"Hand over the money or I will kill you!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was a case in Texas where a CHL holder shot and killed a guy who was hitting him with fists. He was acquitted. The guy was bigger than him and pinned against his door and was hitting him.

If he is unarmed, you would probably be advised to try to back off or warn him before shooting. At least it would be easier to explain later. If he is too close to do those things, he is probably close enough to hit you anyway.
 
My take on this is thus: if a bad guy pulls a gun on me in such a way as to present immediate danger to my life or to cause grave harm, then I would probably shoot, reluctantly. If a bad guy pulls a knife and is a reasonable distance away from me, I would probably attempt to warn him away by drawing and telling him to leave.

In the case of a bad guy drawing a gun, the options are much more limited, due to the immediacy of the threat. I have no way of knowing if the bad guy only wants my money, or if he wants my money and my life. Once a bad guy has made it clear that he is willing to do grave harm to me or kill me, and has the ability to do so immediatly, all bets are off. I hope I never have to be armed in a situation that demands the use of lethal force, but if I am, I want to survive. That's about it, for me.
 
The good thing about living in a "stand your ground" state is that you have no legal obligation to retreat no matter where the criminal act occurs. In my state, once the robber showed a weapon, indicated he had a weapon, or was committing a forcible felony as defined by law you could legally drop him where he stood and call the police to come cart his body away.
 
The use of deadly force in self defense, as others have said, is when you fear immiment danger for your life, the life of another innocent person or of serious bodily harm to yourself or others.

The statement posed by the OP is not 'really' and 'either/or' proposition with a reputable and trustworthy individual. It's not like you can hold the person to his word! I interpret it as a threat - a legitimate one if the person clearly has the means to carry it out.

First - does the person has the means to carry it out (eg weapon, circumstances, etc.)?

Second - does your compliance take away that persons' ability to take your life? Probably not.

I would interpret the statement to mean "Hand over your money or I will kill you, and if you had over your money I will then decide whether to kill you."

Once you comply, you have no guarantee of not being killed at it is still at the whim of the robber.

My response is circumstantial - but in most situations I would comply but I would strike in self defense or flee (whichever was safest and most likely to result in success without endangering others) at the first opportunity.

There are some situations where it is clear you are going down a path of certain doom (eg being led into the cooler at McDonalds and told to get on your knees and face the wall) and in which case you have nothing to lose but to try to overcome the attackers.
 
Thorsen said:
you could legally drop him

And I agree. No aggressor should have the right to hurt you, cast fear into your view of the world or make you question your values. In a perfect world, they would run, fear us, or just die. A real world Kobayashi Maru Test.

I think this is the problem with my self-worth. I am not a trained soldier, nor am I a student of philosophy on the human condition. If attacked as I live my life I should be able to "do the right thing," and then move on. If the agressor dies or is maimed it should be a realization of his actions, not an editorial on mine.

The bone of contention for me is my actions during a crisis. I should be allowed to slice my way to freedom and safety, and not look back. However, I think we all know that I probably cannot.

That is the real crime in this. An aggressor steals that from me, more so than money. From the moment he hits the floor I will be forever known in smirks of life as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. It wouldn't matter that I may be a Christian or a husband or just a business owner.

The aggressor's actions will make me question my own responses. I think this is driving impetus for my beliefs and anger.
 
In the UK one would have the legal power to arrest the would be robber for the offence of robbery (because he just issued threats to obtain your property) and you can then use force to over power him should he resist.

THere is no duty to retreat or to hand over the property.

If by his initial threats and resistance to being arrested he make you fear for your life you may use lethal force.

Which is why people think that the UK's strict weapons laws are designed to encourage bad behaviour.

Morally speaking there is no duty to hand over your property just to avoid violence. He is in the wrong not you.
 
There was a case in Texas where a CHL holder shot and killed a guy who was hitting him with fists. He was acquitted. The guy was bigger than him and pinned against his door and was hitting him.

