Texas Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Thief [Archive]

The Reaper

07-09-2007, 20:52

Hmm, good thing the bill passed regardless of his vote.:rolleyes:

TR

Texas State Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would-Be Thief
Monday, July 09, 2007

HOUSTON — A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday.

Rep. Borris Miles told police he was fixing a leak on the second floor of the Houston house he's building Sunday night when he heard a noise downstairs and saw two men trying to steal the copper. After Miles confronted the pair, one of the men threw a pocketknife at him, Houston Police spokesman Victor Senties.

Miles, a former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the left leg, police said. The wounded suspect was being treated at a Houston hospital. Police were trying to identify the other suspect.

Charges of aggravated robbery are pending against the wounded suspect, Senties said.

Police said Miles, who is in his freshman term, is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. No charges have been filed against Miles, Senties said.

Miles, a Democrat, voted against a bill that gives Texans stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles, and workplaces. The so-called "castle doctrine," passed by the Legislature this year, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.

Ambush Master

07-09-2007, 21:03

Since the Law does not take effect until 1 September, maybe he should be held accountable to the OLD Statutes that HE preferred!!!!:D

The Reaper

07-09-2007, 21:12

Frankly, I would have to question whether a thrown pocket knife that missed required a deadly force response.

I wonder if the poor wounded man has a good personal injury attorney?

TR

Ambush Master

07-09-2007, 21:15

In Texas, if it is after "sunset", you are cleared HOT!!!

Sdiver

07-09-2007, 21:37

Frankly, I would have to question whether a thrown pocket knife that missed required a deadly force response.

TR

"21 Foot Rule" was in effect.

For more than 20 years now, a concept called the 21-Foot Rule has been a core component in training officers to defend themselves against edged weapons.

Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.

The implication, therefore, is that when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet an officer had better have his gun out and ready to shoot before the offender starts rushing him or else he risks being set upon and injured or killed before he can draw his sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.

I don't know if that's taught in CCW classes, but IMO, this guy was justified to use deadly force, once he saw the knife, regardless if the perp through it or not.

But in a way, I kinda like AM's answer better....

In Texas, if it is after "sunset", you are cleared HOT!!! :D :D

The Reaper

07-09-2007, 21:45

I understand the 21 foot rule and have used it in classes. It generally applies to an attacker closing the distance with a knife in hand, not someone who has just tossed a pocketknife at you.

However, in response to a thrown object, unless there was another potentially lethal object in the subject's hand, I am not sure that would justify subsequent use of lethal force.

The full details are not known here we are just speculating on the incident as described in a news article, I am sure that the incident will be investigated by the proper authorities.

Frankly, the whole point was the irony of a shooter in this situation who voted against indemnification from self-defense shootings.

TR

Sdiver

07-09-2007, 21:50

I understand the 21 foot rule and have used it in classes. It generally applies to an attacker closing the distance with a knife in hand, not someone who has just tossed a pocketknife at you.

However, in response to a thrown object, unless there was another potentially lethal object in the subject's hand, I am not sure that would justify subsequent use of lethal force.

The full details are not known here we are just speculating on the incident as described in a news article, I am sure that the incident will be investigated by the proper authorities.

Yes Sir, I agree 100%, in the fact that we don't know the whole story, as you've stated above.

Frankly, the whole point was the irony of a shooter in this situation who voted against indemnification from self-defense shootings.

TR

As did I. I was giggling the whole time I was reading the article. :D

Ambush Master

07-09-2007, 21:57

Frankly, the whole point was the irony of a shooter in this situation who voted against indemnification from self-defense shootings.

TR

This reminds me of a case recently where a Represenative, I believe in Ohio, that had voted againsed Consealed Carry, was assaulted and promptly went and got his CHL!!!!

Texian

07-10-2007, 00:22

The most appalling part of all this is that neither he or his fellow dems will learn or come to realize a damned thing about how wrong they are on 2nd Amendment and self-defence rights. Bloody dems are thicker than the lead he fired into his assailant.

jatx

07-10-2007, 06:35

I have a problem with shooting an unarmed man - he shoud have thrown the knife back! :D

Civil liability could be an issue for him. The best part of the 9/1 law is that it grants civil immunity to any lawful user of deadly force, which IMHO is more important than the "castle" elements.

Don't Mess With Texas

82ndtrooper

07-10-2007, 07:05

Gypsy

07-10-2007, 11:43

Or, is this just more of the same..........."It's ok for me just not for you" :rolleyes:

That was pretty much my take...

Ranger Luna

07-10-2007, 11:46

Funny how shit really is, don't you think................:rolleyes:

Trip_Wire (RIP)

07-11-2007, 01:27

I'd like to know his personal rationale for not supporting the bill. He was a former police officer, you'd think he'd know better.

