TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote: a "reasonable fear" itself is *not* justification for deadly force, ..........
Yes, "itself". To which I say, "context, context, context."

Yes, but in order for "reasonable fear" to to be positively determined to exist within a given context, we must fall back to a definition of "reasonable fear" that can be laid out from, and constrained by the law. So, if you don't understand the conditions set forth by the law, there is no way to specifically differentiate between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" fear. So, at that point, it becomes redundant and unnecessary, and until that point it isn't adequately defined and dangerous.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Xander wrote: Which is why the blanket "fear for your life" term is such a lousy choice of words, and particularly so in an arena as technical and pedantic as the law.

Only if one is willfully determined to ignore context.

Otherwise, it is a succinct way of expressing a particular thought without droning on and on quoting the statute word for word.

But Charles had an excellent point in the other thread. A "reasonable fear" itself is *not* justification for deadly force, even if term is used to described a justified use of deadly force, and there *are* situations were someone could reasonably be afraid for their life, even though the situation doesn't meet the tests for reasonable use of deadly force. Being surrounded by thugs in a dark alley, for instance. You may certainly be reasonably afraid for your life, but you may not be free to use deadly force.

I think we've agreed that it *can* be used as a semantic shortcut for a logical and reasonably but regrettable decision to use deadly force. I think from the thread that it's also clear that it's a word that can be easily misinterpreted, and misunderstood. think the fact that we're nearing 50 posts in this thread shows that it's pretty clearly contentious. I fully understand Charles' and TXIs reluctance to consider it to be an acceptable alternative to the language of the law. I must say, I tend to agree. We have spelled out the statutory conditions that must be met in order for deadly force to be a legal option. I don't know that paraphrasing the law with alternative phrases is necessary or beneficial. Charles has pointed out how, in fact, it can be specifically harmful. Before one choose to use deadly force one *MUST* know *EXACTLY* what the law requires, and why the current situation qualifies. If the only requirement that's been drilled into the heads of CHL holders is that they must have a "reasonable fear for their lives" some of those individuals *will* make decisions to use deadly force in scary, dangerous situations that *aren't* situations where the law allows the use of deadly force.

How you describe a situation after the fact is insignificant. The use of the phase "feared for my life" can be perfectly fine. How you make a decision about whether to use deadly force in the first place is different, and "feared for my life" shouldn't be part of the consideration...Only the language of the law can allow a determination that justification exists.

KBCraig wrote:Just to throw this semantical monkeywrench into the discussion: "God-fearing" does not mean "scared of God".

So "fear" does have more than one connotation.

Which is why the blanket "fear for your life" term is such a lousy choice of words, and particularly so in an arena as technical and pedantic as the law.

When the intended definition can only be implied from the contextual cues, you get a phrase that can describe a response that could be completely reasonable, or equally ridiculous.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Acevedo did not hesitate to explain why the shooting was justified:

"There was a child with a slashed throat who, without intervention, would have perished. Someone had threatened officers directly, and an officer, fearing for his own life and for the lives of innocent parties, fired two rounds, delivering fatal injuries to the suspect.

"Based on my training and experience, this was a potential murder-suicide scene."

Reasonable fear wasn't the only element present, but it was an element.

Ok, after that post, I think we are indeed on the same page, and we're well and truly caught up in the semantics of the word "fear."

In this story, for instance, it isn't emotional fear that's being described. "fearing for his own life..." in the story could easily and accurately be re-written "concerned for his own life.." or "assessed the situation and believed there was a danger to his own life..." It's not describing fear as an emotional driver of the officer's actions, it's simply a succinct way to state that he believed there was sufficient danger to require deadly force. In that context, I agree that it is an appropriate usage, and that it can accurately describe a rational thought process leading to the conclusion that deadly force is required in a given situation.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
I think I am being misunderstood.

I think I understand what you're saying. I just respectfully disagree.

On the other hand, we may just be playing semantic games and dancing around the same ideas with different words.

I think my second post may have explained my thoughts a bit better than the first post with the mouse example.

I disagree that fear can be either intrinsically reasonable or unreasonable. It's simply an emotional response to a real situation. A situation in which either a threat reasonably exists, or reasonably does not. When the standards for the use of deadly force are applied, a reviewer should be able to discern whether it was reasonable to believe that a threat existed, and my feelings at the time should be immaterial. If there is a reasonable threat, it's completely understandable that I would be afraid. My fear would be caused by the threat, it wouldn't, however create a reasonable threat. Once a real threat exists, it doesn't matter whether you feel understandable fear, or anger, or cold indifference, the threat is there. Also, without a reasonable threat, it doesn't matter whether you're feeling fear, anger, or any other emotion, your emotions alone don't create a situation that allows for the use of deadly force.

For what it's worth, if you're arguing that fear itself can be part of the justification, I think the law used to agree with you more than it does now. Specifically, the Napoleonic Code used to make provisions for crimes of passion, accepting that the anger of a husband finding his wife in adultery was justification for the use of deadly force. This is no longer the case in western law, and I think that this is example of how we no longer accept that our emotions can justify responses that wouldn't otherwise be reasonably justified. Then, if this is indeed the case, the fact that one fears for one's life is mere fluff. One can call the fear reasonable, but it's only superfluous. One's life is in reasonably in danger, and if that fact is embellished with details of emotion then fine, but the embellishment is no matter of consequence.

I guess this is what I'm really getting at. Being afraid is not justification for a response to a situation. It is *part* of your response to a situation.

Fear is an emotional and physiological reaction to stimulus. If someone is charging you with a knife, and you defend yourself, it doesn't, and shouldn't make any difference whether that was a cool calculated decision devoid of emotion, or if you were indeed feeling fear. It shouldn't make a difference, for that matter if your emotional response was to feel faint, or to feel anger at being attacked either. Certainly being angry isn't a justification for deadly force. If the situation calls for deadly force however, your emotional response to the situation shouldn't add to or detract from your other responses, and specifically your actions.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: If something is a normal human reaction, it must by definition be "reasonable" for a human being to experience it.

Is that necessarily true? Is it reasonable to fear mice? Many, many folks would be afraid of a mouse running across the floor of the room they're in. Enough people that it's certainly within the scope of normal human reaction. Does that mean that the mouse, by definition, constitutes a real and reasonable threat to the life and well being of that individual?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
If you are in reasonable fear for your life, due to an IMMINENT threat, you have by nature of that met all the requirements set forth in Texas law and the laws of just about every other state as well.

This is *exactly* what makes the "Fred" example valuable. You can use deadly force when there is an immediate threat to your life. Tacking "I feared for my life" to the front doesn't add *anything* to the equation at all. Saying"He came at me with a knife and I feared for my life" is as meaningful as saying "He came at me with a knife and I was sucking on a lollipop." It's the "He came at me with a knife" bit that's grounded in law. Your feeling regarding the events are as worthless, legally, as the lollipop.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: In your scenario, shooting Fred on sight would not be "reasonable" because your being in fear for your life on the basis of mere hearsay would not be "reasonable".

Your fear needs to relate to an imminent threat to be reasonable.

Fear of an imminent threat is not synonymous with facing an immediate threat. The scenario presented doesn't have to be hearsay. You could be standing across a room facing Fred. He could tell you: "Just you wait, 'cause when your you turn your back to me, I'm going to kill you." That's an imminent threat that could cause you to fear for your life. It is not, however, an immediate threat to your life, and you do not have justification to pull out a firearm and shoot him dead as he stands.