Using your CCW

Folks, we've already closed several threads on the Zimmerman/Martin case, and this is not the place to revisit the issue. Period. It's off topic for this thread, and even if it weren't, we have only speculation to go on at this point.
 
TexasJustice7 said:
I don't look at things that way. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the stand your ground laws, in states like Texas. But you do not have have the option to revoke those laws, except through due process. We do not know the details yet, so I won't judge the Florida case till the facts come out. There will always be cases which are mariginal. In Texas almost all such cases go to a grand jury. I trust the jury's in Texas to uphold Texas law, not some law someone else in other states might believe is according to their values, should be the law. For someone to say that he was "basically killed for walking while black" is the same as acting as the judge, and jury
for the shooter. The prosecutor there has not yet acted on the case, and they may have witnesses and facts that they have not set out yet.
I like the laws which we have in Texas and I choose to live here. If I lived in Florida and I did not like the laws there, I would move, just as if I did not like the laws in Texas I would move somewhere else.

I would expect, that if the prosecutor charges the shooter in the case you cite, that the jury will uphold whatever is Florida Law, if and when an arrest is made. So I won't jump to any conclusion one way or the other without more facts coming out.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that, although you made some assumptions of me that i don't agree with. We'll leave the Trayvon/zimmerman case out of this, so i'll stop there. And yes, i believe in due process and a grand jury to decide the fate of the accused. I agree with stand your ground, except it's too broad as a single half sentence.

But several things are perpetuated in this thread and on my original quote. It comes up that people believe they have a right to defend their "property" with deadly force. If by property you mean land, then yes, you have a right to stand your ground. I fully support that. But texas law looks pretty much the same as florida's, i don't see any immediate differences. The only real amendment which both have was a provision for stand your ground which states "a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat." Meaning legally it can't be argued against you that you should have retreated when defending "OCCUPIED" home, land, business, and vehicle, or any place you have a right to be and they don't. You also still have to justify that it is an immediate threat of death or bodily harm.

So no, you can't just shoot someone and claim self defense. It actually has to be self defense. If you are walking out of the mall and see someone rummaging through your trunk, you pull out your gun and shoot them. That's straight up manslaughter if not murder. Many people are getting away with it citing stand your ground and self defense. The police generally have no way of convicting you due to lack of evidence(your word against the deceased), unless they happen to get the mall security footage showing you shooting someone or a key eye witness.

Regardless of opinions, it's never ok to shoot someone over an ipod or gps unit. We have a responsibility as gun owners to keep a cool and calm head, and to actually uphold what's right and just. Keep things in perspective and not to do whatever we can get away with. Otherwise, more screw-ups like Zimmerman trying to play vigilante, and we all start losing more gun rights.
 
gggpawaa: It comes up that people believe they have a right to defend their "property" with deadly force. If by property you mean land, then yes, you have a right to stand your ground. I fully support that. But texas law looks pretty much the same as florida's, i don't see any immediate differences. The only real amendment which both have was a provision for stand your ground which states "a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat." Meaning legally it can't be argued against you that you should have retreated when defending "OCCUPIED" home, land, business, and vehicle, or any place you have a right to be and they don't. You also still have to justify that it is an immediate threat of death or bodily harm.
Click to expand...

The requirement that one has to justify an immediate threat of death or bodily injury is not required in Texas, and is defined by the following Texas Statute. If Florida did not have a similar protection for the property owner, I would not be willing to live there. The point is, that no one law fits every state, and if we don't agree with the provisions of the law, we can be active trying to get the laws changed, and we are free to move to another city or State. I do not give much thought to whether I agree or disagree with any laws, I just figure I have to know and follow them and that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I have been following a recent case in Texas where the criminal was shot attempting to leave with property but never made it out of the driveway. In rural areas, where response time by police might be 30 minutes or longer, the only way the escape of persons committing such crimes is by the use of deadly force by the property owner.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
 
The property protection laws in TX are sort of a double-edged sword.

