TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Their intent is not so relevant as what they actually do. I don't think the fact that you have a weapon on you and they "might" get it gives justification for deadly force.

It's justification for a police officer. Why wouldn't it be for anyone else?

So we are on the same page....what is justification for a Peace Officer?

Losing your pistol to an assailant presents an immediate threat and likelihood of deadly force. Protecting your firearm is a defense of self against another's attempted use of unlawful deadly force, as in PC 9.32(a)(3)(A).

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:Their intent is not so relevant as what they actually do. I don't think the fact that you have a weapon on you and they "might" get it gives justification for deadly force.

It's justification for a police officer. Why wouldn't it be for anyone else?

But, the assault itself is justification. Disparity of force (Bubba and his buddies), or blows about the head, are both use of deadly force, and would justify deadly force in return.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:You have some disagreement with Bubba and he says, "tomorrow I am going to kill you, mark my words" Most people would, at that time, be afraid for their life. But there is no justification to use deadly force against Bubba based simply on that statement, regardless of how you "felt" or if you were in fear.

As you pointed out, when you see Bubba tomorrow, and he's advancing toward you with a deadly implement in his hand, then 9.32(a)(3)(A) kicks in, based on his previous threats and your knowledge of his history.

(Just for assumption's sake, let's assume you're in a position from which a reasonable person would not retreat.)

Kevin