View Full Version : Right to defend my family, or friends..
Let's say I am visiting a friend or family member. (Yes, in Texas!) And my vehicle is parked on the main street, thoroughfare by their house, OR on the property.
Gangbanger losers drive by and threaten us. I get the AR from the vehicle (FIRST!!) then call cops. Before the cops get there, I have to shoot to defend myself and family. It's not my home, my relatives rent. I think I'm OK. It is Texas..
Anyone else KNOW? Speculation is fine, but does anyone know for sure? I believe I would be exoneratted IF it actually came to it.
dog
If you are in fear of your life or someone else, you do what you have to and worry about the rest later. You are missing a bunch of details with this incident to draw any conclusions. I'd first attempt to go back into the house after getting my gun.
First thing. Why would you leave the AR in the vehicle?
How do you know that they are "gang bangers"? Are you a police officer, or do you have specific knowledge as to their identities?
The bottom line is that self-defense is self-defense and there are so many variables here that speculation isn't worth it. Either your life or that of anothers wa in danger and you responded appopriately. You will then have to articulate this to the police. You may want to use your Google-Fu and find out what they actual law in Texas is as it relates to "justifiable homicide" and or self-defense.
Let's say I am visiting a friend or family member. (Yes, in Texas!) And my vehicle is parked on the main street, thoroughfare by their house, OR on the property.
Gangbanger losers drive by and threaten us. I get the AR from the vehicle (FIRST!!) then call cops. Before the cops get there, I have to shoot to defend myself and family. It's not my home, my relatives rent. I think I'm OK. It is Texas..
Anyone else KNOW? Speculation is fine, but does anyone know for sure? I believe I would be exoneratted IF it actually came to it.
dog
Very subjective question. For example I live in VA where unlike states such as Florida, there is unfortunately no castle doctrine. This essentially means I have a duty to retreat before employing lethal force. We live in a litigious society where tattooed little scumbags with rap sheets as long as a donkey's johnson are suddenly portrayed as saints when it comes to filing civil suits after they get shot. If they don't sue, then the bunch of inbred oxygen thieves that they call a family will come after you.
The bottom line is you need to be thoroughly familiar with the laws in your particular state concerning use of firearms, concealed carry, castle doctrine etc. If you're going to carry one - know the law.
Having said all that, if I felt that I or my family were in mortal danger anywhere and I had recourse to a firearm I'd use it. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
We live in a litigious society where tattooed little scumbags with rap sheets as long as a donkey's johnson are suddenly portrayed as saints when it comes to filing civil suits after they get shot. If they don't sue, then the bunch of inbred oxygen thieves that they call a family will come after you.
and remember dead people cant sue !
something my lawyer friend says :)
and remember dead people cant sue !
something my lawyer friend says :)
He was kidding, sort of.
If the individual could have sued for injuries sustained, then his estate could sue for his death. That said, here in Michigan and in some other states, an individual (or his estate) cannot sue for injuries or death suffered as a result of a defensive use of lethal force brought on by the felonious acts of the individual.
In other words, assuming the facts are not otherwise contested, neither the attacker nor his estate can sue the victim who has successfully defended himself.
Very subjective question. For example I live in VA where unlike states such as Florida, there is unfortunately no castle doctrine. This essentially means I have a duty to retreat before employing lethal force. We live in a litigious society where tattooed little scumbags with rap sheets as long as a donkey's johnson are suddenly portrayed as saints when it comes to filing civil suits after they get shot. If they don't sue, then the bunch of inbred oxygen thieves that they call a family will come after you.
The bottom line is you need to be thoroughly familiar with the laws in your particular state concerning use of firearms, concealed carry, castle doctrine etc. If you're going to carry one - know the law.
Having said all that, if I felt that I or my family were in mortal danger anywhere and I had recourse to a firearm I'd use it. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
This is incorrect. Virginia has no "duty to retreat" EXCEPT when you are a party to creating the situation. That is explicitly outlined in the statute, and there is considerable case law to support the idea that if you are totally the victim, you do NOT have to attempt retreat (although in some circumstances retreat may be a good option.)
