GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-13-2011, 10:54   #1
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,048
Use of deadly force authorized!

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/Poli...125481018.html
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 10:58   #2
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 17,438
He should have been packing his protector and done what needed to be done.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Cool songs:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Cool car:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
JuneyBooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 13:46   #3
Resqu2
Senior Member
 
Resqu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SouthWest VA
Posts: 4,792
This wouldn't of worked in VA, call and report it missing.
__________________
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Resqu2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 13:55   #4
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,048
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?
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15

Last edited by Lord; 07-13-2011 at 13:58.. Reason: added info
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 14:11   #5
Resqu2
Senior Member
 
Resqu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SouthWest VA
Posts: 4,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord View Post
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.
__________________
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Resqu2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 14:13   #6
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resqu2 View Post
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.
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 15:37   #7
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,937
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.




red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 15:53   #8
Sharkey
Senior Member
 
Sharkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord View Post
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.
Sharkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 15:59   #9
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 15,254
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.

Last edited by cowboy1964; 07-13-2011 at 16:01..
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 16:00   #10
SGT HATRED
Senior Member
 
SGT HATRED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: PHX AZ
Posts: 3,210
Those darn kids of crime...
SGT HATRED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 21:37   #11
glock75
Senior Member
 
glock75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Far Right of Center
Posts: 236
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.

Last edited by glock75; 07-13-2011 at 21:39..
glock75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 22:12   #12
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock75 View Post
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.
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15

Last edited by Lord; 07-15-2011 at 14:49.. Reason: semantics
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 05:57   #13
SouthernBoyVA
Senior Member
 
SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Western Prince William County, VA
Posts: 3,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resqu2 View Post
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.
__________________
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
SouthernBoyVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 06:02   #14
Sippo
Senior Member
 
Sippo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock75 View Post
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.
__________________
NRA Patron Member

You're right, Mr President. Central PA does love their guns and religion.
Sippo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 06:58   #15
packsaddle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,116
Quote:
Just doing it at night converts to aggravated burglary.
There is no such thing as "aggravated burglary" in Texas.

Your instructor is an idiot.
packsaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 07:22   #16
jms123
Senior Member
 
jms123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: DFW Texas
Posts: 297
The only problem here I see, is the bad guy got away.
__________________
NRA/GSSF Member
G26 G34

"For it is in giving that we receive."
St Francis of Assisi
jms123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 07:32   #17
REA9mm
get ready
 
REA9mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. Louis City
Posts: 512
Send a message via AIM to REA9mm Send a message via Skype™ to REA9mm
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.
REA9mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 07:47   #18
Cap'n
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by REA9mm View Post
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.
Cap'n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 08:47   #19
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by packsaddle View Post
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?
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 08:59   #20
Sharkey
Senior Member
 
Sharkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 4,071
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.

Last edited by Sharkey; 07-14-2011 at 09:01..
Sharkey is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 799
231 Members
568 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31