You have the RIGHT...

[jmorris]

This fellow would have been toast in many jurisdictions.

…
"Don't go outside," the dispatcher warned.

Self-Defense?Horn says he came out his front door, down his porch and confronted the two burglars. The next sounds heard on the 911 tape are Horn ordering the two men to stop & and then shooting them both.

"Move you're dead," he said, and fired his shotgun three times.

"Both suspects were shot in the back," Pasadena Police Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett said. "Not at the same angle, but both suspects were hit in the back."

Horn fatally shot the burglars, two illegal immigrants from Colombia named Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus….

He never even went to trial.

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.

I wouldn’t suggest one try the same, lots of decisions that make me shake my head.

https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1

Probably not the reason the State registered “Don't mess with Texas®“ as a trademark though…

 

[Kleanbore]

This fellow would have been toast in many jurisdictions.

But he went trough the wringer, and really, really wished he had been smarter.

 

[jmorris]

There is no doubt that there will be costs involved beyond not going to prison.

That said, Texas does give individuals more latitude than other States. The DA’s in the liberal jurisdictions have even voiced opposition to the “Castle law” because it limits their ability to go after people that don’t allow lawlessness.

"There's too many imponderables in this law, whereas the previous law was working just fine," said Warren Diepraam, the Harris County Assistant District Attorney. "Frankly, life is precious."

https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1 Same article as above.

I think most in Texas think “life is precious” too. The disconnect seems to be, does lawlessness help more or less to forward the cause.

 

[old lady new shooter]

In TX deadly force is justified to PREVENT the imminent commission of arson.

As always, legal deadly force is about prevention, which means that it is to STOP someone from committing or continuing the commission of a serious crime.

Once they have stopped, the justification disappears since deadly force can't legally be used to punish or to take revenge.

In places where arson qualifies as justification for the use of deadly force, it would be legal to use deadly force to stop someone from committing arson, but if they were still alive after they had been stopped, and someone "made sure they were dead" at that point, they would be committing murder.

You have to watch them after you shoot them, more often than you might think they get up again. Awhile back I posted in another thread here a video from a terrorist attack in Israel where the terrorist was shot at close range, went down, and then got back up again, and this sequence repeated two more times. If anyone here missed it, I'll be glad to post it again.

 

[JohnKSa]

Right.

"In places where arson qualifies as justification for the use of deadly force, it would be legal to use deadly force to stop someone from committing arson, but if they were still alive after they had been stopped, and someone "made sure they were dead" at that point, they would be committing murder."

"After they have been stopped" means that they have actually been stopped and therefore no justification for deadly force exists at that point. If they continue trying to set the building on fire, then, assuming they still pose a credible threat, they obviously haven't been stopped, the conditional statement in the sentence above doesn't apply and the justification is still there.

One caution--it's important to understand that the simple fact that they get back up doesn't, in and of itself, provide justification. They must resume attempting the crime and must also pose a credible threat.

 

[toivo]

Even "back in the day" that behavior was for fools. Locks date back around 6,000 years with maybe our oldest example being a 4,000 year old lock discovered in the ruins of Nineveh in ancient Assyria. "Leave it to Beaver" and "Andy Griffith" fantasies notwithstanding, in the actual real world this has been the case at least as long as fully modern humans have inhabited the world.

+1. At no time and in no place were we ever completely safe from crime. I lived in Tokyo for a while, which is supposed to be a virtually crime-free city -- at least in terms of street crime, mugging, burglary, etc. Another American I knew there had just relocated from NYC, and he latched onto the idea that in Tokyo it was safe to leave his apartment door unlocked whenever he went out. Well, it took about three months, but eventually he got burgled. Granted it might have taken three days in NY, but the point remains that if you take enough stupid chances, you'll win the stupid prize eventually.

 

[jmorris]

One caution--it's important to understand that the simple fact that they get back up doesn't, in and of itself, provide justification. They must resume attempting the crime and must also pose a credible threat.

Sometimes.

…maintaining that activity level until the threat was obviously over.

If there had been only one attacker, or if he could have easily seen both attackers at once, I might feel different about him putting more rounds into the guy on the ground, but as it was, it looks pretty good to me.

 

[JohnKSa]

No, always.

If the threat is over, then the justification for deadly force is over. If the defender can tell that the person is no longer attempting to continue or commit the crime then there's no justification for shooting. That's true whether the guy gets up or stays on the ground.