It's legal to shoot someone (in certain limited circumstances) to prevent them from escaping with stolen property or to prevent certain types of property damage, but if there's no hint of self-defense involved, at least an attempt at criminal prosecution is possible--even likely. Not many people have possessions worth more than what that will probably cost.

In addition, a lot of people don't think about the possible meanings of this phrase: "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" Most people carry insurance which protects and replaces stolen property--at least in part. Or let's say the guy is running out into your fenced backyard and it's not really possible for him to get the loot over the fence but you shoot him anyway. If a prosecutor figures it out, you're in a lot of trouble.

Finally, this last phrase is very important: "the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

For example, shouting "Stop or I'll shoot!" or "Drop it or I'll shoot!", while displaying a firearm is considered the use of force, but not the use of deadly force. If a 911 call reveals you didn't try this and the criminal was still in earshot, you may find that you didn't satisfy the final phrase in the law because you didn't try the use of force other than deadly force even though it would have been extremely easy to do so.

For another example, if you reasonably believe the person is unarmed or is armed only with a contact weapon and you have the means to follow the person at a distance and keep him in sight until LE arrives but you shoot him instead, you used deadly force when you could have recovered the land or property without exposing yourself or another to "substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury".

Shooting someone when you don't absolutely have to is a bad idea. It's definitely going to be a hassle. It will almost certainly be very expensive and it can cost you your freedom.
 
JohnSka: The property protection laws in TX are sort of a double-edged sword.

It's legal to shoot someone (in certain limited circumstances) to prevent them from escaping with stolen property or to prevent certain types of property damage, but if there's no hint of self-defense involved, at least an attempt at criminal prosecution is possible--even likely. Not many people have possessions worth more than what that will probably cost.
Click to expand...


That is very true, that the probable cost of defending any shooting can be very expensive. A very interesting case is the Graham/Chambers shooting in 2009 in Tyler, Texas.

I have been studying that case on the following link.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_2_34/ai_n56222496/?tag=content;col1

This discussion covers five pages, of detail where a Texas homeowner shot
a man who was running off with the loot. Without going into all the details, basically the shoot was a good shoot, under Texas law, and the Castle Doctrine applies in Texas. However, the attorney for the Chambers family
very skillfully evaded the castle doctrine. The argument for both sides is
detailed in this article. My impression is that Mr. Graham successfully
defending his case, but his legal fees were in excess of $60,000. He was charged by the prosecutor, the case went to the grand jury and he was
in the clear. In reading that article I thought both the opposing attorneys
made very skilful arguments in the civil case that followed. This one case
in Texas clearly illustrates the problems one may face even after a justified shooting. So criminally Mr. Graham was in the clear, and Texas does not
require that he be in fear of his life, but it helps his case if true. But he still incurred an extreme financial cost of at least $60,000 in legal fees.

The argument by the plaintiff's attorney that there is "no death penalty for burglary" was made. The castle doctrine which would normally protect the
homeonwer, was skirted around by the other attorney, and even though
Mr. Graham I don't believe was found civilly liable, he still incurred overwhelming legal fees. If one makes the decision though to carry a gun
and obtain a gun permit, you have to know that if you have an incident, you
have a great deal of financial liability and risk. And if you have the insurance to cover the cost of the stolen items, most likely it is not worth the cost that you may incurr.

I would be intersted in your comments on this particular case, and I have
searched for other links on this article to find out what the final outcome was. Is there any information on this forum regarding that case? If so I have not found them?
 
My Country is a no "hundguns friendly" Nation, and over all prohibits to show a gun to resolve personal disputes!
If a civilian has a ccw permit he can estract conceiled handgun only for defend, proportionally to the offence, his life or coinvolved persons!
Also knifes can't be carried legally in the Land of Sun by honest people, while mob walking around armed of war auto rifles, machine pistol or machete and
some judges were killed, with their armoury by antipersonal mine.
So if you show the gun only for fears mob or pest, LEO's withdraw immediatly ccw permit and confiscate all your handguns and rifles!
Even use of deadly force for self defence with justificated reasons comports however a lawsuit.
First in times absolute monarchy and then fascist laws prohibited guns and knifes carry, "a well temperated militia" afraid every kind of dictators.
But as people like to say in my Country "better a bad lawsuit than a beautiful funeral"
 
I don't think there is a problem with "stand your ground" laws - the problem is with them being misinterpreted.

