close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Use of deadly force authorized!

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Lord, Jul 13, 2011.

  1. Lord

    Lord Senior Member

    1,724
    347
    Jun 28, 2006
    San Antonio, Texas
  2. He should have been packing his protector and done what needed to be done.
     

  3. Resqu2

    Resqu2

    6,647
    999
    Aug 24, 2007
    SouthWest VA
    This wouldn't of worked in VA, call and report it missing.
     
  4. Lord

    Lord Senior Member

    1,724
    347
    Jun 28, 2006
    San Antonio, Texas
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2011
  5. Resqu2

    Resqu2

    6,647
    999
    Aug 24, 2007
    SouthWest VA
    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.
     
  6. Lord

    Lord Senior Member

    1,724
    347
    Jun 28, 2006
    San Antonio, Texas
    True. I just wish we could get the open carry.
     
  7. redbaron007

    redbaron007 Some Dude Lifetime Member

    7,963
    44
    Jan 26, 2009
    SWMO
    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
     
  8. Sharkey

    Sharkey

    7,303
    1,751
    Nov 21, 2006
    DFW, TX
    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:
     
  9. cowboy1964

    cowboy1964

    20,498
    2,543
    Sep 4, 2009
    U.S.A.
    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: Jul 13, 2011
  10. SGT HATRED

    SGT HATRED

    4,051
    349
    Sep 30, 2010
    PHX AZ
    Those darn kids of crime...
     
  11. 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: Jul 13, 2011
  12. Lord

    Lord Senior Member

    1,724
    347
    Jun 28, 2006
    San Antonio, Texas
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2011
  13. 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.
     
  14. Sippo

    Sippo

    231
    0
    Jul 27, 2010
    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.
     
  15. packsaddle

    packsaddle

    1,203
    70
    Jan 15, 2009
    There is no such thing as "aggravated burglary" in Texas.

    Your instructor is an idiot.
     
  16. jms123

    jms123

    295
    2
    Jun 7, 2010
    DFW Texas
    The only problem here I see, is the bad guy got away.
     
  17. REA9mm

    REA9mm get ready

    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.
     
  18. Cap'n

    Cap'n

    95
    0
    Jul 9, 2009
    I wondered the same thing.
     
  19. Lord

    Lord Senior Member

    1,724
    347
    Jun 28, 2006
    San Antonio, Texas
    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?
     
  20. Sharkey

    Sharkey

    7,303
    1,751
    Nov 21, 2006
    DFW, TX
    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:
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2011