Rather than focusing on whether the person is on the ground or not the defender should focus on whether or not the person is still attempting to commit or continue committing the crime that provides justification AND that their attempts pose a credible threat of actually being able to carry through. If either of those things isn't true then there's no justification. If both of those are true then there is justification.

In the case of arson, which was the topic I was addressing, it is possible that the person could fall to the ground and still commit the crime if they were within reach of the structure or had some kind of device they could throw to set the building on fire. It should be noted that nowhere in the post that I initially made about arson did I say anything about anyone being on the ground or not, it was only about stopping the threat. That's the main issue.

In the specific case you are referring to where you quoted me, the attacker on the ground had a firearm which means that his being on the ground was essentially meaningless in terms of whether he could pose a threat or not. A person with a gun doesn't automatically stop being a threat simply because they fall to the ground. If the defender reasonably believes they are still a threat or are continuing a crime that justifies deadly force then deadly force is still justified.

In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances.

There are two points to take away:

1. Legal deadly force is about prevention, not punishment or revenge.

2. Regardless of the specific details of the case, (on the ground, standing, arson, armed robbery, shooting, whatever) the thing that makes the difference as to whether deadly force is justified or not is whether the defender reasonably believes that a crime is currently in progress or imminently going to be committed. If the defender reasonably believes the crime is over or there's no danger that it will be committed imminently then there's no justification for deadly force.

 

[jmorris]

This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances.

If it’s “always” how can we have circumstances where it’s Ok to shoot people more than necessary?

 

[JohnKSa]

Keep in mind what started this particular "sub-discussion". It was stated that if someone is caught committing arson they should be shot and then the defender should "make sure they were dead".

There are two points to take away:

1. Legal deadly force is about prevention, not punishment or revenge.

2. Regardless of the specific details of the case, (on the ground, standing, arson, armed robbery, shooting, whatever) the thing that makes the difference as to whether deadly force is justified or not is whether the defender reasonably believes that a crime is currently in progress or imminently going to be committed. If the defender reasonably believes the crime is over or there's no danger that it will be committed imminently then there's no justification for continuing to use deadly force.

If the defender reasonably believes the person poses an actual threat of committing or continuing to commit a crime that justifies the use of deadly force then they are justified in shooting. If, operating under that reasonable belief, the defender ends up shooting more than was absolutely necessary (in hindsight), that's usually not going to be a problem. Of course, it might raise questions and then the defender would have to be able to articulate why they continued to shoot.

That's a very different situation from what started this "sub-discussion". If a reasonable defender believes, or should believe the threat is over but "makes sure the attacker is dead" then that is a real problem. As in, it is committing murder.

 

[jmorris]

If the defender reasonably believes the crime is over or there's no danger that it will be committed imminently then there's no justification for continuing to use deadly force.

That gives a bit more wiggle room.

 

[JohnKSa]

1. It doesn't give any more "wiggle room", it's exactly the same thing I've been saying all along.

2. It's not about wiggle room. You don't keep shooting because you think you can get away with it. You keep shooting because you reasonably believe there's no alternative. It's not about how much the law will LET you shoot, it's about the law giving you protection in situations where you MUST shoot. Specifically in this case, it's not whether you can get away with taking revenge, or punishing the person or whether they deserve punishment--punishment and revenge are not legal grounds for use of deadly force.

 

[Kleanbore]

If it’s “always” how can we have circumstances where it’s Ok to shoot people more than necessary?

Not sure what you mean.

A defender may have to shoot an attacker several times rapidly to avoid death or injury. While it may be judged via forensic analysis after the fact that one fewer shot may have sufficed, the defender would have had no way of knowing that he had fired "more than necessary".

On the other hand , if the defender shoots after the attacker has stopped, fled, or fallen (and is not still holding a firearm), it is not "OK".

A time interval between the last two shots fired has resulted in a number of criminal convictions that have been discussed here.

 

[theotherwaldo]

If a perpetrator is still attempting to perform a lethal act then lethal force may be warranted.
Otherwise, lethal force is likely to constitute a criminal act.
Simple, yes?

 

[jmorris]

You keep shooting because you reasonably believe there's no alternative.

Belief in something doesn’t make it fact. Lots of people believe things that are not true or factual. So if we are simply counting on what someone believes there is room there for things that are not factual or even happened.

 

[Kleanbore]

Belief in something doesn’t make it fact. Lots of people believe things that are not true or factual.

The term was "reasonably be/ieve". If the jurors, knowing what the actor knew at the time, would have done the same thing under similar circumstance, the belief is adjudged to be reasonable. The belief need not be be factual or correct.