Or, is this just more of the same..........."It's ok for me just not for you" :rolleyes:

Actually, I'm not that suprised that a former police officer or even a serving LE officer would think that way there are many LE Officers, who think that way for one reason or the other.

Many LE Officers are not firearms enthustasts and treat their firearm like a badge of office, rather then a weapon, etc. These same people only practice, or go to the range when forced to and most do not carry off duty, unless forced to by department regulations.

A number of them also think that citizens should not be allowd to own or carry concealed weapons and especially not be able to own military style semi-auto rifles, etc. They agree with all of the anti-firearms crowd in general.

In some cases it would seem the higher the rank in the department, the more likely you'll find these people, especially in the rank of Chief of police. :rolleyes:

There always seems to be a few of these people in most larger departments in particular. There were some in my old department and the currant Seattle Police Chief is a good example of the rank thing I mentioned.

sf11b_p

07-11-2007, 11:30

Frankly, the whole point was the irony of a shooter in this situation who voted against indemnification from self-defense shootings.

TR

Especially since the article indicates it did not begin as a self-defense incident. The men were stealing copper wire, he had distance being a floor away but approached them. It might be said he could have called police, he could have approached with weapon drawn and visible negating any knife throwing. Sounds like he's the exact type that he wanted the self-defense option kept away from.

Irony, and hypocrisy.

jatx

07-11-2007, 12:45

he could have approached with weapon drawn and visible negating any knife throwing

I agree with your other points, but brandishing a weapon is still a use of deadly force. If that concealed handgun comes out, you'd better be justified and prepared to take a life without the incident escalating further!

(Not preaching to you, I just think that this lawmaker is an imbecile and the shooting was probably unnecessary.)

Team Sergeant

07-11-2007, 12:59

Hypocrisy at it's finest!

Thank you borris, this is almost as funny as Slick Wille stating he "did not have sex with that (fat) girl".

http://www.borrismiles.com/

And borris, you need a little work on those shooting skills, come see me.

Team Sergeant

82ndtrooper

07-11-2007, 13:30

I agree with your other points, but brandishing a weapon is still a use of deadly force. If that concealed handgun comes out, you'd better be justified and prepared to take a life without the incident escalating further!

(Not preaching to you, I just think that this lawmaker is an imbecile and the shooting was probably unnecessary.)

Not necessarily. This was his home, and you do not need to posess a concealed carry permit to openly carry your firearm down the stairs of your own residence or property. Would you prefer to march down your own stairs with out being armed when you hear obvious intruders ?

Escalation of force works both ways. I'd rather be armed marching down my own stairs then not armed. The intruders could be armed couldn't they ? Texas may be behind the rest of us with the "Castle Doctrine" Do you have a duty to retreat still in effect in your state ? If you do then I agree with you, your duty is to run to the closet and hide like a little bunny. :rolleyes:

As for brandishing a firearm, again, this guy was in his own home and I don't believe Texas has any statute that you cannot carry your weapon openly within the confines of your residence or even on open property that you may own. This was not a deadly force situation at the local Mall, it was in his own home, tech speaking.

Here in Kentucky, we've never had the duty to retreat, but with the "Castle Doctrine" at least we don't have to prove that the intruder used or displayed a weapon therefore initiating a deadly force scenario.

If somebody comes into my home, I'm not going to worry about concealing my firearm. It will most likely be a shotgun anyway. And yes, he's getting shot, but not in the leg.

jatx

07-11-2007, 14:47

Not necessarily. This was his home, and you do not need to posess a concealed carry permit to openly carry your firearm down the stairs of your own residence or property. Would you prefer to march down your own stairs with out being armed when you hear obvious intruders ?

You are wildly off base and, frankly, the tone of your post stinks. Since we're on the topic, though, I'll offer a few key facts.

First, the issue is not whether the individual in question was carrying a concealed weapon. At issue is the fact that he chose to use deadly force. Neither I nor anyone else on this thread has suggested that he was carrying unlawfully, so your first point is a red herring.

Escalation of force works both ways. I'd rather be armed marching down my own stairs then not armed. The intruders could be armed couldn't they ?

Again, his right to possess a weapon on his own property is not at issue. Red herring.

Do you have a duty to retreat still in effect in your state ? If you do then I agree with you, your duty is to run to the closet and hide like a little bunny. :rolleyes:

Texas does not have a duty to retreat within the confines of your own home. Furthermore, the duty to retreat involves an individual's obligation in response to the use of deadly force by another person, and is not the issue here. After the knife was thrown, the two offenders no longer posed an immediate threat to the man's life. Instead, the issue is whether, under Texas PC 9.42(3), the use of deadly force to protect property was justified, given that the assailants were no longer armed. It's far from clear that he met the standard set forth in the law.

