on almost every single firearms topic there is, save a felon in possession. It's a shame what the ATF is doing, a shame Illinois citizens still have no legal way of defending themselves when they leave their home, a shame California is the way it is... I can go on and on. Bottom line is that there is a lot that all of us can do for our states and for our country.