TexasCHLforum.com

I'm having a discussion with a somewhat stubborn individual who simply doesn't believe that the guy in Virginia acted in this manner:

PC §9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

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.

Is there any Texas Penal code or legal definition that I can give to show that the LEGAL definition of "immediate" covers this type of immediacy? Trust me, logic and examples aren't working.

Unless there is a definition in the statute, or an appellate case interpreting it,I would think it is used in the ordinary meaning of the term, "without delay, at once; instantly, without any intervening time or space."

The common sense use is that the situation is such that you must act now to avoid harm that will happen if you do not act.

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.

Yeah, that's what I don't get with this guy... At the time he got to his car, the individuals in the store with the armed robber were still in IMMEDIATE danger. But I can't get him to see that. The word isn't defined, other than where the statutes say, "If we don't define it, normal definitions apply." This guy's thought is that if you have action other than defense as the first action, then the defense is no longer immediate, and somehow invalid. It's a little frustrating. I'd normally just walk away from the discussion, but the guy is actually pro-gun in general, and so I'm trying to get him to understand that the legal world isn't NECESSARILY as scary to a RIGHTEOUS defender as he believe it to be. Thanks guys!

Like my CHL renewal guy said, "if you're going to defend someone else, be RIGHT."

Does anyone know of any pertinent case law that would show that immediate can be delayed? LOL

Grans Jury proceedings are not public and do not create case law.

I suppose that's a good direction to go... have him show someone who was charged and convicted. In the Virgina case, the guy wasn't even brought in front of a grand jury.

alvins wrote:If i could get out of the building. im not going to run back in with my gun period. I would call 911 and be a good witness,

I agree with this.

By the time one goes outside, retrieves a weapon, and goes back inside, there are too many things that can go wrong - including arrival of the police who won't know you're one of the good guys, and probably wouldn't care much if they did. Sorry, but I'm under no illusions that I'm a cop, and I'm not going to willingly hazard my life or my freedom for anyone except family.

It is not a crime to violate an employee handbook or policy. You can't be charged with a crime based on the provisions of the handbook. Is the policy considered a substitute for a 30.06 sign or something? Self-defense overrides that usually, and defense of others might.

HankB wrote:

alvins wrote:If i could get out of the building. im not going to run back in with my gun period. I would call 911 and be a good witness,

I agree with this.

By the time one goes outside, retrieves a weapon, and goes back inside, there are too many things that can go wrong - including arrival of the police who won't know you're one of the good guys, and probably wouldn't care much if they did. Sorry, but I'm under no illusions that I'm a cop, and I'm not going to willingly hazard my life or my freedom for anyone except family.

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.

Texas law does not prohibit by omission. So if there's no specific statute that defines "immediate", and if there's no criminal case where leaving an active shooter scenario and returning with a weapon has resulted in an unauthorized use of force/deadly force conviction, then that action would be allowed under current law. Of course, there would probably be an arrest and grand jury hearing on the matter should something like that actually occur.

Do you have to be arrested to go to the Grand Jury? I'd almost bet you wouldn't get arrested. And I'd be willing to wager that you might not even go to the GJ. But I could be wrong. Assuming righteousness of actions, I'm quite sure you'd be no billed at worst.

If you shoot someone, you will be arrested and booked; and the case will at least go to the grand jury. The only way that the case wouldn't go to the grand jury is if the DA felt there was enough compelling evidence to go to trial without the endictment. Since the county DA is an elected position, not a one of them in Texas would allow a shooter to walk without some process involved. Even if it's crystal clear to everyone even remotely involved, the DA will let the grand jury do the dirty work.

TexasCajun wrote:If you shoot someone, you will be arrested and booked; and the case will at least go to the grand jury. The only way that the case wouldn't go to the grand jury is if the DA felt there was enough compelling evidence to go to trial without the endictment. Since the county DA is an elected position, not a one of them in Texas would allow a shooter to walk without some process involved. Even if it's crystal clear to everyone even remotely involved, the DA will let the grand jury do the dirty work.

sorry cajun you are incorrect, a shooting does not always involk the grand jury. A death by shooting yes but not just a shooting, nor are you always arrested for shooting a person. the police begin the investigation and reccomend to the DA on what they have found, then the DA decides what direction to go, but none of the things you are stating are absolutes.

I guess I was being a bit general. I didn't mean to imply that arrest & grand jury were required in all shootings. Of course the police & DA have discretion. But it is pretty rare for a shooting (even non-fatal) to not go to the grand jury nowadays. DAs don't want to appear to be soft on crime, so they'd rather let the grand jury say that there's no case.