I don't believe Texas has any statute that you cannot carry your weapon openly within the confines of your residence or even on open property that you may own. This was not a deadly force situation at the local Mall, it was in his own home, tech speaking.

Well, "tech speaking", you're wrong. There is no right to open carry within public view in Texas, even if you do have a CHL and are on your own property. So, for example, you can't mow your front lawn with your weapon visible from the street. That's not the issue here, but your knowledge of our laws is clearly pretty poor.

82ndtrooper

07-11-2007, 15:18

You are wildly off base and, frankly, the tone of your post stinks. Since we're on the topic, though, I'll offer a few key facts.

First, the issue is not whether the individual in question was carrying a concealed weapon. At issue is the fact that he chose to use deadly force. Neither I nor anyone else on this thread has suggested that he was carrying unlawfully, so your first point is a red herring.

Again, his right to possess a weapon on his own property is not at issue. Red herring.

Texas does not have a duty to retreat within the confines of your own home. Furthermore, the duty to retreat involves an individual's obligation in response to the use of deadly force by another person, and is not the issue here. After the knife was thrown, the two offenders no longer posed an immediate threat to the man's life. Instead, the issue is whether, under Texas PC 9.42(3), the use of deadly force to protect property was justified, given that the assailants were no longer armed. It's far from clear that he met the standard set forth in the law.

Well, "tech speaking", you're wrong. There is no right to open carry within public view in Texas, even if you do have a CHL and are on your own property. So, for example, you can't mow your front lawn with your weapon visible from the street. That's not the issue here, but your knowledge of our laws is clearly pretty poor.

With all that said, then I'm sure your looking forward to September 1st. :rolleyes:

If you have no duty to retreat, but you have an obligation to ascertain if your life is in danger in your own home, then what are your alternatives ?

In your state is a knife not a deadly weapon ? Or are you interpreting the law yourself since it was thrown and missed ? Personally I would see that as a deadly threat, and I believe he met the standard for the use of deadly force. Whether or not your courte system would is another matter.

The Reaper

07-11-2007, 16:16

82ndtrooper

07-11-2007, 16:46

I have another issue for you.

In NC, for purposes of burglary, a house has to be occupied for it to be a home.

It says in the article that he was working on a house he owned. It didn't say he lived there.

I doubt if a contractor who is constructing 100 houses can claim them all as his house, or his any one as his own home if he is still residing elsewhere.

My questions remain:

1. Is a person who has thrown a knife still justifiably considered a deadly threat?

2. Is stealing wire from a construction site a crime that permits the use of lethal force?

3. Since the law is not in effect till 1 Sep, can he still be charged with a crime for shooting an unarmed man or sued for wrongful injury?

I would love to see a full investigation of this and the subsequent report.

TR

I'll play devils advocate a bit.

Not sure I understand NC law regarding your home. Occupied ? What interpretation of occupied is being used ? If your on vacation in Florida and your home is robbed is it not a crime ? I would think that the "occupied" nature of your statment means that the home is actually a residence, be it owners or renters, but not merely occupied at the time of the robbery.

To your fist question I would have to ask if any other deadly weapon were readily available to him. Did he have a second knife, a concealed firearm ? Did the other intruder have any deadly weapons? This is where any laws not similar to "Castle Doctrine" are widely open for personal interpretation. Is it enough to say "I feared for my life?" Personally I would be in fear for my life if two men entered my home. We and I dont know what their intentions are. We cant, until at which time they have acted on those intentions at which time it may be too late to respond with deadly force. The lesser of two evils. Kinda like this....."Were you in fear for your life ?.....Yes, he threw a knife at me and I thought he may have had another deadly weapon" Is this good enough under current law to warrant rightful use of deadly force ?

To your second question I would say no. That is until it escalates into another level. By whom it is escalated could be the key to who stays in jail and who does not. Given current state laws in Texas, I would report it by calling 911, not by trying to intervene with deadly force. There is no duty to retreat, but as you mentioned, this was house under constuction, he apparently owned, as he was doing his own plumbing work. Slippery slope.

To your third question.............I'm not sure. In a perfect world, this man would be able to defend his property and his life with deadly force, however with current laws, it's probable that personal injury would be accepted by the court. However twisted that may seem to you and I.

None of it makes sense to me, but after Semptember 1st, the laws are going to be very clear.

The Reaper

07-11-2007, 17:58

I'll play devils advocate a bit.

