TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote: I hope no one is too disappointed....thinking that there would be a definitive "right" answer at the end of all this. It was meant only to stimulate some thought, and I think you guys are pretty darn sharp about it!

I'm a bit disappointed - I had a "premeditated" response to the next what if.

It would be something to effect of "what if after his buddy shows up with a bat and gives him a knife, two apache helicopters strafe the parking lot, hitting the gas tank of thier car and blowing them both, but leaving me intact."

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.

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(?!?).

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))

-nick

GrillKing wrote: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.

Can you not run away? That would avoid 1.) having to use deadly force and 2.) firing a weapon, the condition of which you are unsure

I still think the run away is the best option if you forgot to carry. If he hawks you down...then use the mystery gun.

-nick

CaptDave wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

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.

You quoted the right section, but let me ask; what does he being in commission of a felony relate to?

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.

But there are felonies that do not have a defense for use of deadly force. I think this was the point being made possibly?

-nick

As far as what I would do, once I had the gun I would run as fast as I possibly could. By the time he pulls out another gun, if he has one, I will far enough to make an accurate shot on a moving target difficult for even the best IDPA contender.

If you get shot...oh well...you should've carried. Now you get to be a sheep.

If I survive, which I plan on, because I can actually run fast (I imagine) when threatened with deadly force - I will be glad that I saved the hassle and expense of court costs. I will take these percieved savings and get a class III, and find a way to carry an MP-5 on each side of my body.

-nick

txinvestigator wrote: If the other is compliant, I don't believe deadly force is justified. However, the original question was

Are you "legally" justified to "threaten deadly force" by holding him at gunpoint.

I'll shut up for a while.

My turn!

In Texas law one is not really "legally" justified for using deadly force. I believe the term the law uses is that an actor can have a "defense to prosecution." As far as "threatening deadly force"...

Texas Penal Code wrote:
§ 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.

EDIT: I started this post right after the investigators....y'all beat me to it