[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by billethkid

the post that stated the threat was no longer involved makes the strongest case.\ against her....the threat was over and the perp gone.

Other factors that may or may not affect the a legal outcome:
Did she have a concealed weapons permit?
Did she have any amount of training?
And the answers could work for or against her!

And as has been stated already...the outcome does not have to make sense or be logical it is all a function of her attorneys to tell a more convincing story than those she is up against.

I do not find Criminal Law all that logical either when it comes to outcomes. It seems to depend for many cases on who is really good at plea bargaining.

Not sure how much the woman's having a bruised head would have on the outcome of a case like this.

[rubicon]

Based on this thread, I believe some people have too much time on their hands

Discussion of crimes on this forum will always end up with a debate about gun control. and when someone says this is not a political discussion you can be certain it is.

[gustavo]

Originally Posted by mikeod

I'm not a lawyer and did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but off the top of my head I would say the lady is in trouble in all three scenarios. In all three, the perp is running away and there is no longer a threat that would warrant deadly force.

YMMV.

What he said, you can't shoot someone in the back because he knocked you down and stole personal property, The system will not allow it, I don't care who your lawyer is.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Based on this thread, I believe some people have too much time on their hands

Discussion of crimes on this forum will always end up with a debate about gun control. and when someone says this is not a political discussion you can be certain it is.

I hope not, I would feel naked without a several guns and a few thousand rounds of ammo.

[TheVillageChicken]

Originally Posted by gustavo

What he said, you can't shoot someone in the back because he knocked you down and stole personal property, The system will not allow it, I don't care who your lawyer is.

That depends upon which system you are talking about.

Texas Law on Use of Deadly Force to Protect Property

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by TheVillageChicken

That depends upon which system you are talking about.

Texas Law on Use of Deadly Force to Protect Property

I like that law.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by TheVillageChicken

That depends upon which system you are talking about.

Texas Law on Use of Deadly Force to Protect Property

Strange caveat in that law. Can only shoot them at nighttime.

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.

[2BNTV]

I don't deal in hypotheticals!!

As Sgt Joe Friday says, "just the facts mame".

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but nobody did!!!!!!

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I do not find Criminal Law all that logical either when it comes to outcomes. It seems to depend for many cases on who is really good at plea bargaining.

Not sure how much the woman's having a bruised head would have on the outcome of a case like this.

A blow to the head can render one so dazed that he acts from instinct or prior training rather than from reasoned thought. Great defense.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

A blow to the head can render one so dazed that he acts from instinct or prior training rather than from reasoned thought. Great defense.

I think this just further suggests it would come down to a prosecutor, an attorney, and a jury. No hard and fast.

[TheVillageChicken]

A fourth scenario. Same as others except shot misses mugger and hits 70ish year old man stealing 40 doggy doo doo bags...richochets off his elbow and strikes man letting dog drink from human fountain. This fellow drops dog who grabs mugger by the ankle effecting apprehension and arrest.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by TheVillageChicken

A fourth scenario. Same as others except shot misses mugger and hits 70ish year old man stealing 40 doggy doo doo bags...richochets off his elbow and strikes man letting dog drink from human fountain. This fellow drops dog who grabs mugger by the ankle effecting apprehension and arrest.

Add to that the dog biting the mugger, and the thief sues the 70ish-year-old man. Dog is impounded.

[BobnBev]

Originally Posted by mikeod

I'm not a lawyer and did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but off the top of my head I would say the lady is in trouble in all three scenarios. In all three, the perp is running away and there is no longer a threat that would warrant deadly force.

YMMV.

This is the correct legal answer.

[TheVillageChicken]

Originally Posted by BobnBev

This is the correct legal answer.

Only if a jury says so.

[buggyone]

This was a very good discussion AND it did not evolve to politics or to any form of gun control.

Personally, I would go with the posters who said if a robber is running away from you, shooting at him is wrong and you are responsible for deaths or injuries caused by your bullet. Carl In Tampa raises excellent points, too.