Not sure I understand NC law regarding your home. Occupied ? What interpretation of occupied is being used ? If your on vacation in Florida and your home is robbed is it not a crime ? I would think that the "occupied" nature of your statment means that the home is actually a residence, be it owners or renters, but not merely occupied at the time of the robbery.

To your fist question I would have to ask if any other deadly weapon were readily available to him. Did he have a second knife, a concealed firearm ? Did the other intruder have any deadly weapons? This is where any laws not similar to "Castle Doctrine" are widely open for personal interpretation. Is it enough to say "I feared for my life?" Personally I would be in fear for my life if two men entered my home. We and I dont know what their intentions are. We cant, until at which time they have acted on those intentions at which time it may be too late to respond with deadly force. The lesser of two evils. Kinda like this....."Were you in fear for your life ?.....Yes, he threw a knife at me and I thought he may have had another deadly weapon" Is this good enough under current law to warrant rightful use of deadly force ?

To your second question I would say no. That is until it escalates into another level. By whom it is escalated could be the key to who stays in jail and who does not. Given current state laws in Texas, I would report it by calling 911, not by trying to intervene with deadly force. There is no duty to retreat, but as you mentioned, this was house under constuction, he apparently owned, as he was doing his own plumbing work. Slippery slope.

To your third question.............I'm not sure. In a perfect world, this man would be able to defend his property and his life with deadly force, however with current laws, it's probable that personal injury would be accepted by the court. However twisted that may seem to you and I.

None of it makes sense to me, but after Semptember 1st, the laws are going to be very clear.

You missed the point about the law.

A robbery of an occupied dwelling is a burglary, which until not too long ago in NC, was punishable by death.

A robbery of a building site or unoccupied dwelling is just robbery, or simple breaking and entering, not burglary.

The occupants make it a much more serious crime.

The question that I was asking is whether the shooter "occupied" the property, or was just working there before heading home.

TR

Ambush Master

07-11-2007, 18:35

Having recently just taken my CHL Rerfresher Course, that was taught by a Ft Worth PD Sgt, I will relay exactly what he stated in the class:

Some one taking your lawnmower from in front of your house constitutes petty theft and you are justified to brandish and threaten, but not engage in the use of deadly force unless physically threatened.

When someone breaks the plane of a doorway to a premises with the intent of or in the act of stealing, then it is escalated to Burglary and the use of deadly force is justified!!!

As I recall, these guys were stealing copper wire!! Therefore, in Texas, he was cleared HOT!!!

This does not mean, at this time, that you could not be sued in civil court, but criminally you would be in the clear!!

Also as a side note, a couple of years back a law went into effect here, that if you were carrying concealed and someone assumed a "Martial Arts" stance in a threatening manner to you, you are cleared HOT!!!

Remember, this is just Texas that I am referring to.

Later
Martin

frostfire

07-11-2007, 21:45

Some one taking your lawnmower from in front of your house constitutes petty theft and you are justified to brandish and threaten, but not engage in the use of deadly force unless physically threatened.

This stinks:mad: . I can picture a smart a**** juvenile taking a lawnmower or breaking and stealing your car in front of the house. When you point your sidearm and scream "STOP OR I"LL SHOOT!", the little brat will scream back "DO THAT AND YOU'LL GO TO JAIL, OR MY FAMILY WILL SUE. I'M NOT A PHYSICAL THREAT TO YOU. HAHA"
Then what's the next option beside 911, chasing and wrestling him to the ground? But that's dangerous since he could be armed.

sorry for the hijack/vent. I just finished NRA personal protection basics and found out that the law is not necessarily behind you.

Ambush Master

07-11-2007, 22:39

This stinks:mad: . I can picture a smart a**** juvenile taking a lawnmower or breaking and stealing your car in front of the house. When you point your sidearm and scream "STOP OR I"LL SHOOT!", the little brat will scream back "DO THAT AND YOU'LL GO TO JAIL, OR MY FAMILY WILL SUE. I'M NOT A PHYSICAL THREAT TO YOU. HAHA"
Then what's the next option beside 911, chasing and wrestling him to the ground? But that's dangerous since he could be armed.

sorry for the hijack/vent. I just finished NRA personal protection basics and found out that the law is not necessarily behind you.

This boils down to a very basic question when faced with a "non-life threatening encounter"!! Is what you are going to lethally engage someone, worth what is being taken/destroyed (property.....not persons)?!?!

This is something that everyone that carries should/must think about every time they enter the public arena armed!!

The Reaper

07-11-2007, 22:51

As old and fat as I am, I still think I can run down a kid pushing a mower, especially if I put a tear in his eye with a little OC sympathy first.

