TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

LAYGO wrote:
Thank you for clarifying. I have something stuck in my head that "unless it was aggravated, use of deadly force is not justified". I can't recall. Kidnapping? (because of the potential of it being a domestic situation?)

You got it. Kidnapping is not a justification for use of force or deadly force, but aggravated kidnapping is.

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

These are all protection of the person. Protection of property brings in a totally different set of guidelines, including some things that are only justified at night.

Yeah, thanks again. I think I was just confusing myself with the aggravated on the others. That list for protection of a person is exactly what was written on the board during our class, but the "unless it's aggravated ..." I couldn't recall.

I'm aware of the criminal mischief at night clause.

SewTexas wrote:Javier, how are you and your wife doing? I'm sure you're both pretty shaken up.

Thanks for asking, we are actually doing pretty good. Not as shaken up as I thought we would be. Its a real eye opener for my wife though. She never had a problem with firearms but she never felt the need to carry one. That has since changed. As for me, the situation doesnt have me shaken up, I am really just kind of second guessing what I did. I keep thinking about what happened and replaying the situation in my head over and over. I hate to sound like a bad person but thinking back, I feel like I should of shot him because I would hate to find out that he hurt someone in the future. I know that police officers are not lawyers, and that they do not have a full understanding of the law, but 2 officers said that I would have been justified had I shot, and that in doing so I could have prevented him from hurting someone in the future. Another officer said I should of shot, not because of the reasons I said, but for the fact that at the distance the bad guy was, he could got to me before I could react. The comments made I know were just there opinion but they made sense and everything they told me was something I was already thinking about. Im almost 100% sure I could of squeezed off at least once if he tried something when he first got up though. Not really a traumatizing experience but it sure is something I will never forget.

Javier730 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Javier, how are you and your wife doing? I'm sure you're both pretty shaken up.

Thanks for asking, we are actually doing pretty good. Not as shaken up as I thought we would be. Its a real eye opener for my wife though. She never had a problem with firearms but she never felt the need to carry one. That has since changed. As for me, the situation doesnt have me shaken up, I am really just kind of second guessing what I did. I keep thinking about what happened and replaying the situation in my head over and over. I hate to sound like a bad person but thinking back, I feel like I should of shot him because I would hate to find out that he hurt someone in the future. I know that police officers are not lawyers, and that they do not have a full understanding of the law, but 2 officers said that I would have been justified had I shot, and that in doing so I could have prevented him from hurting someone in the future. Another officer said I should of shot, not because of the reasons I said, but for the fact that at the distance the bad guy was, he could got to me before I could react. The comments made I know were just there opinion but they made sense and everything they told me was something I was already thinking about. Im almost 100% sure I could of squeezed off at least once if he tried something when he first got up though. Not really a traumatizing experience but it sure is something I will never forget.

Trust me, you are better off not having shot him. Shooting a person will play on your psyche and cause you a lot more stress and nightmares. I was involved in two shootings as a police officer, and even not being the officer who shot and killed the bad guys (and they were both extremely bad) I required some counseling. Additionally, shooting him would have cost you money in the fact it would more than likely have gone to a Grand Jury, then you would need a lawyer. I am going to say he more than likely was NOT armed with a gun, was bluffing and him encountering you will likely make him think twice before he goes to rob another place.

Bottom line, you did well, real well, so don't beat yourself up by second guessing what you did.

Id like to say thank you to everyone here for your comments. I feel good that you guys agree that what I did was somewhat right. Comments with some criticism will be taken in as knowledge and will be appreciated.

Javier, I agree with all of the posters comments. Andy & Keith made excellent comments. What you and your wife went through, I pray none of us have to. Thank you for sharing. All of us who have not been in that situation have learned much from your experience. You are a credit to the CHL community, and I thank you for your candor. Well done.

Keith B wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Javier, how are you and your wife doing? I'm sure you're both pretty shaken up.

Thanks for asking, we are actually doing pretty good. Not as shaken up as I thought we would be. Its a real eye opener for my wife though. She never had a problem with firearms but she never felt the need to carry one. That has since changed. As for me, the situation doesnt have me shaken up, I am really just kind of second guessing what I did. I keep thinking about what happened and replaying the situation in my head over and over. I hate to sound like a bad person but thinking back, I feel like I should of shot him because I would hate to find out that he hurt someone in the future. I know that police officers are not lawyers, and that they do not have a full understanding of the law, but 2 officers said that I would have been justified had I shot, and that in doing so I could have prevented him from hurting someone in the future. Another officer said I should of shot, not because of the reasons I said, but for the fact that at the distance the bad guy was, he could got to me before I could react. The comments made I know were just there opinion but they made sense and everything they told me was something I was already thinking about. Im almost 100% sure I could of squeezed off at least once if he tried something when he first got up though. Not really a traumatizing experience but it sure is something I will never forget.

Trust me, you are better off not having shot him. Shooting a person will play on your psyche and cause you a lot more stress and nightmares. I was involved in two shootings as a police officer, and even not being the officer who shot and killed the bad guys (and they were both extremely bad) I required some counseling. Additionally, shooting him would have cost you money in the fact it would more than likely have gone to a Grand Jury, then you would need a lawyer. I am going to say he more than likely was NOT armed with a gun, was bluffing and him encountering you will likely make him think twice before he goes to rob another place.