As I recall, the shooter was an older man (50-60s) and the attacker was a mid-20s bodybuilder of pretty good size who pulled the man partway through the window of his pickup truck (with his seatbelt on!) during a road rage incident. He had trapped the man's head between the frame of the truck and was hammering it with his fists when the man grabbed a pistol from his console and shot him.

According to the version I heard, the attacker's comment was "You did not have to shoot me." and he stumbled a ways off before expiring.

So it wasn't just that the guy was bigger. It was a sum of all the facts AND the fact that the shooter was able to articulate these facts well to the grand jury.
 
The original question was "who is right, legally speaking?" We've drifted a LOOONNNNNGGGGG way from that question.

You *must* know the deadly force laws in your own state. www.handgunlaw.us is a great place to start. Your state's own website probably has a link to state statutes.

Now, that said, once someone has you at knifepoint or gunpoint, you have already lost. (SM, where are you???? Paging SM.....) You need to keep yourself out of those situations. My oldest son was telling me of one of his friends' experience of being carjacked several years ago down here...at 2 a.m. getting gas, with the window down.... Were this S&T we could (any of us) dissect what he did that got him into the position of being "carjackable". But that's an S&T discussion, not a legal one.

Springmom
 


This occured in January 1996 right after Texas' CHL went into effect.

MechAg94 said:
There was a case in Texas where a CHL holder shot and killed a guy who was hitting him with fists. He was acquitted. The guy was bigger than him and pinned against his door and was hitting him.

and

Licensed owner of concealed gun cleared in death


Dallas panel nobills driver who shot another in argument


By JIM SCHUTZE
Copyright 1996 Houston Chronicle Dallas Bureau


DALLAS -- A grand jury voted Wednesday not to indict the first
Texan to shoot and kill someone with his licensed concealed
handgun.


The Dallas County grand jury ruled that Gordon Hale III, 42, of
suburban Grand Prairie committed no crime Feb. 21 when he shot and
killed Kenny Tavai, 33, an unarmed delivery truck driver during an
argument in heavy freeway traffic. It was the first fatal shooting
under the state's new law that allows ordinary citizens to become
licensed to carry a concealed handgun.


Within hours of Wednesday's decision, the principal legislative
architect of the so-called right-to-carry legislation had fired
off an angry press release castigating critics who had used the
Tavai killing to attack the new law.


"I am disgusted ... by the initial reaction to this incident by
opponents of the concealed handgun law," said state Sen. Jerry
Patterson, R-Pasadena. In his written statement, Patterson
specifically accused state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, of having
used the Tavai killing as a vehicle for his opposition to the gun
law.


"The `I told you so' crowd was wrong once again," Patterson said.
"Their ignorance of the laws of deadly force is apparent."


Ellis fired back with his own emotional written statement.


"I care about this issue because gun violence is a serious threat
to the safety of the people of Texas," he said in part.


"I am worried about the safety of my 8-year-old daughter, Nicole.
In 1994, approximately 1,500 Texans were killed as a result of gun
violence, and I simply do not believe that more guns on the
streets will make my daughter safer," Ellis said.


Members of the victim's family could not be reached for comment.
Tavai's relatives were angry over the shooting when it happened
and told reporters at the time that they believed Dallas police did
the right thing by bringing homicide charges against Hale.


Police arrested Hale after the shooting because they believed the
altercation between Hale and Tavai had not justified the use of
deadly force. A spokesman said Dallas Police Chief Ben Click would
have no comment on the grand jury finding Wednesday.


The shooting of Tavai, following an incident in which the rear-view
mirrors of vehicles driven by the two men clicked together in
tight traffic, drew immediate national attention.


Hale, who works for a welding supply company, obtained one of the
new concealed weapon permits because his job requires him to drive
a truck carrying expensive equipment all over the Dallas area,
according to his lawyer, Vincent W. Perini.