That is why I always carry less than lethal and a set of flexcuffs with me.

TR

82ndtrooper

07-12-2007, 06:29

You missed the point about the law.

A robbery of an occupied dwelling is a burglary, which until not too long ago in NC, was punishable by death.

A robbery of a building site or unoccupied dwelling is just robbery, or simple breaking and entering, not burglary.

The occupants make it a much more serious crime.

The question that I was asking is whether the shooter "occupied" the property, or was just working there before heading home.

TR

Good question. Does a building construction loan serve as real property? or not ? Since it was not "occupied" as such does it still technically serve as property in the state of Texas ?

Interesting point since here in Kentucky I can be on open property, possibly acres from the dwelling of residence and still be cleared "Hot" if persons are stealing farm equipment out of my barn at possibly half a mile from the residence. Warning shots are often taken on farms here in the state of Kentucky. Whether one would agree that a warning shot is proper or not, they are a proven deterrent to thieves attempting to steal farm equipment here.

Many would theives caught in the act of stealing farm equipment have run for their lives when a shotgun blast is heard nearby.

plato

07-12-2007, 07:33

I have another issue for you.

My questions remain:

1. Is a person who has thrown a knife still justifiably considered a deadly threat?

TR

In Missouri, way back in the 70's legal precedent led judges to rule that throwing a weapon that could kill (knife, hammer, tire iron) was an indication of willingness to kill. The focus was on that, since the assailant still had two hands and the ability to pick up another weapon, rather than the "loss" of the weapon. Additionally, would-be victim had no reason to believe that the assailant had only *one* weapon.
The fact that one weapon had been thrown was akin to one shot having been fired.

I have to believe that would be a very valid argument in all states.

So much of it is on the judge, though. I've seen homeowners "absolved" when it was pretty obvious that the would-be burglars wanted nothing more than to leave after being confronted. Within the same month, a homeowner was found to be guilty of some form of assault because a liberal judge decided that he *provoked* a situation when he went downstairs to investigate a noise rather than "staying upstairs as he should have".

mdb23

07-12-2007, 08:23

In Missouri, way back in the 70's legal precedent led judges to rule that throwing a weapon that could kill (knife, hammer, tire iron) was an indication of willingness to kill. The focus was on that, since the assailant still had two hands and the ability to pick up another weapon, rather than the "loss" of the weapon. Additionally, would-be victim had no reason to believe that the assailant had only *one* weapon.
The fact that one weapon had been thrown was akin to one shot having been fired.

This is not the standard that is currently being taught in MO. Perhaps something has changed since the 70s. Lethal force is authorized when someone poses an immediate threat to the life of another individual. Once the knife is thrown, and the individual is then unarmed, you cannot shoot them after the fact and claim that "they might have picked something else up later."

For example, I once rolled up on a drive by in progress..... one person was killed, and 5 were shot by the occupants of a vehicle. The chase was on, and the rear passenger of the vehicle leaned out with an M4 (with a beta C mag) and lit me up at four different locations during the chase. They ended up wrecking out, at which point they got out, dropped their guns, and were taken into custody. If I had shot one of them after their guns were dropped, I would be typing this from prison. The fact that they shot at me does not give me free reign to shoot them after the threat (the gun, knife, whatever) has been removed from the equation.

Also, we are starting to interchange "robbery" and "burglary" when they are, in fact, two entirely different things. Homes are not robbed, they are burglarized.

A burglary is when an individual illegally enters or remains in a habitable structure for the purposes of committing a crime therein (stealing property, vandalism, etc).

A robbery is the illegal taking of property from an individual through the use of force, the threat of force, or the brandishing of a weapon.

The terms are often used interchangeably by the general public, but it is not a correct usage. Robbery is a separate, and much higher, classification of crime.

Peregrino

07-12-2007, 09:48

Our Texas Democrat is probably going to have problems and personally I think he deserves every last bit of them. As a former LEO, he will have a hard time justifying his use of force (caveat - if the circumstances presented in the story are "complete and correct"). Let's see: 1) Construction sites don't meet the standards for defense of an occupied dwelling, 2) Empty hands don't (normally) constitute an excuse for escalation to lethal force (especially for an LEO trained in the "use of force continuum") , and 3) JFTFOI - Can his defense attorney convince a jury he didn't "shoot to wound" so he wouldn't have to chase them down to effect a "citizen's arrest" (BTW - also a dubious legal concept in today's world). Have I missed anything not already covered elsewhere? Oh, how about - "were the perps illegal aliens?" Wouldn't want to violate their rights. :rolleyes: If this were to happen in NC (which does have a version of the "castle doctrine") he would probably find himself in serious legal jeopardy. IMNSHO he was either stupid, or arrogant (i.e. thought the law didn't/wouldn't apply to him). This ought to be interesting. :munchin Peregrino

