when to return fire

[baldeagle]

I was watching the local 4:00 o'clock news and they showed an armed robbery at a Starbucks. The guy was well dressed with a hand gun (finger off the trigger) he was calm. In that situation in not sure if anyone's life was threatened. What would you do?

Are you kidding? You want to wait for him to pull the trigger? If a CHL had a shot, they should take his well dressed head off.

I understand your line of thinking, but from what I saw he wanted the money and that's it. There's no right answer I just don't know if it was a defend life situation.

In that situation the law expressly states you have the right to use lethal force.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon;

In the case of aggravated robbery, which is a robbery in which a gun is exhibited, lethal force is authorized without any further threat of violence toward you or anyone else.

IOW, as ScottDLS said, the moment you realize an aggravated robbery is in progress, you have the legal right to shoot the robber, no matter how nice he looks or how much you may believe he doesn't intend to use the firearm he's exhibiting.

[Richbirdhunter]

I was watching the local 4:00 o'clock news and they showed an armed robbery at a Starbucks. The guy was well dressed with a hand gun (finger off the trigger) he was calm. In that situation in not sure if anyone's life was threatened. What would you do?

Are you kidding? You want to wait for him to pull the trigger? If a CHL had a shot, they should take his well dressed head off.

I understand your line of thinking, but from what I saw he wanted the money and that's it. There's no right answer I just don't know if it was a defend life situation.

In that situation the law expressly states you have the right to use lethal force.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon;

In the case of aggravated robbery, which is a robbery in which a gun is exhibited, lethal force is authorized without any further threat of violence toward you or anyone else.

IOW, as ScottDLS said, the moment you realize an aggravated robbery is in progress, you have the legal right to shoot the robber, no matter how nice he looks or how much you may believe he doesn't intend to use the firearm he's exhibiting.

Thank you, that's a great answer

[Ruark]

Police have to live with those decisions all the time. But CHL holders don't have the burden of being required to come to another's defense.

That's another central concept. CHL holders aren't required to do anything, and don't have the legal basis for making assumptions about what somebody else is planning to do. So if it turns out the guy's gun is real and he shoots the pregnant single mom with 2 kids right in front of you, you will live with the knowledge that you could have prevented it, but to some degree you can feel absolved because you're not obligated to be Batman just because you're carrying. But like you said, in so many words, it all comes with the package when you decide to carry.

[Bitter Clinger]

I was watching the local 4:00 o'clock news and they showed an armed robbery at a Starbucks. The guy was well dressed with a hand gun (finger off the trigger) he was calm. In that situation in not sure if anyone's life was threatened. What would you do?

How could that possibly happen in Starbucks? Don't they have a sign saying "No firearms"?

[Ruark]

In that situation the law expressly states you have the right to use lethal force.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon;

In the case of aggravated robbery, which is a robbery in which a gun is exhibited, lethal force is authorized without any further threat of violence toward you or anyone else.

IOW, as ScottDLS said, the moment you realize an aggravated robbery is in progress, you have the legal right to shoot the robber, no matter how nice he looks or how much you may believe he doesn't intend to use the firearm he's exhibiting.

This just refers to use of force. The law makes a VERY clear distinction between "force" and "deadly force." You should be citing 9.32:

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
..... and so on.

[MeMelYup]

You guys are all missing one important item. A guy comes into a place with a firearm in a holster. What is his demeanor/body language? A guy goes into a store to rob it. What is his body language? I was in theft prevention at one time and we could tell when a person was going to swipe merchandise before the did it. If a person goes into a store to rob it he/she acts different than if they are just going in to buy something.

[baldeagle]

You guys are all missing one important item. A guy comes into a place with a firearm in a holster. What is his demeanor/body language? A guy goes into a store to rob it. What is his body language? I was in theft prevention at one time and we could tell when a person was going to swipe merchandise before the did it. If a person goes into a store to rob it he/she acts different than if they are just going in to buy something.

Very few of us will have any training to recognize those actions. We might suspect something, but we can't be sure until the person acts in a way that confirms that suspicion.

