TexasCHLforum.com

Attorney Andrew Branca discusses the Denver incident near the end of his Thursday 15 OCT 2020 News/Q&A Facebook LIVE. https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:51 pm The self defense laws in Colorado may be different than in Texas. Isn't self defense nullified if you create the situation that requires self defense? In other words, you antagonize someone to the point they "slap" you, you cannot then shoot them and claim self defense. If Colorado has similar laws, the shooter cannot claim self defense if he first antagonized a response from the victim. I saw the Tucker episode and they talked of this shooter and his two partners in crime going from one group to another trying to elicit a response. Maybe for the camera. Maybe to have an excuse to murder someone.

The elements of self defense are the same in CO as they are in Texas. Colorado attorney Andrew Branca explains: https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

In an earlier post, I summarized the regaining of innocence as it pertains to self defense, and linked to an article in which Branca explained the concept in detail.

Branca is reviewing the Denver incident in significant legal detail on his blog, These reviews are restricted to members only, but you can get a 2 week trial membership for $0.99. https://lawofselfdefense.com/join/

Obviously, we do not have enough information to form a cogent analysis. There are some aspects of self defense law that we can discuss. For example, it is possible for the initial aggressor to regain innocence and it is possible for the defender to become the aggressor. Attorney Andrew Branca explains:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/02/l ... d-example/

Regaining Innocence: Withdrawal & Communication
The first method is known as “withdrawal & communication,” and it involves the initial aggressor physically withdrawing, or making a good faith effort to withdraw, from the fight in combination with effectively communicating to the other party that they no longer want to fight.
...

Regaining Innocence: Circumstances of Escalation
...
What happens if the first person uses or threatens mere non-deadly force and their intended target escalates to a deadly force response? So, the first person throws a punch, and the second person responds bringing a knife or gun into the fight as their response.
...

gamboolman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:32 pm

Pawpaw wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:06 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:48 pm

seph wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:11 pm

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:33 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:21 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:46 pm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... uburb.html

BLM rioters smash windows in homes in Milwaukee suburb after Black Officer kills Black teen and is not charged.

I find myself wondering what the laws are in Texas if something like this occurs. I would have a hard time not firing on someone who is attacking me in my home.

If a group of people are smashing windows, would you not assume they are trying to get to you to hurt or kill you? Kinda like being trapped in a mob on the street, when they break your car window you'd assume they were attempting to reach you to inflict grave bodily harm!

They throw rocks into my house, I think it's fair for me to throw lead balls back. It's like a game of catch.

Exactly

But I still wonder what the legal ramifications would be.

IANAL, but...

Sec. 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 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.

Thanks to all of the Posts - My questions / scenario is this. We live in a nice suburban neighborhood. Scenario is during daylight - What if a Mob is on your property in your yard and/or in your back yard which is fenced in and gated.
The Mob has not attacked the house but they are yelling and threatening and doing property damage, e.g., damaging automobiles in driveway or tearing up property in yard or patio.

What do you do ?

Stay inside and call Police?

Call Police and go outside armed - to stop the property damage ?

Thanks to all for any advice as this is unfortunately a real potential scenario with all the ignorant behavior and lawlessness going on nowadays.

gamboolman....

ETA - This in The Woodlands

There was a similar case in Florida, property outside the home, earlier this year. Homeowner will not face charges.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/cr ... story.html
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/cr ... story.html
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/sanford ... 5FTCSQF2M/

Ruark wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:51 pm

gamboolman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:32 pm
Thanks to all of the Posts - My questions / scenario is this. We live in a nice suburban neighborhood. Scenario is during daylight - What if a Mob is on your property in your yard and/or in your back yard which is fenced in and gated.
The Mob has not attacked the house but they are yelling and threatening and doing property damage, e.g., damaging automobiles in driveway or tearing up property in yard or patio.

What do you do ?

Stay inside and call Police?

Call Police and go outside armed - to stop the property damage ?

