Without knowing the precise facts but just going by what I read here I think it is fair to say that what those folks did is authorized under normal American common law, namely, to come to the aid of third parties who are under immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. That means anyone, anywhere, not just CHL holders.
It also means using any means necessary. A gun, a knife, stick, baseball bat, garbage can cover, rock, fists, or body tackle.
But sticking to lethal force with guns -
Suppose you're in Texas, as I am, and you can legally carry a concealed weapon in your motor vehicle without any kind of permit. If you see a guy shooting through windows don't you think that automatically justifies your reaching for your car gun to neutralize the threat? The guy is, by definition, as pointed out by Muss Muggins, a bad guy. Do you think you have to await the time when the bad guy points his weapon in your direction? Well, the law is clear - you do not have to await that time.
Quote:
Texas Penal Code
Chapter 9. Justifications Excluding Criminal Responsibility
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
|
No copyright.
The sections referenced above Section 9.33 are, of course, the statutory self defense provisions in the Penal Code.
Just FYI - nobody says you have to but if you feel like there is an immediate need to act you are justified.