[C-dub]

I was watching the local 4:00 o'clock news and they showed an armed robbery at a Starbucks. The guy was well dressed with a hand gun (finger off the trigger) he was calm. In that situation in not sure if anyone's life was threatened. What would you do?

Are you kidding? You want to wait for him to pull the trigger? If a CHL had a shot, they should take his well dressed head off.

I understand your line of thinking, but from what I saw he wanted the money and that's it. There's no right answer I just don't know if it was a defend life situation.

Judgement call. You had the legal right to take the shot, but not a requirement. Sounds like you chose correctly. Thankfully!

[ScottDLS]

I was watching the local 4:00 o'clock news and they showed an armed robbery at a Starbucks. The guy was well dressed with a hand gun (finger off the trigger) he was calm. In that situation in not sure if anyone's life was threatened. What would you do?

Are you kidding? You want to wait for him to pull the trigger? If a CHL had a shot, they should take his well dressed head off.

I understand your line of thinking, but from what I saw he wanted the money and that's it. There's no right answer I just don't know if it was a defend life situation.

Judgement call. You had the legal right to take the shot, but not a requirement. Sounds like you chose correctly. Thankfully!

I'm assuming Rich saw this on the news, not experienced it in real life... Assuming I saw someone pointing a gun at a clerk demanding money and I had a reasonable shot, I like to think I'd take the shot (at center of mass, not head). I don't know though, and I'm not a cop so it's not my job.

I also assume I'd feel bad at taking anyone's life whether the gun was real or not. Perhaps not as bad as if it turned from robbery to murder and I didn't stop it even though I could have.

[Richbirdhunter]

I was watching the local 4:00 o'clock news and they showed an armed robbery at a Starbucks. The guy was well dressed with a hand gun (finger off the trigger) he was calm. In that situation in not sure if anyone's life was threatened. What would you do?

Are you kidding? You want to wait for him to pull the trigger? If a CHL had a shot, they should take his well dressed head off.

I understand your line of thinking, but from what I saw he wanted the money and that's it. There's no right answer I just don't know if it was a defend life situation.

Judgement call. You had the legal right to take the shot, but not a requirement. Sounds like you chose correctly. Thankfully!

I'm assuming Rich saw this on the news, not experienced it in real life... Assuming I saw someone pointing a gun at a clerk demanding money and I had a reasonable shot, I like to think I'd take the shot (at center of mass, not head). I don't know though, and I'm not a cop so it's not my job.

I also assume I'd feel bad at taking anyone's life whether the gun was real or not. Perhaps not as bad as if it turned from robbery to murder and I didn't stop it even though I could have.

Yes, I did see this on the local news. This did not happen to me.

[dlh]

The original question reminds me of a joke that Gus Hodges, a famous law school professor at the University of Texas, used to use: A sues B....discuss....

Well, I won't bite on this one.

dlh

[thetexan]

The answer is hidden in your topic heading.

Returning fire assumes fire that instigates and legally justifies a return thereof.

The actual answer is found in the statutes. Clearly so. To use deadly force,whether from a gun or a nerf bat requires first, that the requirements of simple "force" be met and thereafter second, that you have a reasonable fear of a threat of grave bodily injury or death and have a reasonable belief that an immediate use of deadly force is necessary to counter that threat.

There are several requirements of reasonableness in there, all of which would have to be convincing to a jury if you were charged. There are a few exceptions where "reasonableness" is legally attributed to you depending on the situation.

It is conceivable that a return of fire is not authorized by statute especially if a threat is not against you or a third person.

Tex

[baldeagle]

IOW, as ScottDLS said, the moment you realize an aggravated robbery is in progress, you have the legal right to shoot the robber, no matter how nice he looks or how much you may believe he doesn't intend to use the firearm he's exhibiting.

This just refers to use of force. The law makes a VERY clear distinction between "force" and "deadly force." You should be citing 9.32:

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
..... and so on.

Thanks for pointing this out, Ruark. That's an important point that I missed completely. I would note that the use of deadly force is legal to prevent a robbery, so I was correct in my conclusion but quoted the incorrect section of the law. I'll try to be more precise in the future.