Pursuing someone who points a weapon at you.

[Mike S]

Without addressing any other issue, simply the whole issue of pursuit vs not, wouldn't this be a situation where because the gun was pointed at you there was a crime committed? At the VERY least, isn't that an "offense against the public peace" which then opens the door to the ability to conduct a citizen's arrest, which would be justification for pursuit? Again, only addressing the basis for the pursuit and not suggesting that doing so justifies use of deadly force or not.

I believe it must be a felony committed in your presence for a citizen's arrest to apply (not quick on the Google this morning to add citations, though). Deadly Conduct is a Class A Misdemeanor, unless discharging a firearm in the direction of a person/habitation/building or from a motor vehicle which elevates it to a Felony. Provided you reasonably believed it was a firearm, & it was discharged, a citizen's arrest might be legit. However, I'm not certain if pursuit is allowed in effecting a citizen's arrest.

[thetexan]

First only a DA with a specific case in front of them could say if they would prosecute or not, all others are speculating

With that said:
They point a gun at me, at that point they have used deadly force on me and I am justified in shooting them.

However, once the threat stops, and they turn and go away, has the threat stopped? If so, deadly force is no longer being used on me, and in my opinion I cannot chase them, and then shoot them.
If I chase them, after the threat had stopped do I then become the aggressor and now I am the one [wrongfully] using deadly force on them?

I have to remind myself (in that situation) that I am not a police officer.
While I have the right to protect myself and others in certain situations, I do not have the powers and abilities of a police officer and I need to be a good witness if at all possible

The question may be one of, "when did the threat actually stop" and that is when my right of self defense ends.

This is not correct. (1) Pointing a gun, in and of itself, does not constitute deadly force. In fact, sec 9.04 states that showing a gun to create the apprehension that you will use deadly force is not deadly force. Now, what can be said is what would a reasonable person think was about to happen if someone just walks up or drives up to you and points a gun at you? Most reasonable people would say "you're fixin' to get shot". (2)That does not, by itself, make pointing a gun deadly force... It is the reasonable conclusion that aggravated robbery, kidnapping or murder are about to occur that makes the act a threat, and a response by you with deadly force appropriate.

Everything else you said is OK. If you chase someone down and kill them, that is not going to look good to a DA, at all. Where is the threat to your life? That threat is running or driving away and is no longer a threat.

1. In and of itself....no, that is correct. However, in most cases it does. The only time pointing a gun is not a threat of deadly force under 9.04 (which you failed to include) is when the gun pointer would be justified under chapter 9 TO USE FORCE under whatever the circumstances were at the time. (and being justified in using force under 9.31 is a prerequisite of using deadly force). If the gun pointer would not be justified in the use of force (much less deadly force) under chapter 9 then the threat of deadly force by pointing the gun would not be covered under 9.04 and therefore would, in and of itself, BE a threat of deadly force under 9.01(3). And if it is a threat of deadly force intended or known by you to cause or in the manner of its use or intended use capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, then you are under threat of death or serious bodily injury and you can proceed to the next step in with and to the degree necessary to defend yourself against that deadly threat. The only requirement on your part at that time is that your belief that immediate action is necessary to protect and defend yourself against that threat is reasonable. I would say if someone is pointing a gun at me that it is reasonable to believe that immediate defensive action is necessary. As we have seen in so many police shooting videos, the person doesn't even have to point a gun, he just has to act like he is REACHING FOR HIS GUN to create a threat that an officer would reasonably believe requires immediate and necessary deadly defensive action to justify that deadly defensive action. But, I don't have to rely on wondering if the unjustified pointing of a gun is a threat of deadly force, thankfully. IT IS BY DEFINITION A THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE!!! Read that carefully.

2. Again, respectfully, yes.......it certainly does...by definition under 9.01 UNLESS that action is covered and exempted under 9.04. Whether it is covered under 9.04 is a YES or NO determination. In other words the act of someone pointing a gun at me is either allowed under 9.04 or it is not. If it is not then it IS a deadly threat BY DEFINITION under 9.01 and not exempted under 9.04 in that the gun is (among other reasons) BY DEFINITION an instrument capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death...and thus...the threat by a pointed gun invokes 9.01 and the cascade of resulting actions authorized by other defense statutes in Chapter 9.

I respectfully suggest to everyone in this thread and reading this thread that they go back and carefully review all of chapter 9 as well as the associated definitions found in various parts of the statutes.

Obviously, the ramifications of any misunderstandings of the law can be very serious.

