TexasCHLforum.com

flechero wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:06 pm

BCGlocker wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2016 8:27 am If there is no immediate substantial risk of death or serious injury to you or another, deadly force should not be introduced.

The problem with that is after the punch lands, you can't undue the damage to respond. Just in the last year or so there have been several people killed or permanently injured by a sucker punch.

If someone hit you and then stopped, and was not about to do so again, no justification. Call police. But if you are in the midst of an assault, and don't have the ability to end it post haste [with fisticuffs] most people would be in reasonable fear of serious injury or death... which meets the threshold, legally speaking.

BCGlocker wrote:

Abraham wrote:BCGlocker,

You stated: "You can't introduce a firearm (use of deadly force) into a fist fight."

If you're a young, big adult and you start punching a much smaller, elderly man, do you consider that a fist fight?

If so, I guess the smaller man is just supposed to tolerate being punched out...and perhaps die.

I don't consider such a scenario a fist fight.

Yes, fists were part of the equation, but in my opinion, they could be deadly weapons.

I think it could come under the header of deadly assault by the younger, bigger, stronger man.

Agree or disagree with such a scenario?

"Proportionality" is just one of the consideration for use as a defense from prosecution. Others including disparity of force (old vs young, one vs. multiple assailants, female vs male..etc). If there is no immediate substantial risk of death or serious injury to you or another, deadly force should not be introduced.

The problem is "Proportionality". You can't introduce a firearm (use of deadly force) into a fist fight. Once again, we see CCWers fail to MYOB (Mind Your Own Business).

PC §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.
---
Last amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.