The incident occurred when trucks driven by the two men tapped
lightly against each other in traffic on a crowded freeway in west
Dallas. According to witnesses, Tavai left his own delivery vehicle
and confronted Hale in his pickup. Tavai hit Hale one to three
times in the face and shoulder, police said. Hale lifted a
.40-caliber handgun from beneath a coat on the front seat of his
pickup and shot Tavai once in the chest. Tavai died three hours
later.


Hale's lawyer said Wednesday that the grand jury had taken special
pains to examine all of the evidence and listen to all of the
witnesses, going beyond normal grand jury practice.


"From my observation, the grand jury proceeded in the knowledge
that this case was being watched and was receiving a lot of
publicity, and so the grand jury and the district attorney took
pains to do a good job," Perini said. He said the grand jury
interviewed all of the witnesses who had seen the shooting happen
in traffic.


Grand jury rules do not allow lawyers to argue in person before the
grand jury, but Perini did send in a lengthy written argument --
acceptable practice in Dallas County. Perini included a statement
from a forensic pathologist concerning the severe injury that can
result from fist blows to the face. He said he also pointed out
that Texas law on deadly force permits the use of deadly force to
prevent serious bodily injury short of fatal injury.


"Hale was blocked in traffic on all sides," Perini said. "He had
dropped back and was writing down Tavai's plates and his courtesy
number, where you're supposed to call to report bad driving."


Perini said Tavai approached Hale, who was sitting behind the wheel
of his pickup, and told him not to call the police or the courtesy
number, then grabbed Hale by the front of his shirt and pulled him
toward the open window while hitting him in the face.


"You can shoot to prevent serious bodily injury," Perini said. "You
shouldn't have to decide, `Well, he's going to break my nose,
knock my jaw out and detach my retina, but I don't think he'll kill
me.' And you don't."


Hale declined to comment after the grand jury finding, but his
father, Gordon Hale Jr., said he was overjoyed.


"We're elated," he said, speaking from his son's home. "I have
always been a person who thought a man had a right to defend
himself. My son was attacked illegally, and he acted to defend
himself. He did the right thing."


The father said his son and his entire family were sorry that
someone had to lose his life.


"A person is dead," he said, "and that's always too bad."




 
Here in Texas if he is obviously armed and threatens you in the previously stated manner you will be completely justified in using deadly force. You have a duty to retreat when you can this situation does not allow for it.
 
Wrong. There is no such thing as a "duty to retreat" in Texas.

"(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." http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.HTM

Here, you can find a link to a PDF of the handy little pamphlet that the DPS gives you with your CHL application:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/relatedlaws.htm

When you read this stuff, be sure to look at the amendments, too. Things change.
 


ashtxsniper said:
...You have a duty to retreat when you can this situation does not allow for it.

That "duty" ended on September 1, 2007. If you are where you are legally allowed to be, conducting yourself in a lawful manner, there is no duty to retreat.

From TxPC 9.31 Self-Defense, which is the actual law....

(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.

Prudence doesn't always give you time to retreat. Sometimes life saving decisions must be made in a fraction of a second.

 
I would think the deciding factor would be some proof that your life was actually in danger. For instance, some gangbanger says give me your money or I kill you in the mall parking lot, and you shoot them, and they are unarmed, and there were no witnessess, now what? You say, he threatened my life? How do you prove that? It's your word against a dead body with no visible evidence that you were actually threatened.

Obviously the situation would change if there was any collaborating evidence such as the presence of a weapon on the perp, or the perp's presence in a location where they had no reason to be in such as your home or vehicle.

I don't know, I think the verbal threat, in a public area, constitutes reason to present the weapon and prepare to shoot, but it would be hard to prove justification for the shooting with no other evidence available at all.
 
If someone threatens my life, he'd better have a weapon.

If he does, I'm going to defend myself. If he doesn't, I'm still going to defend myself.
 