SYG laws routinely state that there is no duty to retreat before defending against a threat. Florida's law was quoted earlier, and it seems clear to me that the threat of serious harm must be present. If you are in your car, you may presume that someone who makes a forcible attempt to get in your car with you intends you harm. You may assume that someone who makes a similar attempt with your family in the car intends to kidnap them and you may defend your family against kidnapping. You may assume that someone who breaks into your home intends you or your family harm and you may defend against that person. All these are legitimate defenses against harm to you and your family, and the law states clearly that they are still defensible as defensive acts without you being obligated to first abandon your home, car, and/or family and be pursued before resorting to a forcible defense of yourself and your loved ones.

That is NOT the same as shooting to protect property. Coming out of a store and catching someone burglarizing an unoccupied car is not a threat that justifies lethal force by this statute, at least as I read it. If that burglar turns and displays a weapon, things change, but I see nothing in that statute that justifies the use of lethal force purely to prevent the loss of property, regardless of its value.

The gun community needs to guard against becoming exactly the kind of vigilante against which gun control activists warn.
 
Regardless of what state you live in and what you can get away with from relaxed laws. We have a moral obligation as CCW holders and gun owners to do what's right. It's still never ok to kill someone over an ipod and loose change. Anyone who thinks that's ok needs to get their morals checked. You only justify gun control advocates claims of crazy gun toting americans. The more stats they have to work with, the more rights we get taken away.

After reading texas penal code section 9.42. It still says you can't just go and shoot someone with your stuff. It does protect your right to get your property back. It's has to be reasonably believed that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent robbery. After that they also throw in the word "AND" you believe you cannot retrieve your property by any other means --> use of force other than deadly force would only put you into danger of death or bodily harm.

This is basically saying that deadly force is really a last resort and it has to be reasonably justified. Going out and shooting the person just because they stole from you really isn't in accordance with the law. It's considered murder, and could land you in jail. The reason people are getting away with it and off the hook is the burden of proof now falls on the prosecution. Unfortunately with no video cameras or witnesses around, the only evidence they have is your word against the deceased. It has to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it wasn't self defense and you quite literally shot someone because you were ****** someone was in your house stealing your stuff. If there's a nearby video camera catching this all on tape, you're in some deep doo doo.

And to further your point, the legal fees are still way more than it's worth.
 
Dave9969: There is no need to "escape" the threat as in some states. Furthermore, I am allowed to use up to deadly force in defense of personal property. If I catch you breaking into my car in the parking lot at the mall, I can drop you on the spot. It happened about 6 months ago, the "bad" guy was killed. The shooter, despite the bad guys family attempting to press charges, none were filed by the State Attorney. The law was clear, the intent was present, and we are now one fewer car thieves in Florida....

Remember, a concealed weapon does not need to be a gun. Tactical batons are great. 6" compressed, a flick of the wrist and you have between 18-30" of hardened metal in your hand and it hurts like nothing when you get it across your arm between the wrist and elbow. I know it can break a bone like that. Again, know your state's laws regarding weapons. In Florida I can carry anything short of a full auto Uzi, or a flame thrower, providing
Click to expand...

It seems that there is some similarity between Texas Law and Florida law
regarding defense of property but the similarity ends I think with your comment about the concealed weapon not needing to be a gun. A Texas CHL does not permit you to carry other items like you mention. Would also say that just because you have a permit that might be recognized in Texas that won't carry over to anything but a concealed handgug if you come to visit Texas.