ETA: FWIW, I'm not passing judgement on a homeowner shooting a dirtbag; that may be what happened but it's pretty clearly not the issue here. As I see it somebody who made a career of denying citizens the right to defend themselves with deadly force stepped on his crank with golf cleats. It reeks of "the law doesn't apply to me."

plato

07-12-2007, 10:13

For example, I once rolled up on a drive by in progress..... one person was killed, and 5 were shot by the occupants of a vehicle. The chase was on, and the rear passenger of the vehicle leaned out with an M4 (with a beta C mag) and lit me up at four different locations during the chase. They ended up wrecking out, at which point they got out, dropped their guns, and were taken into custody. If I had shot one of them after their guns were dropped, I would be typing this from prison. The fact that they shot at me does not give me free reign to shoot them after the threat (the gun, knife, whatever) has been removed from the equation.

Hostile territory!! You gotta get out to the suburbs. ;)

I worked Kirkwood when Dan Linza was Chief (none better). Ladue and Creve Coeur troops were working out of fully loaded Buicks, and we lost a few of our guys to them. I imagine most of the area has changed, but I'd like to think it hasn't. (Old farts reminisce at the drop of a hat.) :)

And, we're getting to the fine point here, something good for everyone to think about in a lethal force situation. As above, in your example, any sign of surrender or retreat terminates the right to exercise lethal force (with few exceptions). Discarding a handgun certainly qualifies as "I quit". Throwing a knife in the direction of an individual isn't something I would consider discarding. I think I could make a good defense on that one. I know that "continued to move toward", was an important fact to establish right away. That alone held a lot of sway.

If the laws are still somewhat similar, then there's an exception for firing on an individual whose act is so heinous that future occurrences must be prevented, even if that person is unarmed and fleeing (fleeing felon, with realistic interpretation). I don't personally know of anyone who ever fired under those circumstances, because the second-guessing often put cops out of a job and sometimes in a cell. And, I'm a bit cloudy on the offenses/circumstances that qualified, with two sets of laws from two states (and about 30 years of distance). After I left MO and settled in MI, Linza took over a department here and I couldn't *keep* myself from joining the reserves. Cruisers became units, pursuits became chases, and I had to do a quick internal review of things I previously would have done without doubt. :)

And, please straighten out anything I've said above where the lines have been redrawn. As we think through the situation of self-defense here, the process is important, but the facts are *vital*.

jatx

07-12-2007, 10:37

FWIW, I'm not passing judgement on a homeowner shooting a dirtbag; that may be what happened but it's pretty clearly not the issue here. As I see it somebody who made a career of denying citizens the right to defend themselves with deadly force stepped on his crank with golf cleats. It reeks of "the law doesn't apply to me."

Agreed. Also, FWIW, there are situations where I may use deadly force but won't do so. Everyone will come out differently on that equation, but I have a pretty clear understanding of what I could live with and in this situation, given the facts supplied, I would not shoot. I certainly wouldn't shoot to wound (TS would probably IP ban me for hitting someone in the leg. :D )

mdb23

07-12-2007, 12:16

Hostile territory!And, we're getting to the fine point here, something good for everyone to think about in a lethal force situation. As above, in your example, any sign of surrender or retreat terminates the right to exercise lethal force (with few exceptions). Discarding a handgun certainly qualifies as "I quit". Throwing a knife in the direction of an individual isn't something I would consider discarding. I think I could make a good defense on that one. I know that "continued to move toward", was an important fact to establish right away. That alone held a lot of sway.

The point is that the instrument that was the justification for feeling that your life was in immediate danger (knife, gun, etc.) had been removed from the equation.

Look at it this way.......... if you are in a fight, and a dude throws a baseball bat at you, can you pick up the bat and beat him to death with it? Obviously not. If he throws a knife at you, can you pick it up, run over, and stab him to death with it? How far do you think your "well judge, he threw it at me first" defense will go?

It's no different just because you are armed with a handgun.

And there are exemptions for using lethal force on a fleeing individual, but you have to be able to justify that if you didn't shoot the cat then and there, he was going to kill someone or cause serious bodily harm to the general public. I don't think a guy chucking a pocket knife at someone meets that standard......

And the 'burbs aren't for me.:D I like my ghetto.

mdb23

07-12-2007, 13:01

And for the record, I am not against this guy shooting the dirtbag. I am just saying that, given our current laws, he could be in for a long legal battle.

