October 24, 2008, 04:08 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
(17) "Deadly weapon" means: (A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or (B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. (3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury. § 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. § 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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 3, eff. September 1, 2007. § 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he: (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. § 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he: (1) causes serious bodily injury to another; (2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or (3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is: (A) 65 years of age or older; or (B) a disabled person. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree. (c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm. |
|
October 24, 2008, 04:20 PM | #27 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
1) I'm not in Texas
2) I know my states law. 3) If they are in the act of X and pointing a gun at you SHOOT THEM. If they are driving away and you shoot them, YOU go to jail -- in NY state. Texas is, no offense, irrelevant to me -- especially since the OP is in Indiana. 4) It's about more than "the law" it's about basic moral code. I'm not telling you what your code should be, I'm telling you what mine IS. IF a crime is OVER, any crime, I will not kill the perp unless they: have killed someone in my sight (or I know beyond ANY doubt that they have) or are attempting to commit further crime that warrants shooting. You MUST have reason to believe you are about to die or be harmed to near death or that someone else is. You shoot for any other reason YOU go to jail. Even the castle doctrine doesn't negate that simple fact, it simply states that you can ASSUME grave danger. There is no implication that the grave danger does not exist. Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
October 24, 2008, 04:22 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
The actual offense committed (the title of it) isn't relevant to the logic that was used. If you are (or a third party) in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you can defend yourself (or them). It doesn't matter whether it's your wife's virtue or it a guy pointing a gun at you and ordering you to get out of your car. They are both justification for the use of Deadly Force and the fact that the written law gives you justification takes care of the actual or threat of danger. For instance, the statute I posted previously gives justification for the use of Deadly Force to prevent the imminent commission of several things. That implies that if one of those things is happening to you, then you are in danger. You just have to articulate YOUR specific situation. |
|
October 24, 2008, 04:27 PM | #29 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 24, 2008, 04:38 PM | #30 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
October 24, 2008, 04:38 PM | #31 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
If you feel you are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm you may pull the trigger. That was and is my only point. One you seem to agree with but at the same time seem to take exception to my explanation of said point. So you'll have to: 1) Excuse my confusion 2) Excuse me from this discussion.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
October 24, 2008, 04:50 PM | #32 | |||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
October 24, 2008, 04:50 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
Peetzakilla,
I guess your inital reply threw me off. You mentioned that one would have to show they were in danger of serious injury or death. I think the danger is pretty clear, considering the scenario was that a guy was committing Aggravated Robbery (display and/or use of a deadly weapon during the commission of Robbery). So...I guess we actually agree??? I only made the Crime Against a Person vs. Property Crime to distuingish the difference between someone stealing your car and someone robbing you of your car at gunpoint...which are two different things altogether. You'd be more apt to use Deadly Force to prevent the Aggravated Robbery than you would the "Car Theft" (which is a property crime...although in some states you can use deadly force to prevent just that.) Some people get "car theft" and "carjacking" confused. Maybe I am completely missing your point (entirely possible) and it is not my intent to be argumentative. Feel free to call me on it if I ever come across that way. |
October 24, 2008, 05:07 PM | #34 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
Quote:
The answer is the same in both cases. Because the guy is committing a violent felony, RIGHT THEN, to you (or in the other case, your wife)...so you use whatever force you need to use to prevent/stop it. (Or not...personal choice. I NEVER advocated one course of action over another. I simply addressed your implication that a person shouldn't use force to stop it...which is what you implied with your "why would you" post and all the other threads where you've advocated compliance.) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. A violent act against a person by another, which places the victim in danger of serious bodily injury or death and 2. A violent act against a person by another, which places the victim in danger of serious bodily injury or death Letting them go wasn't my idea. It was what YOU implied in your "why would you" post. I referred to it in the rape scenario to show how simple the answer to your "why would you" question really is. The answer is "to stop them from committing a violent act against me...an act which places me in fear of injury or death." Last edited by Hondo11; October 24, 2008 at 07:49 PM. |
|||||
October 24, 2008, 05:50 PM | #35 | ||||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Sure sounds over to me. The BG is getting into the car, he's no longer messing with you. No apparent threat, we're just shooting him so he can't drive off. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
October 24, 2008, 06:27 PM | #36 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Now you'll have to let me back in...