You younger guys have an option perhaps in martial arts, but lots of us older guys, and disabled guys, cannot afford a confrontation in which our weapons might be taken and used on us. I am convinced that probably we won't ever have a national reciprical law, gun owners in Texas and Florida generally like and agree the laws as written in our state. Too many people make judgements about what is right or wrong to do in cases of defense of property and deadly force based on what they think the law should be rather than how it actually reads in detail. The only thing that matters when it gets to a grand jury is what the actual law says. But the problem you have in states such as Texas or Florida, is that civil action can still follow. (My post #65). Thats where it can really cost you financially to defend your actions with regard to using a concealed handgun to protect property. Might want to ask first if yourself if you have liability insurance to cover the property first before defending it. :)
 
I have cited the laws exactly as written, not on how i feel it should be. What you're telling people on the internet, people listening to you, is bad legal advice. Advocating that as long as you're old or little, it's ok to go out and shoot someone taking your stuff. Shoot first, get your stuff back, and ask questions later. The law is not written like that in texas or florida, it's still not that simple. When the police officer arrives on scene, he won't have much evidence to go off of other than your word, so you'll probably get away with it after a long legal battle. But..... If the guys accomplice is waiting in the van outside and sees the whole thing and remains on scene, you've got some problems. What if they guy running sees your gun and drops the stuff, or like said earlier could never get it over a fence, or simply left the house as soon as he heard you come down but wasn't able to steal anything. Same for your unoccupied car as you walk out of the mall. You've got some serious legal issues at that point, and can be charged with excessive deadly force, manslaughter etc....


What i'm saying still is you have an obligation to due what's right in order to be a responsible gun owner. Just because you have a gun and can talk your way into justifying it with the local sheriff doesn't make it right. It's still murder as defined by the laws in your state. You were in no iminent danger, you had other means of getting your stuff back like yelling "drop it or i'll shoot". Just because the grand jury can't convict you due to lack of evidence and it does look pretty bad that a burglar was on your property, doesn't make it right. Most of the time all they have is your word vs the deceased, so under the castle doctrine grand jury convictions are going to be pretty rare and difficult, but that still doesn't make it ethical.

What you're implying is that if a jury finds you "not guilty" than everything you did was perfectly legal within the law, and justified. That is simply not true. Plenty of criminals walks the streets everyday because a lack of evidence to find them guilty left the jury saying "not guilty" when they know perfectly well they're guilty.

The problem is actually the "Stand your ground" law as it's written. Before you always had to excercise your option to retreat no matter what. Now, you can't be judged for not retreating, so it leaves a huge gray area in use of force laws. Especially in states with no property defense laws. It doesn't say anything about confrontation of an intruder or theif, which is why we have such long drawn out legal battles. But interpreting the laws in the way you are means that civilians have more authority than police officers when it comes to killing over possessions and objects. If police officers could do that, police work would be so much easier. Just show up for work everyday with a broken leg "Yea, i shot him, i'm crippled so there's no way i could take him down".

All i'm saying to sum this up is we still have to be responsible ethical gun owners. Just because you can get away with something doesn't make it right. Just because the grand jury finds you not guilty doesn't mean justice was served. You don't know how many idiots we lock up and get out with a slap on the wrist due to lack of evidence. Then they look at you like you're in the wrong.
 
Last edited:
gggplayaa: What you're telling people on the internet, people listening to you, is bad legal advice. Advocating that as long as you're old or little, it's ok to go out and shoot someone taking your stuff.
Click to expand...

I am not an attorney and I don't give legal advice on this forum nor any other. However your interpretation of the law in Texas is different than mine, and I cited the statute as well. Nobody says its ok just to go out and shoot someone because we are old. In Texas we are not obligated to allow an assault and our gun taken away from us before using deadly force. I agree with your opinion regarding the expense of defending shootings, any of them are cost prohibitive.

