Response: “Stop or I’ll shoot” is a conditional threat that is totally enough to put fear of being shot into a reasonable person. Also I would not want to talk to someone wielding a shotgun following me around while I was running.
Question: Then site a few maybe?
Law: TX Sec. 9.04.
THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.
Legal Definition of the threat the victim faced.
... a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the PRODUCTION of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary....
The whole statute, pay particular attention to the end.
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
My Response: While the words ‘I want to talk to you’ alone may not be threatening. When you look at the phrase in the context of the situation, 2 people (your out numbered), with firearms (your out gunned), that have chased you down in a vehicle (you can’t get away), and so on. At what point is a reasonable person going to start to feel a little uneasy.
See underlined above
Response: Define the difference then, because brandishing is not pointing it either. The law in here states brandishing is being defined as simply HOLDING in a manner to cause alarm or elicit a response.
Answer: While technically you are correct, we teach the twice your size and out numbered rule to help the defender out. If you’re a 280 pound body builder and a unarmed 60 pound 10 year old punches you and you shoot them, your going to prison. Now if your a 125 pound female in parking lot and an unarmed 280 pound body builder punches you and you shoot him, you could be justified.
Not technically, legally. Do you teach for a university or for an accredited Texas Basic Peace Officer Academy?
Law: TX Penal Code § 9.32
Deadly Force in Defense of Person
(This part 2 is where a jury will be the reasonable party during the case)
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
It is disingenuous to quote only part of the statute. Read the whole thing.
Response: You can’t start a verbal altercation and then use force to defend yourself when the other party starts a fight, without first attempting to disengage/flee, or when not possible express your intentions to leave the situations. THATS RIGHT! You start a verbal disagreement, feud, argument, or whatever and the other party gets violent, your “Stand Your Ground” defense is gone.
Law: TX PC § 9.31. Self Defense (You must be able to meet this use of force benchmark FIRST, in order to use Deadly force)
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of UNLAWFUL force, unless:
(A) the actor ABANDONS the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor
(That’s right! If you start shit, you gotta run if they come at you or go to prison).
It is disingenuous to only quote part of a statute while ignoring the rest. You need to read the entire section.
Answer: Peace Officers are clearly marked, given arrest authority by their respective municipalities, able to escalate 1 level of force above the level shown by a detainee, now days have dash cams, body cams, WOULDN’T HAVE A SHOTGUN OUT to say “can I talk to you”.
Shotguns are used, often. Patrol rifles are also used, typically an AR platform, to lesser effect. The shotgun still wins for voluntary compliance by communicating that resistence is futile.
Levels in use of force, as well as the plus one rule were tossed out of use of force continuum a decade ago. Use of force isn't a stair step from one level to the next, it is fluid.
The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 14
Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.
(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.
Note that it actually says a peace officer or any other person.
Response: 1st - Find a felon and we can discuss this point. And adds to what defense. So far I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that would give a reasonable person the motivation to do HALF of what these two did to DEFEND their neighborhood from the ....hammer thief? Maybe? Jogger ? Maybe?
2nd - Detaining someone and using any kind of force to detain them are completely separate. That needs to not only authorize citizens to detain an individual but allow the use of force to do so for this to be anywhere close to a defensible event.
[
Response: Still wouldn’t have a case. Let me put this in perspective. The crime that you’re thinking will “Give them a strong case” is the equivalent to J-walking, or loitering...you wanna tell a judge that you were cleaning up the streets of DIRTY J-walkers and you killed one when they attacked you for stopping them with you gun??? “IF” he was told to not go into the construction site then at most he was trespassing!! He wasn’t stabbing little white ladies in their homes man, relax.
There is no jaywalking statute in Texas. There is no loitering statute in Texas. Could he have concealed some expensive tool on his person and it not be seen on the video?
Construction site objects most stolen are appliances, copper wiring, and tools. Tools in particular because they are easily pawned. Appliances are often stolen by "contractors" that are doing a job elsewhere that needs those appliances.
Answer: TX Penal Code § 9.31 - Self-Defense
(Use of Force)
A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
There is far more to Chapter 9 that this. Keep reading.
(Answer: You need to ask a person to leave, or have signs posted stating “No trespassing”, it’s not just an automatic law broken when you step onto property not owned by you without permission. However “breaking and entering” would have been an automatic violation, IF the house’s construction was complete and he broke into a locked building.
There is not breaking and entering statue in Texas, but there is burglary and criminal trespass.
Do you think a purple stripe on a fence post is enough of a warning? Hint: Read thr Criminal Trespass law, all of it. But they suspected he committed a burglary, not criminal trespass.
Answer: However it happens all the time across the country. The USPS/UPS/FEDEX has no special law or authority allowing them to step into your yard or onto your property to deliver a package, however if you shoot one your going to prison. Why is that? Maybe because you have to give people a verbal or written warning before a trespass is valid.
Response: The “jogger” was going to steal lumber? Heavy machinery? Paint? Bricks? ...And carry it by hand? There are times these sites lose materials due to theft yes, however I think vandals are wise to bring a pickup truck.
You don't know the criminal element.
Few are wise. Those that truly are often don't get caught.
Answer: I live in the ONLY state in the country that allows you to use deadly force to defend property. Even here you can’t use that deadly force indiscriminately to defend “a” property. It was to be your house and you have to be in it.
Response: what are you talking about, the FBI and shit. I sent a FOIR to the city...I find that there is less lag in case you were wondering.
Look at the FBI Uniformed Crime Reporting (UCR) program.
I suspect you are not in any way involved in any facet of law enforcement, district attorney's office, or even a defense attorney if you don't know anything about UCR. Your Freedom of Information Act Request is not going to give you the complete and true offense reports. If you did get one much of an offense report would be redacted.
Response: laws are meant to be interpreted. Fact, and events I have presented based on what’s been made available.
Response: So did the jogger right?
Presumption of innocence is during the prosecution, not during detention or arrest. If it was, hoe would anyone be arrested? Wouldn't we presume them all innocent and let them leave? Catch a bank robber running down the street covered in dye from the dye pack. He can't be detained? You are saying he is presumed innocent. Probable cause is required for arrest, so him being presumed innocent would definitely hurt a probable cause affidavit presented to a magistrate.
Response: We are all presumed innocent until a court says otherwise. He could say “no” while holding that guy’s wife’s wedding ring. Guess what? Still can’t shoot him, threaten to shoot him, or use force to detain him. However if you ask him nicely to please stand by while you arrest him maybe he will comply. Or these assholes could have just called the fucking police like normal god damn people.
You proved many other's arguments with your wedding ring analogy. It could be slipped in a pocket and not seen on a recording. For the rest of you, my apologies. I'm done with this back and forth on this post. 
. You just showed the whole damn video! Adding 'the rest is too graphic' while showing the entire video is pure public sentiment manipulation. I don't watch the news much for just this reason. I wouldn't have known about this at all if I hadn't have seen it here.