It is a well-established legal principle that "a person who reasonably apprehends bodily
harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault." Diffendal v.
Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 417, 421, 382 S.E.2d 24, 25-26 (1989). Under Virginia law, if an
individual who uses force to repel an assault is later charged with a crime arising out of injury to
the original aggressor, that individual may employ either of two theories of self-defense. If the
defendant was at some fault in precipitating the confrontation with the victim, the defendant may
employ the defense of excusable self-defense, so long as he or she abandoned the fight and
retreated as far as he or she safely could. See McCoy v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 771, 776, 99
S.E. 644, 646 (1919). That is, once the accused abandons the attack and retreats as far as he or
she safely can, he or she may take reasonable and necessary steps to preserve his (or her) own
life or save himself (or herself) from great bodily injury. Connell v. Commonwealth, 34
Va. App. 429, 437, 542 S.E.2d 49, 53 (2001). In contrast, if the "defendant is completely
without fault" in precipitating the confrontation, then, under the theory of justifiable self-defense,
"the defendant need not retreat, but is permitted to stand his ground and repel the attack by force,
including deadly force, if it is necessary." Foote v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 61, 67, 396
S.E.2d 851, 855 (1990). Under either theory, however, the "amount of force used must be
reasonable in relation to the harm threatened." Diffendal, 8 Va. App. at 421, 382 S.E.2d at 26.
Note the last part that says you may defend yourself with reasonable force in relation to the force used against you - you can't shoot someone because they punch you in the nose.
This is incorrect. Virginia has no "duty to retreat" EXCEPT when you are a party to creating the situation. That is explicitly outlined in the statute, and there is considerable case law to support the idea that if you are totally the victim, you do NOT have to attempt retreat (although in some circumstances retreat may be a good option.)
Note the last part that says you may defend yourself with reasonable force in relation to the force used against you - you can't shoot someone because they punch you in the nose.
I stand corrected mike - thanks for the heads up on that one!
I stand corrected mike - thanks for the heads up on that one!
But you're right - we'd be MUCH better off with a Castle Doctrine law in Virginia, however the state assembly screwed us last year.
I fail to see how any SANE person can NOT support castle doctrine laws. They are not even about guns, they are about protecting yourself through any means. People think, mistakenly, that self defense laws are purely gun laws, and they are not.
Detective_D
12-11-08, 08:18
I believe this would be a better question for a practicing lawyer in your state then in a public forum.
You will get different answers from different people, but if I was you, I would contact an attorney to pose that question to.
~D
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-11-08, 09:18
Not a lawyer, but I visit Texas a lot ;)
You pull an AR out on a public street, BEFORE the shooting starts and I think you are going to have a heap of trouble. They can say that they were reacting to you.
As to an AR in a car/truck, I don't think it would be uncommon to have a coyote gun if you have some land, but your yard better be big enough to use a riding mower on. The whole Mumbia thing makes me wonder if stowing a carbine in the trunk wouldn't be a bad idea.
Yeah, the House passed the bill to the Senate who bounced it back in February as I recall Mike.
Just a sidebar ...
The term castle doctrine has been morphed over the past few years by pro-2A groups.
Historically, the castle doctrine means that you have no duty to retreat from threat of death or grave bodily injury when in your own home.[/i] In most place, you do have a [b]duty to retreat if you can do so safely and you are not in your home. You don't have to run out your back door and surrender your "castle" even if you could do so safely.
To the best of my knowledge, that traditional "castle doctrine" is the law (either by statute or case law) in every state in the U.S.
Nowadays, people are using the term castle doctrine for laws which further expand one's authority to use lethal force in the home to situations where there has not been the kind of demonstrable threat of death/GBI that would be required outside of the home. For instance, in some new "castle doctrine" laws, the mere presence of a stranger in your home is deemed adequate evidence that he poses a threat of death/GBI.
(I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice)
CarlosDJackal
12-11-08, 16:03
WARNING: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV (thank God to infinity!!).
The criteria I usually tell people they should use is AOJP.
ABILITY - Does the attacker have the Ability to inflict death or grievous bodily harm?
OPPORTUNITY - Does the attacker have the Opportunity to inflict death or grievous bodily harm?
