A lesson for us all...

[RugerHound]

God forbid we're ever in a position to need to pull the trigger... Here's a story of a guy who let his inner Rambo get the best of him, and now there's a dead man and another who's life is forever changed.

Not that there's any hot-heads here on the RF! But it's always good to keep in mind how wrong something can get and how quickly it can get there.

Kentucky’s Jeff Conrad is likely to spend the rest of his life in prison (if he doesn’t get the death penalty) because he apparently decided to become judge, jury, and executioner.

http://bearingarms.com/ky-man-faces-capital-murder-charge-killing-fleeing-burglar/

 

[Fox Mike]

Unfortunately putting a gun in a man's hands in many cases only makes him armed; not knowledgeable concerning the laws that pertain to where he/she is.

 

[SAJohn]

The only State I could find where his action probably would have been legal is Texas.

 

[737tdi]

"You may not use a firearm to detain someone, and you don’t have the legal right to shoot at someone as they attempt to run away."


This statement is just not true. You certainly do have the right to use a firearm to detain someone. If you come home and your house is being burglarized are you just going to let him leave? I think not, with that said you can't chase him down the street and then shoot him.

Broad statements such as quoted above should not be made. It just causes confusion. JMO.

Karl

 

[Wyandot Jim]

The only State I could find where his action probably would have been legal is Texas.

Yes in Texas you have the right to protect your property and property of others . Yes you can detain a person committing a felony.

 

[graygun]

Heard some favorable news tonight. A guy shot a would-be burglar trying to enter his house via a doggie door. No charges are pending as it does not violate TX castle doctrine. Perp is not dead but in bad shape.

 

[wheelgun1958]

"You may not use a firearm to detain someone, and you don’t have the legal right to shoot at someone as they attempt to run away."
Karl

Subch. D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land
or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1)the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2)the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
PC §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 night time 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.

 

[737tdi]

wheelgun1958: That is not my quote, that is from the article, notice the quotes. Please read what I posted. On the portion you highlighted, the keyword is immediately. I believe one is taking a huge gamble if they were to jump in their car and chase a thief and then kill him. Depending on which county you live in, will make a huge difference, i.e. Dallas, Tarrant, Travis etc.. Those grand juries are unpredictable.

Karl

 

[wheelgun1958]

I never said it was the most expedient course of action.

 

[737tdi]

I never said it was the most expedient course of action.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Rick Courtright]

I never said it was the most expedient course of action.

Hi,

I dunno: sounds expedient to me! Now prudent? Well... there's a whole big can of worms there! I think that's what Karl's getting at.

Rick C

 

[blume357]

Internet article will never give all the facts, but I believe a LEO can use deadly force to stop a person who has committed a felony from escaping if he or she believe that felon will most likely cause harm/injury to others. My only question about this is what would the grand jury have decided if the guy was a cop?

 

[gramps]

The OP talks about a case in Ky. Perhaps a perusal of their laws is in order.
gramps