The castle doctrine concerns real property. You still have a duty to retreat (If you safely can do so without being harmed) on public property unless you are defending a third person or a third person is in danger. I just took 200 hrs of Texas penal code taught by several LEO's at my LE academy. Believe what you want but this is what I am being taught. It wont apply to me in a few months though since a Texas peace officer does not have a duty to retreat.
 
Can you then explain this section of the Texas code?

Section 9.31, Penal Code,

(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.

<snip>

(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.

The way I read this is if I am at work, home, or in my car I do not have a duty to retreat.
If the actor is attempting to rob, rape, kidnap or murder me, I do not have a duty to retreat.
 


divemedic said:
The way I read this is if I am at work, home, or in my car I do not have a duty to retreat. If the actor is attempting to rob, rape, kidnap or murder me, I do not have a duty to retreat.

There's nothing to explain. Under the conditions listed, you have no duty to retreat..
 
Could an instructor possibly be wrong? Noooooo, that's never /I] happened before!

Three different people have quoted the pertinent section of the Texas Penal code. It clearly states that "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." [emphasis mine.] Doesn't say anything about real property. If you are anywhere, home, work car, even on a downtown street wiating for the bus you have no "duty to retreat." Period. To say otherwise is B.S.
 
Hey I'm not trying to start a war with you guys chill the heck out. I agree with what you have posted I just stated what I was told. If you shoot some guy "50 yds away in a Wal-Mart parking lot" that is yelling he is going to kill you then you most likely will get burned by a jury if you didn't make an attempt to leave. If you do not make an attempt to leave when it is reasonable it can be considered escalating the situation. I see what you guys are saying and I understand they law but in some situations if you don't make an attempt to leave it wont end up good in a court of law. It all boils down to using common sense before the weapon is drawn. Use common sense and you wont have any legal repercussions.
 
Well, someone who is 50 yards away is not much of a threat to you unless he has a rifle or is a really good pistol shot. The self-defense statutes would hardly apply then, would they?

I see what you're saying about common sense, though. In most situations, I'd try to get away if I could.

As I like to say, there's legal, and then there's prudent.
 
Thats a very good way to put it. I like that "there's legal and there's prudent". If you are inside 30' or so it kinda falls under the 21' rule (since running turns your back to the person) so it is not wise to run and would be prudent to stand your ground. Me I personally don't want to run I feel like they deserve whats coming to them. Kinda like John Wayne in the shootist when he gets held up "I don't have any gold but I have plenty of lead".
 
It all boils down to using common sense before the weapon is drawn. Use common sense and you wont have any legal repercussions.

Very true. Sadly, "common sense" has become an oxymoron.... :(

Springmom
 


ashtxsniper said:
Hey I'm not trying to start a war with you guys chill the heck out. I agree with what you have posted I just stated what I was told. If you shoot some guy "50 yds away in a Wal-Mart parking lot" that is yelling he is going to kill you then you most likely will get burned by a jury if you didn't make an attempt to leave. If you do not make an attempt to leave when it is reasonable it can be considered escalating the situation.

Lacking a weapon and an actual threat, not a verbal one, your arse is grass and the DA is the lawn mower. Under the above scenario, even I'd vote "GUILTY."

 
I'm surprised that it took til halfway down the second page before anyone even mentioned the three words (or similar enough) Ability, Opportunity, Jeapordy. It bears repeating.

There are three components necessary for a justified shooting. If any of these three are lacking, the shooting is at best questionable, and in most places will get you arrested and charged, and likely convicted.

Ability - a skinny 12 year old with no weapon does not pose a credible thread because he has no ability to hurt you (though you should watch to be sure he does not produce a concealed weapon)

Opportunity - A seven foot bodybuilder with a machete, standing on the other side of a river, does not have the opportunity to do you harm. If he crosses a bridge and gets near you, now he has the opportunity to do you harm.

Jeapordy - Your muscular friend standing next to you with a baseball bat has both the ability and the opportunity to kill or greviously injure you. However, as he is your friend, you are in no jeapordy and cannot be justified in shooting him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top