Bottom line, you did well, real well, so don't beat yourself up by second guessing what you did.

Thank you sir. I appreciate it.

Kept waiting for the "and then I woke up line"


So glad it never game. Good job.

joe817 wrote:Javier, I agree with all of the posters comments. Andy & Keith made excellent comments. What you and your wife went through, I pray none of us have to. Thank you for sharing. All of us who have not been in that situation have learned much from your experience. You are a credit to the CHL community, and I thank you for your candor. Well done.

Thank you. I posted this not only to share my experience with everyone here, but also to get some much needed opinions and support. It is very rewarding to me that someone here might learn something from this experience. I could say to everyone, be very vigilant. I let my guard down for a few seconds and that bad man got way too close to my wife than he should have.

Javier730 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Javier, how are you and your wife doing? I'm sure you're both pretty shaken up.

Thanks for asking, we are actually doing pretty good. Not as shaken up as I thought we would be. Its a real eye opener for my wife though. She never had a problem with firearms but she never felt the need to carry one. That has since changed. As for me, the situation doesnt have me shaken up, I am really just kind of second guessing what I did. I keep thinking about what happened and replaying the situation in my head over and over. I hate to sound like a bad person but thinking back, I feel like I should of shot him because I would hate to find out that he hurt someone in the future. I know that police officers are not lawyers, and that they do not have a full understanding of the law, but 2 officers said that I would have been justified had I shot, and that in doing so I could have prevented him from hurting someone in the future. Another officer said I should of shot, not because of the reasons I said, but for the fact that at the distance the bad guy was, he could got to me before I could react. The comments made I know were just there opinion but they made sense and everything they told me was something I was already thinking about. Im almost 100% sure I could of squeezed off at least once if he tried something when he first got up though. Not really a traumatizing experience but it sure is something I will never forget.

Trust me, you are better off not having shot him. Shooting a person will play on your psyche and cause you a lot more stress and nightmares. I was involved in two shootings as a police officer, and even not being the officer who shot and killed the bad guys (and they were both extremely bad) I required some counseling. Additionally, shooting him would have cost you money in the fact it would more than likely have gone to a Grand Jury, then you would need a lawyer. I am going to say he more than likely was NOT armed with a gun, was bluffing and him encountering you will likely make him think twice before he goes to rob another place.

Bottom line, you did well, real well, so don't beat yourself up by second guessing what you did.

Thank you sir. I appreciate it.

I'm glad you're both doing well.
and I agree with the others, you and your family do not the stress and nightmares that would have resulted had you killed the guy. Don't worry about what might happen, he might just as easily have second thoughts about a "life of crime", maybe he'll think "Hey, maybe the next guy will have a gun too....and maybe he won't give me a break." It could happen.

A point I overlooked. The thug was quite possibly a member of the Crips. They wear blue bandanas.

Jim Beaux wrote:A point I overlooked. The thug was quite possibly a member of the Crips. They wear blue bandanas.

you did catch that this happened in San Antonio, yes? we might have MS13, but I've never heard of the crips here.

Some very quick thinking on your part. The cops couldn't have done it better.

See, the Brady bunch was wrong. Your having a gun didn't turn it into the OK Corral. Innocents didn't get hurt with stray bullets.

BigGuy wrote:Javier, sounds like you did a good job. Glad it worked out for you.

Question for the legal eagles. If the perp had continued to advance on him after standing back up, at what point would he have been justified in firing.
My concern is that despite the mental decision that I should fire, rather than let somebody continue to advance to within striking distance, I would delay to the point that even an unarmed assailant could engage me.

Let me clarify the distinction between "legal justification" versus "personal choice".

"Personal choice": A number of people have expressed their opinion that he was better off not shooting because it turned out OK and will not need to go through mental anguish or legal costs associated with a shooting. Some people, like the cop, expressed the opposite opinion for various reasons. Point is, these are all opinions on what personal choice to make, and everyone can debate opinions forever.

"Legal Justification": He would have been justified in shooting the moment he walked through the door and was certain it was a robbery. He could have shot him without warning him. He could have shot him without ordering him to the ground. He could have shot him the moment he started to rise. He could have shot him at any moment. The instant a criminal starts a robbery, they become a legally justified target.

Keith already quoted the statute, so I am not going to quote it again, but as he pointed out, robbery is one of the enumerated crimes. I'll also point out that use of deadly force is "presumed reasonable" when the other person is committing "aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery".

"Presumed reasonable" means charges should not be brought unless the prosecuting attorney has evidence that proves that presumption wrong. For example, don't say to the cops, "Naw, man, I was never scared. I knew that punk was never a threat." Bad move.


These "presumed reasonable" clauses are one way that Texas self defense law is vastly more friendly to legitimate self defense than almost any other state.

So back to the opinions, at least when you are doing the "Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, should I shoot" mental dance it helps if you are intellectually solid on where the legal line for justification gets crossed. Choices and decisions that are made while understanding the legal facts are informed choices.