Thanks to all for any advice as this is unfortunately a real potential scenario with all the ignorant behavior and lawlessness going on nowadays.

I'm not sure if you can go outside armed. It's probably legal, yes, as long as you don't point a weapon at somebody - that's assault - but to my knowledge you can't use deadly force to prevent property damage.

In Texas, pointing a weapon is not always assault.

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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... m/PE.9.htm

US-Texas_Law_Shield has a video on defending property in Texas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TlTnQ0XNTQ

As I understand it, if you are inside your house and someone is breaking doors/windows, your response is defending yourself, not the property.

Google images of "blake knife in hand" and you will see stills from the video showing him holding what appears to be a curved blade as he walks to the car.

US-Texas-Law-Shield has released videos of webinar sessions on self defense during civil unrest. Here are two.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBAZUyovHOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcoChkg08bY&t=1s

Today, in the members only area of Law of Self Defense, attorney Andrew Branca presented a 1.5 hour analysis of the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting. He summarized by stating, in part:

Kyle Rittenhouse’s use of deadly defensive force in killing his attacker in the Parking Lot Confrontation and in killing one attacker and maiming another in the Street Confrontation was collectively, and to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, lawful uses of deadly defensive force, justified self-defense, and not criminal conduct.

On September 3, at 3pm Central, Branca will present a Facebook LIVE "News/Q&A" session at https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/ You can ask questions.

RSX11 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:50 pm Y'know, your replies are practically content free, while simultaneously not answering my original question. Let me put it baldly as possible, with no room for misunderstanding. If confronted with a similar mob, would you ready yourself to be able to draw your gun (what I'm thinking I would do), do something else, or do nothing? And if a beat down on you by the mob started, involving multiple people, would you endure it stoically, draw your gun and start blazing away, or...something else?

You are not going to get the answer you want. The law does not work that way and neither does life.

I carry my S&W M&P9 M2.0 5" openly in a Safariland 7TS ALS with Guard. I don't have to get anything ready.

When confronted by mere force, I will avoid deescalate, defend with force in that order. When confronted by a deadly force threat, I will avoid, deescalate, defend in that order.

My pistol is my last resort and my goal is to survive, not go out in a blaze of glory.

Your mileage will vary.

RSX11 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:43 pm

I am a 68 year old Vietnam ear vet, retired in 2012, 70% disabled. In the video in question (https://www.wnd.com/2020/08/blm-activis ... olidarity/), I do not see an articulable threat of death or serious bodily injury to me. Your mileage will vary.

Well, I did say "if it got physical". I agree it would be unwise to to start shooting just from people yelling at you. I am concerned about the best course of action right before the skateboards start to fly into your head, and right after.

Now we are discussing two separate fights; screaming crowd vs seated woman and armed mob vs rifleman.

We must each decide for ourselves which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us. "Get physical" could mean mere force or it could mean deadly force. One person with only fists is almost always mere force. A number of persons with fists could easily be deadly force, if their conduct shows they mean to attack.

Against imminent and unlawful deadly force, the question becomes how best to respond to ensure survival. If I do not survive the physical fight, the legal fight will be of little import.

RSX11 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:33 pm

"In case it turns physical," your pistol is still not a good option. While "production of a weapon" as a threat of deadly force can be legal (TPC 9.04) against mere force, what do you do if the threat fails?

If a mob of people crowded around me, screaming and threatening me, starts beating me, I think I'm reasonably going to fear death or serious bodily injury (I'm 66 and not as tough as I used to be). Would not deadly force be appropriate in response to this situation? Or should I count on the goodwill of the Communists, and just hope for a light beating? One thing's for sure, I'll go down fighting under a hailstorm of fists, bootheels and skateboards before I'll be coerced into making a gesture of support for any movement.

We must each decide for ourselves which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us.

Attorney Andrew Branca explains the law of self defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

Yes, disparity of force or number of attackers can alter the justification of the use of force or deadly force.