[Glockster]

Without addressing any other issue, simply the whole issue of pursuit vs not, wouldn't this be a situation where because the gun was pointed at you there was a crime committed? At the VERY least, isn't that an "offense against the public peace" which then opens the door to the ability to conduct a citizen's arrest, which would be justification for pursuit? Again, only addressing the basis for the pursuit and not suggesting that doing so justifies use of deadly force or not.

I believe it must be a felony committed in your presence for a citizen's arrest to apply (not quick on the Google this morning to add citations, though). Deadly Conduct is a Class A Misdemeanor, unless discharging a firearm in the direction of a person/habitation/building or from a motor vehicle which elevates it to a Felony. Provided you reasonably believed it was a firearm, & it was discharged, a citizen's arrest might be legit. However, I'm not certain if pursuit is allowed in effecting a citizen's arrest.

I found this read to be particularly informative in the topic of citizen arrest powers in Texas - and it provides the basis for arrest based on both felony and offense against public peace:
http://www.simonazarfarr.com/wp-content ... e-copy.pdf

[parabelum]

Just say no to citizens arrest. To me, it just screams mall ninja.

Let LE matters be handled by LE, defend yourself accordingly. I'd say that engaging in citizens arrest business does more to put you or someone else in harms way then good.

[Glockster]

Just say no to citizens arrest. To me, it just screams mall ninja.

Let LE matters be handled by LE, defend yourself accordingly. I'd say that engaging in citizens arrest business does more to put you or someone else in harms way then good.

Your opinion of course, but I disagree with that sentiment. Citizens arrest powers have been around for a very long time, and here in TX one could make the argument that those powers predate any form of official law enforcement in many parts of what TX used to be. The very fact that there is common law and case law on citizens arrest seems to me to be a pretty strong argument that there are times when something is simply NOT only the business of LE. Nobody is talking about mall ninja or whatever, but I think that it fits with the scenario that the OP put forward. I know that if I saw someone point a gun at me for no apparent reason and then run away, I'd want to carefully consider any and all options as I'd be thinking about the next person they might run into and what they might then do next. Frankly, I would much rather see someone take an action rather than duck and cover. Carefully considered and necessary action. Watch any daily news cycle and it becomes more clear that there are times when the sheepdogs have to be the sheepdog.

[thetexan]

I don't see a problem chasing the guy after he points a gun at you as long as you understand the very dangerous nature of that. But.....it's your life....you buys your ticket and you takes your chances.

I might even do the very same thing.

What I am not going to do is to shoot the guy when I get there only because he pointed a gun at me back at the house. I won't shoot him unless it is to defend myself at that moment in time.

However, the very action of chasing him down probably will create a confrontation that could generate a shooting. In other words you create the scenario by confronting him. That is a law enforcement duty and should be left to LE unless the only option is to make a citizen's arrest while you wait for LE. A prosecutor might have all he needs to argue that you are the aggressor since you had every opportunity (assuming you did) to wait for police and that your actions were provocative.

tex

[Glockster]

I don't see a problem chasing the guy after he points a gun at you as long as you understand the very dangerous nature of that. But.....it's your life....you buys your ticket and you takes your chances.

I might even do the very same thing.

What I am not going to do is to shoot the guy when I get there only because he pointed a gun at me back at the house. I won't shoot him unless it is to defend myself at that moment in time.

However, the very action of chasing him down probably will create a confrontation that could generate a shooting. In other words you create the scenario by confronting him. That is a law enforcement duty and should be left to LE unless the only option is to make a citizen's arrest while you wait for LE. A prosecutor might have all he needs to argue that you are the aggressor since you had every opportunity (assuming you did) to wait for police and that your actions were provocative.

tex

That, from what I have read, is the very basis for a citizen's arrest in that the urgency of the situation doesn't allow for you to summon or wait for LE. Agree about the not shooting, and believe that the appropriate thing to do would likely to hold the individual in custody until LE could arrive.

[bblhd672]

I don't see a problem chasing the guy after he points a gun at you as long as you understand the very dangerous nature of that. But.....it's your life....you buys your ticket and you takes your chances.

I might even do the very same thing.

What I am not going to do is to shoot the guy when I get there only because he pointed a gun at me back at the house. I won't shoot him unless it is to defend myself at that moment in time.

However, the very action of chasing him down probably will create a confrontation that could generate a shooting. In other words you create the scenario by confronting him. That is a law enforcement duty and should be left to LE unless the only option is to make a citizen's arrest while you wait for LE. A prosecutor might have all he needs to argue that you are the aggressor since you had every opportunity (assuming you did) to wait for police and that your actions were provocative.

tex

That, from what I have read, is the very basis for a citizen's arrest in that the urgency of the situation doesn't allow for you to summon or wait for LE. Agree about the not shooting, and believe that the appropriate thing to do would likely to hold the individual in custody until LE could arrive.