Your moral conviction of right or wrong is not relevant when it comes to a grand jury trial. What the grand jury decides is. A 70 year old disabled man is not expected to undergo an assault in Texas before using deadly force on someone who is approaching him with intention of fighting him physically.
And I can readily disagree with anyone regarding their opinion without making an accusation that they are giving bad legal advice. I have made any number of posts regarding the expense of defending a case even when the shooting is justified. You conclude apparently that the grandjury's
decisions that don't agree with your view, is because they are somehow in error. I trust the legal system to work itself out in whatever state shootings occur. I have never stated it isl morally right or wrong to defend property with deadly force, because as CHL holders to know and follow the law. Grandjurys in Texas have upheld the right of homeowners to use deadly force to prevent the escape of someone running off with the loot.

I think that in such cases they did it because that is how they understand the Texas statute. In the case I cited in my previous post to Dave... was a case found it justified, the case went on to civil court where the homeowner
also succeeded, but had legal fees of over $60,000. Don't sound to me like
I am giving out legal advice to state that one has to consider the cost of
defending such a case. Thats all I have to say with regard to the subject.
 
Once upon a time, in the City of New Orleans, some family members and I were touring around, enjoying the sights. We were on Canal Street and the ladies walked into a shop. I didn't want to look at tourist-trap stuff so I lounged against the outside of the building, watching street traffic. I noticed my BIL talking to some street folks and I watched disinterestedly until they started circling around him like sharks. I had seen this move before so I palmed my revolver and approached the group, talking to my BIL. "Hey, Bill, it's time to go."

The leader of the pack looked at me like I'd just interrupted his lunch and said something about minding my own business. I rolled my hand over so that he could see the palmed pistol and told him that the party was over and it was time to get down the road.

"Yeah, man, you right!" he said as he led his pack down the street. I don't think that anyone other than he or I knew that I was carrying and my BIL and I continued along the street unmolested.
 
I never said it's because the grand jury is in error. They are doing their job with what's shown in front of them. The police are also doing their job the best they can. The problem is not all crimes have a whole slew of evidence left behind. In many of these shooting cases, they are not justified, but there is no way to prove that. All the jury has is the testimony of the shooter. I'm saying that just because the case was found "not guilty" doesn't also imply the actions were justified(to show to be right not in the legal acquited sense). It happens everyday in our legal system. The Castle doctrine puts the major burden of proof on the side of the prosecution, not the defendant. So if the only real evidence is the defendants testimony, convictions are going to be very hard to get. It would be dumb to bring up charges and waste everyone's time without some really heavy doubt to your story.

In your age i'm sure you know, there is always 2 sides to every story. There's just no way to hear the other side. And obviously if it were completely legal to shoot someone for stealing your belongings, there wouldn't even be a legal trial in the first place. It wouldn't go beyond a hearing or grand jury, the DA wouldn't even press charges.

In the Graham article he had a few things working for him. The intruder was driving at him with his car which means his vehicle is now a deadly weapon, and the intruder was verified as having grahams 2 handguns. He had plenty of reasonable use of deadly force. If the intruder saw graham pull up, and decided to jump out of the second story window with just a bag full of normal belongings, then drive off in the opposite direction. Graham would probably be facing charges as he was not in any iminent danger.
 
So criminally Mr. Graham was in the clear, and Texas does not require that he be in fear of his life, but it helps his case if true. But he still incurred an extreme financial cost of at least $60,000 in legal fees.
Click to expand...
Right. The point being that it's pretty much a given that criminal was not escaping with anything approaching $60K in value. So at the VERY least, the decision to shoot was an extremely poor financial choice. It's also likely that Graham was liable for civil damages in addition to the criminal trial costs, and it's not hard to guess at what other havoc this incident may have wreaked on his life.

The problem with discussions like this one is that they generally turn into "When can I shoot?" arguments which is really looking at things all wrong.

The correct way to view this situation is, in my opinion as follows.

1. Shoot when you HAVE to shoot--when there are no other options. Then hope that the legal aftermath (criminal and civil) leaves you relatively intact.