 

[JohnKSa]

If a perpetrator is still attempting to perform a lethal act then lethal force may be warranted.
Otherwise, lethal force is likely to constitute a criminal act.
Simple, yes?

Yes.

Using deadly force is a crime--or more accurately, it will be one of a number of different crimes depending on the situation (murder, attempted murder, etc.).

The exception to that rule is when the use of deadly force is justified by law in order to prevent the imminent commission or to stop the continuation of certain very serious crimes and the person using the deadly force reasonably believes it is immediately necessary and is the only reasonable alternative to prevent/stop the crime.

It's not justified to punish.
It's not justified to take revenge.
It's not intended to be a means for private citizens to perform law-enforcement functions.
It is not intended to be a means of reducing the number of criminals.

Belief in something doesn’t make it fact.

The standard is "reasonable belief", not just "belief", and certainly not "fact". The defender might reasonably believe something to be true that later turns out to be incorrect. The law doesn't require that a defender knows everything that is happening with 100% accuracy, rather it only requires that a defender believes something to be true and that their belief is reasonable.

Some examples:

A person might believe that they need to shoot someone because that person is actually a space alien in disguise and is thinking about abducting them to a spaceship to be probed. That belief would not be considered to be reasonable and so their use of deadly force would not be justified.

A person might believe that an attacker is pointing a gun at them during a robbery and use deadly force, only to later find that it was not a gun at all, but simply a piece of wood shaped like a gun. Assuming they could not carefully examine the piece of wood during the robbery to determine it wasn't really a firearm, their belief that it was actually a gun would be considered to be reasonable.

A person might believe that a person posed a deadly threat to them because the person threatened to kill them with a baseball bat. If the person doing the threatening is confined to a wheelchair and the defender is able bodied and easily able to stay well out of contact distance, then their belief would not be considered to be reasonable and the use of deadly force would not be justified.

A defender might believe that an attacker who falls to the ground but still has a firearm and is still moving poses a deadly threat and therefore keep shooting. Later analysis might show that the attacker's movement was reflexive due to the injuries sustained and that the attacker was really harmless after falling to the ground. But the defender didn't have the benefit of such analysis or medical training so their belief that they needed to keep shooting would likely be considered reasonable.

Details really matter when it comes to the law. The difference, for example, between theft and robbery is often not something that people even think about, but it is critical from a legal standpoint. Simple theft is almost never justification for use of deadly force, but robbery often is.

Same with "reasonable belief" vs. "belief" vs. "fact". The difference from a legal standpoint is huge.

 

[DeepSouth]

I was told as a kid by my dad & grandad, “A liar will steal and a thief will kill.”

I guess I assume someone caught stealing (in the act) may very well be willing to shoot me to get away. Personally if can avoid a confrontation I will, with rare exceptions… better leave my grandmothers lamp alone and my great great great grandfathers double barrel maybe a few other things, but for the most part material things just aren’t important.

 

[21H40]

If a perpetrator is still attempting to perform a lethal act then lethal force may be warranted.
Otherwise, lethal force is likely to constitute a criminal act.
Simple, yes?

This even applies during war. Once they surrendered or were incapacitated we had to stop violent actions towards them. Sometimes it seemed like an extra round for "justice" would have been a better idea, but we didn't.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Seems to be the usual grandstanding horse pucky scattered in this thread.

Here's a clue:

Get a grip on your emotions on this subject and focus on what's REALLY important. We post threads like this and engage in conversation about such events because this is the time to discuss the how's, the why's, the why-not's, etc. It's where we break things down and evaluate them with a critical eye so that we can learn what does and does not work, both for survival of life and in the court.


When you find yourself saying "I'm tired of people (fill in the blank)...", maybe that's the time you need to step back, take a breath, and reapproach this from a different angle.

When you're trying to convince yourself that "no jury in the world...", maybe the path you're thinking about ain't gonna be the most pleasant one to walk and you ought to re-evaluate things in a different light.

Homicide (the killing of another human being) is deemed to be of such a serious nature that ANY homicide will be scrutinized very closely. And the people doing that scrutinizing are going to be the ones deciding whether or not the homicide was justified, manslaughter, murder, etc. And they're going to nitpick the bejeebers out of every detail, too.

If you're counting on everything being clear cut...I submit that only the tiniest of fractions of deadly force encounters are so well documented in incontrovertible ways that the outcome is going to be rock solid on the "defense" side. The odds are so far against you on this that it's laughable to ever expect it to be reality.