I am one of those cops who thinks that you should be able to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed, who illegally enters your home. No retreating, no second guessing..... bad guy is in your house, he goes down for the dirt nap.

The Reaper

07-12-2007, 13:50

Fiercely Loyal

07-13-2007, 19:02

82ndtrooper

07-13-2007, 19:20

I have tried to put myself in the situation of this person. The only scenario that I have come up with is that the person that threw the knife didn’t show any sign of fear of the weapon that was drawn on him. Personally if a man throws a weapon at me and is still moving toward me with no sign of fear of lethal force being used, I would believe him to be a threat to my life. Therefore could justify lethal force being used to stop him from attacking me.

However I just can’t add up why this man was shot in the leg. The man with the weapon was a former LEO. Not only that, but carried a weapon. With carrying concealed comes responsibility. In the state of Alaska to get a CCW you must attend training and then show you are competent in the use of that weapon before even applying for the permit. It seems to me that the attacker would have gotten a controlled pair in the torso as part of a failure to stop. Does anyone else see a problem with this? I forsee the man that was shot winning a lawsuit for his injuries.

Is it a possibility that the stress of the situation, disregard for use of force, or perhaps poor marksmanship caused this former LEO to shoot him in the leg?

Too many variables to know in this situation. I can tell you that in the last two shootings in my city that involved an law enforcement officer and a bad guy resulted in both bad guy's being shot in the buttocks. :D

While I will not pretend to know the result of induced stress, and the inflow of adrenline during an actual gun fight, I will say that most shootings seem to be less than lethal in this particular jurisdiction with our LEO's.

This is not to say that our LEO's are any less proficient with their sidearms, however one has to wonder how a perp gets shot in the buttocks continuously when reported in the news. Was the perp running after having taken a blind shot with his or her weapon ? or is the LEO just a poor shot and decision maker ? Since I wasn't the one under stress, it's not appropriate for me to make that call.

It's also probable that "point shooting" resulted in the shot placement to the leg rather than a trained two sight picture of the perp which would have resulted in a two COM shot placement. I dont pretend to know that any of my training, how limited or advanced would result in that same scenario.

longrange1947

07-14-2007, 10:09

mdb23

07-14-2007, 13:26

My 2 cents and what little I have had with training LEOs and armed guards, yep armed guards. :D

Taking only from the story line, Peregrino pretty well summed it up. He will lose a lawsuit if he is sued.

21 foot rule applies only to an "armed, knife wielding bad guy", I have taught it and demoed it. The idiot threw the dam knife and is now unarmed and that point is made in several LEO indoctrination films used in the early 90s that I am aware of and had to show. Once thrown, the individual is now unarmed and not a threat. You can thank the liberal punk a**ed judges for these decisions.

He shot him in the leg and I will bet he stated he only shot to wound somewhere in his statements. That in itself shows that he knew deadly force was not needed.

He was on a construction site which does not qualify as a "home defense" defense.

While I could see him shooting, I am worried that the liberal democrats that hate guns will use this very incident to show why the ordinary citizen should not be armed as even a former LEO used a weapon improperly.

Even he will see the folly of his shooting when he should not have and this will only reinforce his stupid views. Losing lawsuits seems to have that effect.

Again my 2 cents and you guys are cleared hot to beat me up. :munchin

I agree 100% with this analysis.

Hell, there was an op that I was on where the suspect was armed with a live grenade (pin pulled) in the middle of a cul de sac. A perimeter had been set, homes evac'ed, etc. The question was raised whether we were cleared hot to shoot this dude in the even that he threw the grenade............

The answer we got was that once he threw the grenade, he would be unarmed and no longer a threat requiring lethal force. No grenade in the hand, no immediate threat.

Now if we were to put a round in him to prevent him from throwing it ( in the case that he was winding up like a baseball pitcher and and eyeballing my position), we were good to go, as at that point he still ahd a lethal weapon in his hands and was in the process of using it.

But if he got it off, and was then standing there unarmed, we weren't to shoot him.

Make sense? Doesn't to me either.

BTW, the situation was resolved with Mr. Bad Guy taking a dirt nap via .308.

echoes

07-14-2007, 15:12

21 foot rule applies only to an "armed, knife wielding bad guy", I have taught it and demoed it. The idiot threw the dam knife and is now unarmed and that point is made in several LEO indoctrination films used in the early 90s that I am aware of and had to show. Once thrown, the individual is now unarmed and not a threat. You can thank the liberal punk a**ed judges for these decisions.

He shot him in the leg and I will bet he stated he only shot to wound somewhere in his statements. That in itself shows that he knew deadly force was not needed.

