Aim at head or chest?

[Loosedhorse]

the law was not intended to give a resident a license to shoot someone who was not attacking him.

I agree that that is generally the case, and ethically it is a always great rule to follow IMHO.

However, if one looks over the lethal force codes of TX (perhaps unique), I certainly come away with the impression that violent attack against a person is NOT meant to be a legal requirement for the use of deadly force; that is, in TX, you could actually say to a jury (under some circumstances) "No, I was not in fear for my life or the lives of others. And I shot him."--and you'd be acquitted of any wrong.

"6 times proved to be insufficient, and 8 would have been excessive."

Clint Smith puts it: "Because I shot him six times and he didn't stop doing what I started shooting him for."

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Loosedhorse: However, if one looks over the lethal force codes of TX (perhaps unique), I certainly come away with the impression that violent attack against a person is NOT meant to be a legal requirement for the use of deadly force; that is, in TX, you could actually say to a jury (under some circumstances) "No, I was not in fear for my life or the lives of others. And I shot him."--and you'd be acquitted of any wrong.

I was about to close the thread after 100 posts and after not having heard from the OP in almost three weeks, but that excellent comment deserves discussion.

You are correct in saying that a violent attack need not actually occur for deadly force to be justified, indoors or out, in Texas or anywhere else.

However, simply contending that one was in fear for his life or the lives of others won't cut it. The actor must provide at least some evidence on each of the following elements of a self defense case:

1. He or she had reasonable grounds to believe he or she, or a third person, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
2. He or she actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger.
3. The danger was such that he or she could only save himself or herself or a third person by the use of deadly force.
4. He or she used no more force than was necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person.

In the case of a home invasion, the fact of an unlawful entry will go a long way toward meeting that requirement, and in many states, that aspect is either codified or covered in case law. That does not, however, give a defender the right to put to death an intruder for having entered--it's still a self defense case. Should other evidence, forensic or testimonial, contraindicate the actor's account, his or her defense of justification would be seriously compromised.

One last thing: a layman's reading of the code is not something on which to bet one's life. Reading a single statute in isolation cannot provide a full understanding of the tapestry of related laws, and the case law--rulings by higher courts that establish legal precedent--is at least as important as the code.

 

[mes228]

Chest

I have not read this thread in it's entirety so this may have been covered in earlier post. Has anyone watched the interview with the Chicago Police man that has survived 18 gun fights? He has survived all those by shooting them in the head. He said in the interview he was not very accurate. He only practiced at very close range at 5" pie plates. He recommended the largest caliber available.

He also stated that in every fight he ended up shooting with one hand. As he was always pushing something out of the way, or going for cover or hiding. Very congenial, nice man. Seemed about as far from a "gun fighter" as could be imagined. Asked if he felt badly about all the fights. He spoke of having thought about those things in the Academy and concluded he would think on how many he saved trouble, if he had to take a bad mans life. All this is from memory and paraphrased, so don't take it as exactly whats in the interview.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mes228: I have not read this thread in it's entirety so this may have been covered in earlier post.

Nor did you read the original question very carefully.

If you had read Posts 80, 82, 85, or 99, you would know that you were not answering the question.

Of course, in fairness, this thread had been running for over two weeks with a discussion of the question that was not asked, which was where to aim if shooting were to become necessary, with some very good comments on that subject.

Lest anyone put too much stock in the anecdotal comments of a Chicago policeman, most of those comments were consistent with what all competent instructors say on that subject: shoot for the largest target that is presented, and if it is possible, high on the centerline of the chest.

People who choose to jump in without taking the time to find out what the discussion is about or without knowing what has already been covered often cause these threads to go in circles, and that's one of the main things that get them closed.