Deadly force when faced with a fake weapon?

[rp_photo]

It turned out that the robber in yesterday's widely-shared 'We Love Houston" robbery used a plastic gun, presumably a toy.

If the perp had been shot by by a CHL-holder and it later turns out that a non-functioning weapon was used, is victim at greater risk of prosecution?

I'm thinking that it wouldn't, but I could also a politically-motivated DA try and make an issue out of it.

I'm also curious as to what percentage of such crimes involve non-functioning weapons. Are there any stats?

[MONGOOSE]

I have read of LEOs be exonerated when they have shot and killed kids carrying air soft guns, even when the guns had an orange tip attached. There was a man killed in. Wal MRt lately as he carried sn Airsoft AR -15 he was looking at buying. I doubt a CHL holder would be given the same latitude

[n5wd]

It matters not whether the gun is real or a replica. What matters is whether the victim has a reasonable fear for bodily injury or death -- many would-be robbers have found out that bringing a BB gun to a robbery is not a ticket to success.

[EEllis]

is victim at greater risk of prosecution?

In the scenario where a fake gun is used in a robbery? I wouldn't think so, not in Texas. In other states, where there is a duty to retreat and possession of self defence weapons are generally unlawful, possibly, but even there while it may be brought up in trial I doubt it would have much effect on the decision to prosecute.

[Middle Age Russ]

What matters is whether the victim has a reasonable fear for bodily injury or death

What matters at the time TO THE VICTIM is whether there is a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death. What matters later, at a potential grand jury or trial, is whether OTHER PEOPLE think that the victim acted due to reasonable fear of bodily injury or death. These are two different measures, not always in conflict and likewise not always at odds -- but different just the same.

[srothstein]

We are fortunate in Texas to have some well defined rules on when deadly force is specifically justified. These are not the only times it can be used, but it makes it easier to explain. One of the times we can use deadly force is to defend against a robbery. The robber does not have to be armed at all and it can even be a strongarm type robbery. Based on this, the weapon working or not doesn't make a bit of difference.

Even better is the law that says we are not civilly liable if the shooting is justified under chapter 9. It doesn't get much better for a person forced to defend himself.

In answer to the side question, I do not know of any statistics on how many robberies are committed with fake weapons or real ones that do not work (including unloaded guns). Since the law treats them all the same, I am not sure if these statistics are available anywhere. I am guessing that it might be an interesting study to do and you might be able to count the offenses in the National Incident Based Reporting System database, if it describes the weapons.

[HKsig]

If the perp wants you to believe that he's armed then he will be treated as such.

[aimsmall]

If the perp wants you to believe that he's armed then he will be treated as such.

Precisely. If the goof is using the tool in such a way as to project force, it doesn't much matter whether it is an actual tool. You could make the same argument about a goof using an unloaded gun -- no way to know it can't *actually* cause harm.

The "Killer Clown" pranks try to convince people they are in mortal danger (e.g,

Someday, someone with the ability to immediately counter using deadly force is going to believe them.