TexasCHLforum.com

I don't have time to research the relevant code to post here, although I've done it before.........but you don't have to absorb a punch before you can pull the trigger. If someone charges at you with a piece of lead pipe in his hands, he is using deadly force even if he hasn't actually connected with it. You are justified in shooting him. A single punch to the head CAN kill. There's another recent thread on this forum about just such a case. I'm a 64 year old man with physical health issues. If you bum-rush me, I'ma hafta shoot you.

You are NOT obligated to take a beating, on the assumption that the aggressor doesn't want to kill you.....just mess you up a little bit.

Oh heck with it.......here's the relevant code:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm

Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

• (3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Note the "is capable of causing". That doesn't mean that it DID cause, it is just capable of causing.....

Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

9.03 deals with justification for confinement of the other person.

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.

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

• (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
  (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
  (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.

• (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), 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:
  • (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
  (b) The use of force against another is not justified:
  • (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
    (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
    (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
    (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; or
    (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
    • (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
      (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
  (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
  • (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
  (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
  (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
  (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

• (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
  • (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
    (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.
  (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
  • (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
    • (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
      (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
      (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
  (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
  (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

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.

Note that the law is chock FULL of terms like "reasonably believed". You don't have to KNOW that the other person is intending to kill. You only have to REASONABLY BELIEVE that there is a chance he could kill you if he successfuly presses forward the attack. So you can shoot to stop the attack. Your attacker doesn't have to have a weapon in his hands. You just have to reasonably believe that he could kill you if he got his hands on you.

Remember what you were taught in your CHL/LTC class: you are NOT shooting to kill. You ARE shooting to stop the attack. That carries a fairly broad meaning. The law makes allowance for the reasonable belief that something bad of a physical nature at someone else's hands is about to happen to you, and it agrees that you have a right to protect yourself against it if you can.