TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks. :) That's the point I'm trying to put across, but no matter what, he keeps insisting that it's his belief that the ACTION must be immediate. It's to the point of willful ignorance at this point, so I've done what I could...another guy from this forum has weighed in as well, and if he just can't diagram a sentence in English and see that "immediately" modifies "necessary" and not "deadly force" there's really no hope for him, unfortunately.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

Yeah, depending on the company, it is what it is.... I was curious about the legal issues. I mean, Texas, being a right to work state, can fire you for any cause or no cause to a large degree.

I was in a discussion with a fella on another forum who insisted that you'd be in trouble for this "anywhere" and I simply said, "Not in Texas, and not in a lot of other places."

It's page 58 if anyone reads this and is wondering. Thanks guys.

Thanks, I knew that was somewhere I wasn't finding!

You are an employee at a business that is 30.06 posted. You have your gun in your car. A bad guy comes in with a gun and you escape out the back. You return with your gun to defend your coworkers.

Regardless of the wisdom of this action, regardless of anything about how your company may fire you, would this be a violation of the 30.06? Or is the defense of another an exception to prosecution?

Would an employee handbook which states "no fire arms on premises" be sufficient to criminally trespass that employee in this circumstance?