2. Understand the law so that your actions and words don't cause you to fall into any "traps".

The deadly force laws shouldn't be treated like a tightrope, but rather as a boundary to avoid at all cost. Stay firmly on the ground well on the legal side of it and your chances of falling off the tightrope on the wrong side are virtually eliminated.

Trying to figure out exactly how much you can get away with without being convicted may keep you out of jail, but it's not a recipe for living a happy life. Just ask Mr. Graham.
 
how about I take one for the team and steer this baby back on topic?

In the late 90s I was working in Des Moines at a place where many of my coworkers were essentially HS interns. I was giving some a ride to their apartment one day when a van came up behind me and tailgated me for at least a mile, across several lanes, and eventually even following me off the freeway. I went down the ramp where I was stopped by the red light and a line of cars at the bottom, and he parked right behind me, got out, and walked up to my car.

The high school girls were even worse than he was; they were screaming and carrying on. Keep in mind that this was before cell phones were as common as well, and the only one any of us had was on my desk back at work. The kids locked the doors and rolled up the windows.

Mister aggressive walked to my car and taped on the glass with a shopping-cart handle. Very politely, I drew the gun I carried for work occasionally at that time, a .357, and tapped back.

He turned around, and got back into his car, and drove away. When we got the kids back to their house, I called him in, so he wasn't calling me in for menacing. I was about 21 or 22 at the time.
 
DesMoines IA was a difficult place to get a concealed carry permit in the 90's as Iowa was a may-Issue. How did you have one. I had one forever however lived in Jackson county which had always been a shall issue. We had always a good Sheriff.
It is good now tghat Iowa as of Jan 2011 became consistant with shall issue and took the discression away from the Sheriff
 
DesMoines IA was a difficult place to get a concealed carry permit in the 90's as Iowa was a may-Issue. How did you have one. I had one forever however lived in Jackson county which had always been a shall issue. We had always a good Sheriff.
It is good now tghat Iowa as of Jan 2011 became consistant with shall issue and took the discression away from the Sheriff
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just a trustworthy guy. It is nice that I don't have to worry that if I move to a new county I may not get the permit anymore. Mine was issued in Dickinson first, so that may have helped a little, that I had one already when I came to Polk. I know it helped in other counties.
 
I dont know if this has been said or not, but here goes. You may also need to check the laws in your state. Most states only permit you to shoot if your life is in danger. Just having someone threatning to fight you, may not be sufficient cause to draw and shoot. The bad guy could walk, and YOU go to jail.
 
First of all, I want to congratulate all of the folks who restrained themselves or found creative ways to end a potentially deadly situation. therealrasta who got hit in the head with a pipe. Amazing restraint. I cannot say i would have acted in such a controlled manner. To hagar, who admitted he wanted to pull the trigger. It takes a much bigger individual to not pull the trigger when you want to. It's very easy to not do something when you don't want to. It is a much harder thing to not do something in this sort of situation than it is to do something.

My story: I have never had to pull a concealed weapon. I have however been in combat and can be reasonably sure of two things. One: I am reasonably sure I have taken a life, and I regret it. I regret the need of having to do such a thing, in any circumstances. There should be another way. The second thing I am reasonably sure of is I would have done it all over again. Without getting too deep into details, there should be another way. A better way.

Since there isn't, I applaud those who found another way and recommend that everyone only pull that trigger if you have to. Once you fire that round, you can never put it back.
 
I will be honest, I'd be afraid to even show my gun at all, like some of the stories I've heard where people have done that to diffuse an altercation that was going on with someone other than themselves, as I wouldn't want it to be construed as me pulling my weapon on someone. You can protect others in my state (SC), but you better damn well be sure you're protecting the right person. What if you see two guys and one is going at the other one, and you think he's going to hurt him and intervene only to find out ultimately that the guy that was originally going at the other guy was just robbed by him in the parking lot minutes earlier? I also think in my state if I were to get robbed and the robbers were running away and I shot them, I'd be held liable for what happened to them. It's crazy and I don't agree with it, but you have to feel that your life is in danger, and your life is not technically in danger if they're running the other way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top