He was on a construction site which does not qualify as a "home defense" defense.

While I could see him shooting, I am worried that the liberal democrats that hate guns will use this very incident to show why the ordinary citizen should not be armed as even a former LEO used a weapon improperly.

(Disclaimer: I must state my (small) opinion: Whoever you are, you have the right to defend yourself, and property, from harm...my .02) :lifter

Greetings Sir.
I have thought about this since this threads inception, and after reading Your post, I have to ask...
What if it was a female, against the two copper stealing idiots? Would the "law" view this any differently, had a female shot this bozo? I hope I am not hijacking with this question...I am honestly curious.:munchin

CoLawman

07-14-2007, 18:09

I am going to be the dissenting voice here.

I do not believe the shooter is at risk of losing a civil suit. I also believe he was totally justified in shooting the badguy in this instance. I base my opinion on the following facts;

1. The badguys were in the act of committing a felony offense while armed.
2. At least one of the badguys proved that they were willing to assault the owner of the property to avoid capture or interruption of their crime.
3. The shooter did what most people would do by reacting to a chain of events. At the point he felt he was in danger he fired the weapon at the badguy.

He had confronted the burglars while armed. Most people would already be on an adrenalin high at this instance. One of the badguys displays and then throws a knife at him. This aggressive display of violence toward our shooter is all it took for the shooter to feel he was in danger. He took the shot at that moment he felt his life was in danger. We have to also recognize that the shooter is quite cognizant of being outnumbered.

Psychologically he did not have time to process the information "he is now disarmed" after his internal siren began screaming "WE ARE IN DEEP SH**" Which was activated the moment he recognized the knife as a threat and further reinforced when the badguy launched it at him.

A person will react to the intent of the badguy, which in this case was clear. The badguy showed what he was capable of as soon as he displayed the knife.

The culpability of the badguy did not change the moment he threw the knife! It only solidified his culpability. I assume there were other weapons available to the badguy that would allow him to continue his assault, but the bullet was the only thing that insured badguys intent was no longer a threat.

I would also point to the fact that the badguy chose to attack a man armed with a gun. A very desperate act that shows the length this individual would go to avoid capture.

And to offer my answer to the question,... what if the shooter was a female? We would not even be discussing this. Women and children get an automatic pass.

Heck, 20 years ago we would not be having this conversation. Most if not all states had the fleeing felon statute which allowed for the use of deadly force against a person fleeing the scene of a felony. We have come along way, but I fear we will continue to allow our laws to benefit the badguy.

longrange1947

07-14-2007, 18:46

Let me state that, unequivocally, I believe that the man had the right to shoot and probably will end up not being charged with squat. He should have killed though and not wounded. If you are going to use deadly force then make it deadly.

HOWEVER. That said. In a court of liberal, sue crazy idiots, he will lose the case for the reasons that I have stated, and it will be the fault of his own liberal a**ed beliefs. Reason, he promotes, and the medias backs, as a fact, that no property is worth a life. That was my point, laws have changed due to individuals of his ilk and now he will reap the benefits of his stupidity.

Heck, I grew up with the laws being that looters, during periods of natural disaster, were shot on sight. That fleeing felons were shot as a matter of course and that criminals were put in jail FOR punishment not AS punishment. That your property was yours and you have the right to defend it as is necessary to keep what you have earned and not to give it away to some punk that feels it is his right to take it. Any man OR woman should have that right. Asking what if it were a woman is moot in my mind as both have the right to defend in whatever manner is required.

Again, my 2 cents, you are again cleared hot. :D

echoes

07-14-2007, 19:19

appologies.

echoes

07-14-2007, 19:20

And to offer my answer to the question,... what if the shooter was a female? We would not even be discussing this. Women and children get an automatic pass.

Heck, 20 years ago we would not be having this conversation.

I can see the irony as well sir...I believe man or woman, are justified!:)

Any man OR woman should have that right. Asking what if it were a woman is moot in my mind as both have the right to defend in whatever manner is required.
Again, my 2 cents, you are again cleared hot. :D

Sir,

Agreed. Laws should be written so that there is no difference, to defend life & property. :lifter

60_Driver

07-22-2007, 02:36

While it's already been alluded to, the use of deadly force was completely justified under Texas law, which has a broad justification for deadly force used during the night:

§ 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.

And Section 83.001 has always made it an affirmative defense to civil liability for death or injury caused by the use of legally justified deadly force.

While in some other states he'd be pulling the Leroy train three times a day, in Texas it was a good shoot and he probably won't have to worry about civil liability, either.

Too bad, in this specific instance. This guy should feel some of the pain he voted for others to feel....