JEOPARDY - Are you in immediate Jeopardy of death or grievous bodily harm?
PRECLUSION - Can you Preclude yourself or your loved one from the situation?
If you answer YES to the first three question and NO from the fourth one, then you probably have the justification to use lethal force.
Remember, I walk am not a lawyer (which is why I don't slither along the ground). :D
Charlie Golf
12-13-08, 17:27
Not a lawyer, but I visit Texas a lot ;)
You pull an AR out on a public street, BEFORE the shooting starts and I think you are going to have a heap of trouble.
When I read the OP I thought the exact same thing. This comes across to me as a form of "brandishing" for lack of a better term.
Replace the AR with a CCW handgun in the example. Gangbangers (or people resembling such :D) drive by and make verbal threats. You pull out your handgun before they have escalated beyond threats or shown any weapons. That meets the definition of brandishing on your part and most likely would be viewed by a "non-gun" jury as escalation on your part.
Now if the AR or handgun was removed from the vehicle in response to incoming shots fired I would feel differently.
Beyond that, threats do little to warrant the use of deadly force unless there are weapons of any type within their area of lethal effectiveness. Of course their car could be considered a weapon...just make sure your rounds went through the front windshield and not the rear ;)
A good attorney will make a jury look at 3 things:
Ability -- Does the person have the ability to attack you? Could this person successfully assault you, whether through physical prowess, a weapon or numerical superiority?
Opportunity -- Does this person have the opportunity or means (weapons) to attack you? Are you alone with him or even in an area beyond immediate help/refuge?
Intent -- Is he in a mental place where using violence to get what he wants makes sense to him?
If they can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the "gangbangers" exhibited all 3 of the above before you pulled the trigger then your odds of acquittal are higher.
If you use deadly force in self-defense, you will be sued no matter how justified you are under criminal law.
and remember dead people cant sue !
something my lawyer friend says :)
Yes, but their families who have previously disowned them can, as well as their girlfriends who want to leave but are afraid they will hunt them down and kill them. Long story.
Suffice it to say trite saying are not going to help.
John_Wayne777
12-16-08, 12:05
To the best of my knowledge, that traditional "castle doctrine" is the law (either by statute or case law) in every state in the U.S.
I could be wrong here, but I've always heard that NY and NJ require retreat.
shadowalker
12-16-08, 12:06
If you use deadly force in self-defense, you will be sued no matter how justified you are under criminal law.
Not always true anymore, a few of the states (Idaho included) have passed laws that say that you can not be sued if it is a justified use of force. If you live in a state that barely believes in your right to self defense be prepared to be put through a lot, even in a justified shoot.
Take some training, know your capabilities, know the law and know when to be quiet.
Arizona is the same. From what I read if you are legally justified then you cannot be held liable in civil court.
Not always true anymore, a few of the states (Idaho included) have passed laws that say that you can not be sued if it is a justified use of force. If you live in a state that barely believes in your right to self defense be prepared to be put through a lot, even in a justified shoot.
Take some training, know your capabilities, know the law and know when to be quiet.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-16-08, 23:22
I could be wrong here, but I've always heard that NY and NJ require retreat.
And France.
The key words with duty to retreat is "if possible." Turning your back on an attacker is a good way to get shot, stabbed, or have them jump on your back and choke you out or hit you over the head because you cannot defend yourself with your back turned. Many attackers will also pursue purely out of prey instinct of chasing something that is fleeing. Also, there may be children or family members in your house who you cannot leave undefended.
A lot of these duty to retreat requirements are moot because they only apply if you can safely do so. You need to be able to articluate through a lawyer why you did what you did and why retreat was not a safe option.
http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr333/bisonheart/100_0504.jpg
Or I'll just get one of these!
dog
My, that's awfully large. One of my models...
I meant a real one, though!
dog
Jay Cunningham
12-17-08, 00:42
For me the rule is that I will deploy a firearm if I perceive a potentially lethal threat (to myself, to my family/friends, or to a stranger as a very distant third) and cannot safely retreat from it. I do not care where I am or what the local laws are, this is my personal trip setpoint.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.