Hmm...what could possibly go wrong with that? You call the police and tell them you're pursuing someone who pointed a gun at you, then give the police dispatcher the location that you are holding the person who pointed a gun at you. The police arrive and see someone pointing a gun at someone else, who does the police point their guns at first? You or the unarmed guy over there with his hands up yelling "Help me he's pointing a gun at me!"

[Glockster]

I don't see a problem chasing the guy after he points a gun at you as long as you understand the very dangerous nature of that. But.....it's your life....you buys your ticket and you takes your chances.

I might even do the very same thing.

What I am not going to do is to shoot the guy when I get there only because he pointed a gun at me back at the house. I won't shoot him unless it is to defend myself at that moment in time.

However, the very action of chasing him down probably will create a confrontation that could generate a shooting. In other words you create the scenario by confronting him. That is a law enforcement duty and should be left to LE unless the only option is to make a citizen's arrest while you wait for LE. A prosecutor might have all he needs to argue that you are the aggressor since you had every opportunity (assuming you did) to wait for police and that your actions were provocative.

tex

That, from what I have read, is the very basis for a citizen's arrest in that the urgency of the situation doesn't allow for you to summon or wait for LE. Agree about the not shooting, and believe that the appropriate thing to do would likely to hold the individual in custody until LE could arrive.

Hmm...what could possibly go wrong with that? You call the police and tell them you're pursuing someone who pointed a gun at you, then give the police dispatcher the location that you are holding the person who pointed a gun at you. The police arrive and see someone pointing a gun at someone else, who does the police point their guns at first? You or the unarmed guy over there with his hands up yelling "Help me he's pointing a gun at me!"

Your scenario, but change it up so that you in self defense shot a bad guy who is now laying there in front of you, your gun trained on him as you call the police. Now apply the same approach that you would use for that to a citizen's arrest.

[bblhd672]

I don't see a problem chasing the guy after he points a gun at you as long as you understand the very dangerous nature of that. But.....it's your life....you buys your ticket and you takes your chances.

I might even do the very same thing.

What I am not going to do is to shoot the guy when I get there only because he pointed a gun at me back at the house. I won't shoot him unless it is to defend myself at that moment in time.

However, the very action of chasing him down probably will create a confrontation that could generate a shooting. In other words you create the scenario by confronting him. That is a law enforcement duty and should be left to LE unless the only option is to make a citizen's arrest while you wait for LE. A prosecutor might have all he needs to argue that you are the aggressor since you had every opportunity (assuming you did) to wait for police and that your actions were provocative.

tex

That, from what I have read, is the very basis for a citizen's arrest in that the urgency of the situation doesn't allow for you to summon or wait for LE. Agree about the not shooting, and believe that the appropriate thing to do would likely to hold the individual in custody until LE could arrive.

Hmm...what could possibly go wrong with that? You call the police and tell them you're pursuing someone who pointed a gun at you, then give the police dispatcher the location that you are holding the person who pointed a gun at you. The police arrive and see someone pointing a gun at someone else, who does the police point their guns at first? You or the unarmed guy over there with his hands up yelling "Help me he's pointing a gun at me!"

Your scenario, but change it up so that you in self defense shot a bad guy who is now laying there in front of you, your gun trained on him as you call the police. Now apply the same approach that you would use for that to a citizen's arrest.

Uh...the bad guy you shot until he is no longer a threat you don't have to hold pistol on anymore. The bad guy you chased down isn't going to just stay there and wait for the police if you aren't detaining him with your weapon.

[bblhd672]

There is another thread on this forum where this issue was discussed before: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=7154

[mojo84]

[Glockster]

I don't see a problem chasing the guy after he points a gun at you as long as you understand the very dangerous nature of that. But.....it's your life....you buys your ticket and you takes your chances.

I might even do the very same thing.

What I am not going to do is to shoot the guy when I get there only because he pointed a gun at me back at the house. I won't shoot him unless it is to defend myself at that moment in time.

However, the very action of chasing him down probably will create a confrontation that could generate a shooting. In other words you create the scenario by confronting him. That is a law enforcement duty and should be left to LE unless the only option is to make a citizen's arrest while you wait for LE. A prosecutor might have all he needs to argue that you are the aggressor since you had every opportunity (assuming you did) to wait for police and that your actions were provocative.

tex

That, from what I have read, is the very basis for a citizen's arrest in that the urgency of the situation doesn't allow for you to summon or wait for LE. Agree about the not shooting, and believe that the appropriate thing to do would likely to hold the individual in custody until LE could arrive.

