TexasCHLforum.com

Dragonfighter wrote:Let me ask this. An aggravated assault (threat of harm while producing a deadly weapon) occurred but the criminality is nullified by justification? IOW the laws concerning assault were violated but the justification outweighs that? Is this possibly like the illegal carry violation being outweighed by justification under deadly force laws?

You have it. What many people forget is that Chapter 9 presents defenses for use during a trial, not a nullification of the law.

gigag04 wrote:Agreed the law was broken - I haven't seen any post a justification from the PC that I think would fly. That said I don't think 12 would convict him.

Just curious, but isn't the 12 not convicting the definition of a justification that would fly?


In this case, I think the law was broken and an aggravated assault was committed. But I do think it was legally justified. the justification must be looked at from the point of view of the mythical reasonable man based on the facts and circumstances known to the actor at the time. No Monday morning facts added in.

The justification of necessity would meet the legal use. Remember that we just need to justify force, not deadly force. Was the threat of imminent harm reasonable? I think we all agree that there are a lot of possible innocent reasons for the suspects to have behaved the way they did, but the average person is going to take it as threatening. That is the definition of the reasonable belief of imminent harm. Was the use of force less than the harm it prevented? Robbery most likely was prevented, possibly assault or rape. The minimal force used was less than any of these. And finally, no legislative purpose to exclude this defense for this reason appears.

You can also use the same arguments under self-defense. Was the belief of imminent use of force against him reasonable? If so, then the threat was justified.


What this case really demonstrates is two things. first, not everyone here has the same standards for when to use force. This is good BUT we must use the law when looking at another person's use of force. We cannot judge another person based on our tactical and moral choices, just the law. Many of us felt the draw was too early and wanted to see some other more overt hostile act. The law requires only that the belief of the imminent harm be reasonable, not that it be conclusive. How many of us honestly would say that this belief was not reasonable when the OP drew?

Secondly, this case demonstrates the need for all of us to be able to read and understand the laws. We MUST be able to articulate exactly why we did what we did. This is drilled into police officers in their initial training and continued from there. When you write a report, tell exactly why you felt what you felt and why you did what you did.

So, here is my rewritten statement of what happened, written as if I were a police officer making a report and it had happened to me. I understand the grammar changes would be necessary in talking with the police but not on this forum, so that is not intended to be any comment on the original poster.

My girlfriend (gf) and I were at The Fish in midtown 309 gray Houston, TX. We were out just hanging out with a few friends. Finally my gf and I decided it was time to head on home, so we said our goodbyes and took our leave. We had parked about a block away on the side of one of the restaurants there. The lighting wasn't as good as I would have normally wished for but this parking areas were packed and we had to park where ever we could find the room. As we approached my car I noticed 2 people just hanging out in the shadow of the building. This is not a normal place for two people to be hanging out so it instantly put me on alert. I then shifted my gf to my opposite side, farthest away from the 2 people, putting myself in the middle, so that I could better protect her if we were attacked. The 2 guys started walking towards us. At this point everything in me was screaming that something was wrong. I believed that the two men were going to attack us so I reached into my pocket and put my hand on my Keltec p32, which has an arma laser attachment on it. I then asked very loudly what they needed, which they completely ignored. Since most people would have some reaction to a question like this, either an answer or an indignant reaction, this confirmed my belief that the two men were intent on criminal activity. At this point, they were about 10 yards away and I believed that if they got any closer, they would attack us and I would not be able to defend myself or my gf. I pulled my gun and turned the laser on them, going slowly up and down the torso of the closest attacker and asked them again what they needed. Both men stopped dead in their tracks looked down at the laser raised both hands and retreated into the shadows and took off running the opposite direction. I then had my gf call the police and reported the incident and then went home.

In my opinion, a few minor changes in wording and a couple explanations makes this seem much more reasonable and provides the necessity and self-defense justifications. Do you know how to word your response to the police when something like this happens to you? Do you intend to be the first to call the police when something does happen? Obviously, we all know to get a lawyer and shut up when we actually pull the trigger, but even the initial statement to the police or 911 operator can make a difference. I doubt any of us would call a lawyer to handle this police report, even if it was explaining to the cops why I drew when the BGs called in first. This is why we need to truly undertsand the law and practice articulating exactly why we do things.