TexasCHLforum.com

Morgan wrote:That's fine. I wasn't discussing wisdom, I was discussing legality. Substitute "your wife and child" for "your coworkers." Defense of another says that you must believe there is an "immediate need"... does leaving to get armed mean you "didn't act immediately"? I don't believe that's what "immediate" means in this case.

I log in again and see you are still stewing over this.

It is off base and missing the point to try to assert that the person left the building and came back, thus it wasn't "immediately necessary".

The standard for "immediately necessary" is the viewpoint of the person inside the building facing deadly force. The person inside the building is still in immediate need of self defense or defense by a third party since they are still facing a deadly threat. The standard of proof is based upon the circumstances of the person in need of defense, not the person providing the defense.

Morgan wrote:We are discussing the VA incident hypothetically for Texas. He believes that if the guy with the gun had it on him, and used it, that would be immediate. But he doesn't believe that once he left the store, "immediately" is impossible.

I don't know what VA incident you are referring to.

But in the OP, going out to retrieve a handgun from a car and then returning to the building is still "immediately" necessary. A person not only has the right to self defense, but they also have the right to defend innocent third parties. It is still "immediately" necessary for the people still in the building facing the robber. He has the right to act to protect them.

Neccessity. That's the defense. I can't link or quote from my phone, but look it up in your copy of CHL-16.pdf.