TexasCHLforum.com

I have been instructing now for 6 months. I have really enjoyed the classes. I have one thing that just don't make sense and hope on of you can help me.

A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED IN USING FORCE AND DEADLY FORCE TO PERSERVE THE OTHER’S LIFE IN AN EMERGENCY.

Little help please.

Would you please expand on your question. Where that phrase comes from and in what context? And could you please be a little more specific about what you would like explained concerning the phrase

PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

I think this provision is meant to allow for medical procedures like emergency tracheotomy, which would be considered deadly force if not done for a reasonable medical purpose. However, I am not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

- Jim

This allows you to use force, and when necesarry deadly force to prevent someone from killing themself. Otherwise I would have no justification for my use of force.

It is worded funny. If I shot someone in the arm while they were holding a gun that they were about to kill themselves with, then I used deadly force to prevent their death. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

I'm with Jim/seamus. Nearly any kind of first aid involves force and CPR can cause broken bones (serious bodily injury) so I think the intent of (b) was to protect that sort of activity. Especially since (a) already said you can use "force, but not deadly force" to prevent suicide. I'm also not a lawyer or a legislator so I'm just giving my layman opinion.

From what i know the use of a gun to shoot someone to prevent them from committing suicide is ruled out in the paragraph prior to this as you cannot us deadly force to prevent someone from committing suicide and the use of a gun is considered deadly force as a firearm is intended in its intended use serious bodily injury or death. This was put in for a first responders, the situation in Calf, when the bay bridges fell during the earthquake. It was placed into law that we could use force up to including deadly force to save a life. Arms and legs had to be amputated to save their live, which is known to cause serious bodily injury or death. This I'm sure is the basis for that statement.

I've had more than a few folks relate this only to guns. but for example, Deadly force can be applied with a 2 by 4, bat, crowbar, etc. to get someone away from a machine, electrical wires, whatever, that pose injury to the victim.

There are a lot of areas where force might be applied, and it be considered at the level of deadly force, and are totally legal.

Burning vehicle on top of victims arm. Fuel leaking. Cut his arm off w/ ax. Drag him away.

Grusome? Yes. Deadly force? Yes. Alive after the vehicle explodes? Yes.