Hmm...what could possibly go wrong with that? You call the police and tell them you're pursuing someone who pointed a gun at you, then give the police dispatcher the location that you are holding the person who pointed a gun at you. The police arrive and see someone pointing a gun at someone else, who does the police point their guns at first? You or the unarmed guy over there with his hands up yelling "Help me he's pointing a gun at me!"

Your scenario, but change it up so that you in self defense shot a bad guy who is now laying there in front of you, your gun trained on him as you call the police. Now apply the same approach that you would use for that to a citizen's arrest.

Uh...the bad guy you shot until he is no longer a threat you don't have to hold pistol on anymore. The bad guy you chased down isn't going to just stay there and wait for the police if you aren't detaining him with your weapon.

That want the point I was addressing - I was addressing the issue of LE showing up and the BG claiming that the GG was the actual BG. Aside from that, in my above I didn't say that the BG was deceased, so I would likely assume that he needed to be controlled until LE arrives. I sure wouldn't assume him to be a threat. And all of that is way beyond the scope of what I was addressing prior to that when I was simply offering that I believe that the common law and case law on citizen's arrest allowed pursuit.

[bblhd672]

I don't see a problem chasing the guy after he points a gun at you as long as you understand the very dangerous nature of that. But.....it's your life....you buys your ticket and you takes your chances.

I might even do the very same thing.

What I am not going to do is to shoot the guy when I get there only because he pointed a gun at me back at the house. I won't shoot him unless it is to defend myself at that moment in time.

However, the very action of chasing him down probably will create a confrontation that could generate a shooting. In other words you create the scenario by confronting him. That is a law enforcement duty and should be left to LE unless the only option is to make a citizen's arrest while you wait for LE. A prosecutor might have all he needs to argue that you are the aggressor since you had every opportunity (assuming you did) to wait for police and that your actions were provocative.

tex

That, from what I have read, is the very basis for a citizen's arrest in that the urgency of the situation doesn't allow for you to summon or wait for LE. Agree about the not shooting, and believe that the appropriate thing to do would likely to hold the individual in custody until LE could arrive.

Hmm...what could possibly go wrong with that? You call the police and tell them you're pursuing someone who pointed a gun at you, then give the police dispatcher the location that you are holding the person who pointed a gun at you. The police arrive and see someone pointing a gun at someone else, who does the police point their guns at first? You or the unarmed guy over there with his hands up yelling "Help me he's pointing a gun at me!"

Your scenario, but change it up so that you in self defense shot a bad guy who is now laying there in front of you, your gun trained on him as you call the police. Now apply the same approach that you would use for that to a citizen's arrest.

Uh...the bad guy you shot until he is no longer a threat you don't have to hold pistol on anymore. The bad guy you chased down isn't going to just stay there and wait for the police if you aren't detaining him with your weapon.

That want the point I was addressing - I was addressing the issue of LE showing up and the BG claiming that the GG was the actual BG. Aside from that, in my above I didn't say that the BG was deceased, so I would likely assume that he needed to be controlled until LE arrives. I sure wouldn't assume him to be a threat. And all of that is way beyond the scope of what I was addressing prior to that when I was simply offering that I believe that the common law and case law on citizen's arrest allowed pursuit.

And I am simply trying to point out that hardly anything good can result from your pursuit of someone who pointed a firearm at you and attempting to execute a citizen's arrest on that person. After all, how many stories of drive by shootings do you hear/read about where there was only one perpetrator in the car? You want to antagonize people like that who when they stop may exit their car and open fire on you?

Just say no to citizens arrest. To me, it just screams mall ninja.

Let LE matters be handled by LE, defend yourself accordingly. I'd say that engaging in citizens arrest business does more to put you or someone else in harms way then good.

Let LEO's do their job - immediately call and report the incident with as many details as possible. If you absolutely feel the need to pursue, only do so until you have the license plate number.

[remanifest]

Excellent discussion in this thread - thank you all. It seems to me that pursuit to the point necessary is allowed to obtain information, but chasing the bad guy down when he is no longer posing a direct deadly threat (as in a drive by) and shooting him makes you the aggressor and is probably going to land you a charge of some sort.

I definitely agree with the concept that if someone points a gun in my direction, I am going to immediately assess the threat and take the absolute measures necessary to neutralize the threat in front of me.