Return to “Whats the answer........”
flintknapper wrote:txinvestigator wrote:flintknapper;
We don't call em "perps" in Texas. Thats some Yankee Talk
I can assure you.. there is nothing remotely "Yankee" about me.
The only time the "Y" word is used my home, is when something derogatory is being said.
Yankee talk! God forbid.
In the future, I will use BG.
My apologies, and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest my body. I have shamed my family.
I agree with you 100%!GrillKing wrote:txinvestigator wrote: Texas does not allow deadly force if you are "in fear of your life". AS this is a seperate issue, I am going to start a new thread. I will link to it here after I post it.
What I should have said was "I was in fear for my life, because this person had his gun pointed at me 3 seconds ago. I managed to take the gun away from him, but he is continuing to assault me and is trying to take the weapon back from me. Due to his previous and continued attack utilizing the threat of deadly force with the weapon, I have every reason to believe he will immediately use the weapon against me. Since I cannot retreat, I may need to use the weapon to stop this threat of deadly force." Of course this all occurs in 0.1 seconds.
In other words, in txinvestigators example in the new thread, I agree, fear for my life is not justification at all. There is no immediate threat. However in the immediate, imminent danger of this scenario, I believe a case could be made for use of the weapon to stop the threat. This is more than fear, it is a reality that the assailent is attempting to use deadly force by taking the weapon to use against me. I also reiterate, If at all possible, I would put distance between myself and the assailant to make this all a moot point.
I promise, I'll move "fear for my life" comments and questions to the new thread now!!
Thanks for the great discussion and input...
The law does not require that he actually USE deadly force against me. If I reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent his ATTEMPTED use of lawful deadly force against me, then I can use deadly force.GrillKing wrote:
So how would we reconcile that if he attempts to get the weapon back via a wrestling match, he has not exerted 'deadly force' until he actually has the weapon(?!?). .
If someone is trying to get a firearm from me, I think it is reasonable to believe that it is immediately necessary to use deadly force to prevent him from using unlawful deadly force against me.gigag04 wrote:I think the attempt to get weapon back would qualify as robbery or aggravated robbery and those are felonies in which you have a defense to prosecution (TX's "justification") for the use of deadly force (per PC 9.32 (B))GrillKing wrote:So how would we reconcile that if he attempts to get the weapon back via a wrestling match, he has not exerted 'deadly force' until he actually has the weapon(?!?).txinvestigator wrote: Texas does not allow deadly force if you are "in fear of your life". AS this is a seperate issue, I am going to start a new thread. I will link to it here after I post it.
-nick
Texas does not allow deadly force if you are "in fear of your life". AS this is a seperate issue, I am going to start a new thread. I will link to it here after I post it.GrillKing wrote:Assuming the events occurred as described (you didn't provoke the attack) and if you do manage to separate the weapon from the attacker, and you do not fire the weapon, whether the assailant is compliant or runs away, I cannot imagine any charges being filed against you and almost no jury in Texas would ever convict you of anything. Nuances of the law aside, it ain't gonna happen in my opinion.
If it were me, as long as the assailant was standing in striking distance, he looks at the weapon pointed at him. If he sits or lays down as commanded, the weapon points safely at the ground, while I back away to a relatively safe distance until LEO arrives.
If he lunges, you can assume he is going for the weapon, therefore I fear for my life (assuming he isn't 4' and 75lbs), and I would use the force required to stop the threat.
Just one opinion....
Yes we know. That does not tell us what you would do.nemesis wrote:Subch. C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b),
a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful
force.PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have
retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force;
I was not disagreeing CaptDave. There are several things you might have meant by that.CaptDave wrote:txinvestigator wrote:You quoted the right section, but let me ask; what does he being in commission of a felony relate to?CaptDave wrote:"Forget double-tap, I'm going to slide-lock"
Seriously, as he was in commission of a felony - against me - I would suggest that he not move very much until the boys in blue got there. I would be looking for -and expecting compliance. Just because I have his gun doesn't mean - to me anyway- that the threat is gone.
And FWIW: I'm legally justified to threaten with deadly force as follows:
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.
I'm just taking a wild guess here, but I'm thinking these are probably felonies:
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:...
......
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.
You quoted the right section, but let me ask; what does he being in commission of a felony relate to?CaptDave wrote:"Forget double-tap, I'm going to slide-lock"
Seriously, as he was in commission of a felony - against me - I would suggest that he not move very much until the boys in blue got there. I would be looking for -and expecting compliance. Just because I have his gun doesn't mean - to me anyway- that the threat is gone.
And FWIW: I'm legally justified to threaten with deadly force as follows:
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.
I'll shut up for a while.Are you "legally" justified to "threaten deadly force" by holding him at gunpoint.
May not be fair for me to answer, as I teach this stuff. I'll pipe in after some conversation..............flintknapper wrote:Scenario:
You foolishly go to town without your weapon. You have reasoned that a quick "jaunt" to the grocery store and back home... should be safe enough.
You approach your vehicle, groceries in hand. As you unlock your vehicle, a BG gets out of the car parked next to you....and is on you before you can react. He points a pistol at your upper chest, nearly touching you with the weapon. A woman nearby notices what is going on and screams. You take advantage of the distraction, move off line, grasp the weapon, and manage to disarm the perp.
You immediately rack the slide (not knowing the condition of the weapon) and cover the perp. while gaining distance.
Question: You are now armed, the perp. is unarmed. Are you "legally" justified to "threaten deadly force" by holding him at gunpoint. Think about it.