Quote:
Quote:
There are those around.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||
October 24, 2008, 07:45 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
David,
You actually quoted the post that I referred to, which said "...getting into your car..." and used that to argue that it's "over". Getting means he is still doing it. I don't see how that's not obvious to a PhD. Yet, you still refer to it as over. I can only assume that you'd argue with a fence post until it saw things your way, so I'll pass on being the fence post. Until he has already driven off, I would consider a guy with a gun who's in the commission of Aggravated Robbery (with a deadly weapon) a threat. You might not, but that's certainly your prerogative. The original post contained the following: "...do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?" In this case, I don't disagree with you. Once they are no longer directly threatening you with the deadly weapon, then your course of action will probably change. No argument here. (Although, in some states, you can still use Deadly Force in the defense of the property...if you choose to...not that I'm saying that's the proper option...just that it still might be one, legally speaking.) As for the rest, I'm finished discussing it with you. It's obvious we come from two different worlds and see things from two different perspectives. We'll just leave it at that. |
October 24, 2008, 10:08 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
You may live in a county where the DA is the opposite and the rights of the criminal are sacred. |
|
October 24, 2008, 10:18 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Say, Hondo. Bold red type isn't necessary.
Aside from being a touch on the rude side, it's not so easy on the eyes for some of us old geezers. Perhaps you'll reconsider and make your point like the rest of us. Thanks, Nolan |
October 25, 2008, 12:05 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 200
|
If you shoot somebody, particularly if you shoot and kill them, you're going to go to trial. Even DAs that support gun owners rights will charge you as CYA. 12 people will ultimately determine if the shooting was justified and the odds are that if they feel you shot someone who was NO LONGER a threat to you, you'll be going to jail. Maybe they won't, but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take.
FWIW, the local NRA Instructor uses this example in his self defense course and is very explicit that if the BG is no longer a direct threat, expect to be prosecuted and probably convicted. In the scenario where an innocent passenger is still in the car and the BG is driving away with them, you're justified in shooting because the passenger is still directly threatened by an armed criminal who is kidnapping them.
__________________
South Dakota Right-To-Carry Law, Type: Shall Issue. Local county sheriff or the local police are the issuing authorities. South Dakota does honor all other state permits, so plan your vacation today! Last edited by computerguysd; October 25, 2008 at 12:16 AM. Reason: spelling |
October 25, 2008, 12:15 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2008
Posts: 189
|
Make sure you put your bullets through the front wind shield so that you're able to convince the jury that your life was in jeapordy as the thug was attempting to run over you. If that doesn't convince them nothing will.
Roach |
October 25, 2008, 07:30 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
|
|
October 25, 2008, 07:30 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,340
|
Quote:
Justified self-defense shootings usually don't even get to the charges-filed stage. |
|
October 25, 2008, 11:31 AM | #44 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
October 25, 2008, 01:05 PM | #45 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
"However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving. " Looks pretty over to me. The BG is done with you, he is getting in the car, and he is going to drive off. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
October 26, 2008, 11:04 PM | #46 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 23, 2008
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 411
|
i love you guys! so much useful info thank you very much!
|
October 27, 2008, 11:42 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 23, 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 614
|
once the BG has taken your car and drives off, the danger to you as ended. use of deadly force is not warrented. put your gun away and call your insurance company
|
October 28, 2008, 02:12 PM | #48 | ||
Member
Join Date: November 4, 2007
Posts: 25
|
Quote:
I guess you could argue when to call the situation "over" but the statute doesn't just say "prevent" it also says "terminate". Going back to the rape scenario: No one is going to argue that a rape-in-progress doesn't deserve action. OTOH, if the guy is already long gone then most understand you can't run them down & kill them. But what about the instant the guy finishes the deed & implies he is leaving? Do you advocate that he should be just let go? (The rape is over.) The woman &/or her defender should just cower in the corner hoping he really does leave? What if he just stands in the room without a weapon in hand....then you should just do nothing? (No threat there.) What if there never was a weapon other that his superior strength? (Ahh, just do what he says & let him go. The cops will find him. :barf You say that the chance of a carjacking turning deadly is pretty slim. What are the comparable statistics on a rape when the woman fully complies? Quote:
But if you are on the ground & the BG is "preparing to make off with" your vehicle, you could reasonably believe the crime is still in progress & can still be legally terminated (just like the man who hasn't left yet but has finished actively raping your wife). You really don't know what the BG is going to do at that point. If I had the chance i'd shoot him to the ground. I don't want to be a statistic. Yes I know that sometimes the GG loses but so does the BG. It's really difficult to respond to an unexpected attack (or in this case a counter-attack) so your odds of success go up if you are stealthy & determined to do them in. If you don't know yet what the "OODA loop" is, you might want to look it up. |
||
October 28, 2008, 05:23 PM | #49 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From finity:
Quote:
Quote:
Read under Defense of Property:http://www.useofforce.us/4details/ Quote:
|
|||
October 29, 2008, 10:24 AM | #50 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From GPossenti:
Quote:
The requirement is reasonable fear of imminent danger. Not potential danger, either to yourself or to someone else. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|