You are talking about three separate fights; screaming and threatening, beating, and fear of death or serious bodily injury. TPC 9 requires that our response to a threat be proportional. Against verbal provocation alone (screaming), no force is justified. Against mere force (fists), only mere force is justified. Against deadly force, "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary", force and deadly force can be justified. Proportionality also comes into play with the disparity of number of attackers or disparity of force which can alter the justifiable response.

"When and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary." Reasonableness does not mean what is reasonable to the defender, but what is reasonable to the jury. The jury members likely have never been confronted by a number of angry persons and thus have no conception of what the defender experienced. Also, the jury will deliberate in comfort and safety, having sufficient time to arrive a reasoned verdict. Branca says:

What’s reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another, however. This element of reasonableness is partly a reflection of the particular defender under the specific circumstances. The reasonable perception of, and defensive options for, a defender who is young, healthy, and fit may well differ from the reasonable perceptions and defensive options of an elderly, ill, or disabled defender.

I can see a viewpoint from which all five elements of a valid claim of self defense could be made in this incident. So much depends on the subjective reasonableness of the defenders actions.

While the use of force, or even deadly force, could be justified, the tactical situation is fraught with peril.

RSX11 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 10:03 am

BLM protestors enter a restaurant and begins to taunt and get in the face of a young woman at a restaurant. He wants her to raise her fist and shout Black Lives Matter. She refuses

OK, she wasn't hurt, and that's good. And I don't figure anything like this is ever likely to happen in Texas...and that's good too. But if it happened to me, I'm not sure what the best strategy is. My first thought is to surreptitiously get my hand on my gun (under shirt, IWB) in case it turned physical. But I worry that it would further excite the Communists if this was noticed. What do y'all think is the right response to a situation like this?

Your pistol is the wrong tool. Texas Penal Code 9.31. (b)(1). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... m/PE.9.htm

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

Thus, no force would be justified in the situation depicted in the video. Feigned compliance and/or leaving are better choices.

"In case it turns physical," your pistol is still not a good option. While "production of a weapon" as a threat of deadly force can be legal (TPC 9.04) against mere force, what do you do if the threat fails?

Attorney Andrew Branca explains the law of self defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/
On Thursdays, Branca conducts a Facebook LIVE "News/Q&A." See the page for the time. You can ask questions. https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/

Rafe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:41 am Can't resist quoting a few lines of what John Farnam had to say about the Portland mayor's visit to his riotous plebiscites:

Portland, OR’s Democrat mayor went out last night to greet his very own beloved Marxist mob, as they were enthusiastically destroying his formally-beautiful city, for the 55th day in a row!

To his astonishment, they turned on him!

I can just hear him shouting at them, “But, but, I don’t understand! I’m on your side. I am one of you! I hate capitalists, police just like you. Why are you attacking me?”

Even worse for his personal reputation in Beijing, Havana, and Pyongyang, Portland’s mayor was forced to make a cowardly, embarrassing, hasty exit, as his “security detail” (composed of city police officers that he says he hates, who are armed with “weapons of war,” which he says he also hates) physically tangle with the still-attacking, enraged, mob.

Seriously, what’s an committed anti-gun, anti-police mayor to do?

Well, it seems Portland's mayor broke all of Farnam's Rules of Stupid.

iratollah wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:26 pm Don't bring a skateboard to a gunfight. Armed counter-demonstrator gets attacked with standard Antifa weapon, he tries to descalate but gets attacked again even after brandishing sidearm. Attackers pals are yelling 'Kill him'.
Language warning.
http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/2020/ ... -gets-shot

Attorney Andrew Branca discusses the Law of Self Defense pertaining to the New Mexico "skateboard to a gunfight" incident at
After Action Analysis: June 17, 2020 https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/.

Today’s show covers the shooting in New Mexico this past weekend, during a protest about a purportedly offensive statue, in which one protestor was non-fatally shot several times. The shooter, Steven Baca, has since been charged with aggravated assault with a firearm in a criminal complaint that I’ve included below the video for today’s show.