TexasCHLforum.com

"It doesn’t look like charges will be filed against him, because it appears he was defending the third person, who happened to be his stepdad, but the case will be submitted to the district attorney’s office for review,” he [Guadalupe County Sheriffs Investigator] said.

vjallen75 wrote:Will the placement of where the BG was shot determine if charges were filed? Clearly the brother was trying to stop the BG.

Does that [shot placement] have anything to do with use of DF?

Jusme wrote:Replace step dad with a female, replace younger brother with another female. If the shooter was not physically able to stop the attack. Shooting the attacker may have saved a life. Deadly force does not have to involve a weapon. The attacker could have killed the victim with only hands and feet. I don't believe any charges will be forthcoming for the shooter. JMHO

Vol Texan wrote:

Jusme wrote:Replace step dad with a female, replace younger brother with another female. If the shooter was not physically able to stop the attack. Shooting the attacker may have saved a life. Deadly force does not have to involve a weapon. The attacker could have killed the victim with only hands and feet. I don't believe any charges will be forthcoming for the shooter. JMHO

Spot on...unarmed does not mean un-deadly.

ELB wrote:Man shot during alleged assault arrested

29 y.o. man alleged to have been beating his stepfather outdoors, "...hitting him hard and stomping on him.” Attacker's brother tried to stop him without success. Brother retrieved a gun from the house, still couldn't stop the attacking brother, so shot him. In the calf of the leg.

Stepdad went to hospital for treatment, attacking brother went to hospital for treatment, followed by arrest and booking into jail. And as for shooting brother"

"It doesn’t look like charges will be filed against him, because it appears he was defending the third person, who happened to be his stepdad, but the case will be submitted to the district attorney’s office for review,” he [Guadalupe County Sheriffs Investigator] said.

Interesting for its use of deadly force against "unarmed" assailant. Don't know the age of the shooting brother.

TexasTornado wrote:Nothing in the law says that you must insert yourself in harm's way in defense of another. It was obvious that the BG was a threat and continued to be a threat to a 3rd party.

Texas Law on Special Relationships
By Fred A. Simpson and Deborah J. Selden

What is a special relationship?
The legal meaning of the term “special relationship” in Texas jurisprudence is
ambiguous. Reported case law and commentaries use the seemingly multi-faceted term with
little or no precision or consistency in 1) contact law; 2) tort law; 3) constitutional law; 4) evidence;
5) criminal statutes; 6) criminal law; and 7) family law.

The scope of our analysis is limited to special relationships in the context of tort and contract liability.

Texas courts most often look to the RESTATEMENT for guidance in defining special relationships that impose duties of affirmative action as a matter of law in tort cases.

Special Relationships in Tort
The General Rule and the Exceptions.
As a general rule, no one has a duty to aid or protect another person.
8 Even if one has the practical ability to control a third person to prevent him from physically harming another,
9he has no duty to exercise such control.
10 The presumption of lack of duty or liability, however, disappears when a special relationship exists between the parties. ...

Section 315 of the RESTATEMENT sets forth two exceptions under which an individual has
a duty to control the conduct of third persons: 1) if a special relationship exists between an
individual and the third party, the individual has a duty to control the third party’s conduct; or 2)
if an individual has special relationship with another, the individual has a duty to protect the
other from the wrongful acts of third parties.


Sections 314A, 314B, and 320 detail the special relationships in which an individual
has a duty to aid or protect another: 1) a common carrier and passenger; 2) an innkeeper and
guests; 3) a possessor of land who holds it open to the public; 4) one who voluntarily assumes
control or is required to take control of another; 5) an employer and employee; and 6) one who
has custody of another has a duty to protect them from a third party.
15 Relationships in which an
individual may owe a duty to control the acts of a third party are listed in sections 316 through
319: 1) a parent and minor child; 2) master and servant; 3) possessor of land or chattels and a
licensee; and 4) an individual in charge of a person having dangerous propensities.
16