KNOW THE LAW.

By that, I mean what the jurisdictional statutes ACTUALLY say and then UNDERSTAND what they mean in legal terms. No hearsay. No assuming. No excuses.

FOLLOW BOTH THE LETTER AND THE INTENT OF THE LAW.

This means understanding your limitations under the law and not exceeding them. "Following the law" does not mean "look for reasons to use deadly force". It means understanding when you MAY use deadly force IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT IT...and no more. You're not a predator like a wolf, looking for prey: you're a guard dog who defends when necessary. There's a difference.


Anger, frustration, bull-headedness, etc. are all emotions and attitudes that will NOT serve you well if you let them govern you with respect to the use of deadly force.

 

[AlexanderA]

The incident in the OP -- where armed criminals got the drop on the innocent party -- highlights what I've been saying, which is that guns are a "zero sum game." That is, while it's important for you to be armed, it's just as important for your opponent not to be armed. If everybody -- law-abiding and lawbreakers alike -- is going around with a gun, your competitive advantage (as an upstanding member of the community) disappears. The obvious conclusion is that we have to make it much more difficult for criminals to get guns. They seem to have no problem getting them today.

 

[Jeff White]

The incident in the OP -- where armed criminals got the drop on the innocent party -- highlights what I've been saying, which is that guns are a "zero sum game." That is, while it's important for you to be armed, it's just as important for your opponent not to be armed. If everybody -- law-abiding and lawbreakers alike -- is going around with a gun, your competitive advantage (as an upstanding member of the community) disappears. The obvious conclusion is that we have to make it much more difficult for criminals to get guns. They seem to have no problem getting them today.

ST&T is not the place for this discussion. You're free to start a thread in General Gun Discussions about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. That's off topic here.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

...to confront someone messing with your vehicle.

It depends on what state you're in, but "not necessarily."

In my state, you have the right to protect your personal property with non-lethal force (fists only)

So, in this case, in my state, the legally sound strategy and tactic is to remain in your home, call 911, and watch your property, and the hours of your life spent working to earn the money to buy that property, disappear into the night forever. And you know...I think that's okay. I just don't see replaceable property being worth the risk involved in protecting beyond basic security measures (locks, camera, alarms.) I would, however, like to see government take property crime more serious and dispense much harsher sentences for it, in an effort to deter it. As it is now, property crime is a relatively low risk with a relatively high reward. (But, hey, that's not what this forum is about, so...moving on.)

If, once you are out there checking on things, THEY escalate to the point that justifies deadly force then it's just basic self-defense from there on out.

Know the laws in your state. In my state, this is bad advice. I'm sure your statement is factual, correct, and wise...in your state. I bet the McCloskey's wish they had stayed inside.

 

[JohnKSa]

The statement you quoted says you have the right to confront them. You absolutely have the right, in any state, to go out and ask: "What are you doing to my car?"

That doesn't mean you can go out and assault them (point a gun at them) or immediately commit battery (hit them). Those actions require legal justification beyond someone "messing with a vehicle".

If you go out and ask someone what they are doing to your property, and they attack you, then you have the right to self-defense up to the level that is justified by their attack and within laws of your area. You may have a duty to retreat in some areas, and there can be other variations, but someone attacking you is very different from someone "messing with your vehicle".

Just to be clear, I'm not advising people that they SHOULD go out and confront someone--in fact, I explicitly pointed out that it might not be the best option and provided an example of someone who created a confrontation and got shot. The best option is to avoid a confrontation if you think it could reasonably escalate into a life-threatening situation.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

The statement you quoted says you have the right to confront them. You absolutely have the right, in any state, to go out and ask: "What are you doing to my car?"

That doesn't mean you can go out and assault them (point a gun at them) or immediately commit battery (hit them). Those actions require legal justification beyond someone "messing with a vehicle".

If you go out and ask someone what they are doing to your property, and they attack you, then you have the right to self-defense up to the level that is justified by their attack and within laws of your area. You may have a duty to retreat in some areas, and there can be other variations, but someone attacking you is very different from someone "messing with your vehicle".

Just to be clear, I'm not advising people that they SHOULD go out and confront someone--in fact, I explicitly pointed out that it might not be the best option and provided an example of someone who created a confrontation and got shot. The best option is to avoid a confrontation if you think it could reasonably escalate into a life-threatening situation.

Fair enough. I took the word "confront" to mean something like "try to stop" as opposed to simply "ask some questions." Although, is suspect that, in the case of the video, "confront" would have quickly escalated.