jimlongley wrote:I would think that Kenny Tavai would be the best, indeed the benchmark, example.
And it was responded to appropriately by the CHL holder being attacked, Gordon Hale III.
And Texas law still required a person under attack to retreat.
Really? I am not sure but it looks like PC 9.21 says differently.
Subch. B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY
PC §9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.
Now, does the initial attack arise to justification for use of force or deadly force? I don't know, but I don't believe there is a duty to retreat.
