Texas defines "deadly force" as capable of causing 'death' OR 'serious bodily injury'. It also defines 'serious bodily injury' as 'causing or capable of causing death, permanent disfigurement, or serious impairment of any organ or bodily function' (I'm paraphrasing off of memory, so please look it up for the exact legal definition. I'll edit this later when I'm not rushing to get ready for church).Solaris wrote:I know the shooting was in LA, but using the TX/PC as a guide:Mavs00 wrote: IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that his "use of force" could be justified as a deterrent when the BG was still, in essence, just a menacing threat. It did not work in this case and the BG pursued a course of action that escalated the defendant to a position that make him believe that a use of deadly force was authorized. I certainly think that a more than "reasonable" case could be make by the victim that he felt in imminent danger when the attacker pursued H2H combat against his drawn weapon.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
I think the video suggests (B) was not happening. That leaves only (A). In my world there is no scenario where a person pushes you a few times can be considered "the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force", thus I cannot envision a scenarios where one "reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"
So based on that tape alone, it was not justified, IMO. Yet he was not charged, leading me to conclude there were other aggravating factors we are unaware of, for example, he was shouting "I am going to take that gun from you and kill you", etc.
Let's keep in mind that the attacker DID have a size disparity over the defender (from every video angle the attacker appears a good 8"-1 foot taller) and appeared to be intoxicated based on his mannerisms/ actions. If he had been shot merely for the simple assault (throwing the busted bag of chips into the clerk's face), it may have resulted in charges filed. However, if we're going to analyze this under Texas law, I see no issues with the justification under TPC 9.32. (I'm no lawyer, though).