Search found 4 matches

by Keith B
Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:25 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: attacked with pepper spray?
Replies: 48
Views: 6334

Re: attacked with pepper spray?

joe817 wrote:I'd welcome the opportunity to attend one of his seminars. I hear they are very educational. Does he do them regularly, and up here in the Metroplex?
He has had a few up here in the past. His latest was at the TSRA convention in Mesquite. Maybe we can get on his schedule this fall if we can find a venue to hold the seminar and cover his expenses. :thumbs2:

Oh Charles?? :clapping:
by Keith B
Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:43 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: attacked with pepper spray?
Replies: 48
Views: 6334

Re: attacked with pepper spray?

dewayneward wrote: @keith, is there language talking to serious bodily injury as a means for self defense?
TPC Title 2 Chapter 9 deals with justification
TPC Title 5 Chapter 22.05 defines Deadly Conduct which refers to the serious bodily injury
TPC Title 10 Chapter 46 deals with weapons and their use.

These all play together to determine the factors.

I am no law expert by any means. There are others on here that may be able to more clearly define some of the laws.

If you get an opportunity to attend one, Charles Cotton puts on a Use of Force seminar that is 'par excellence'. It will clear a lot of things up on use of force/deadly force and provide some examples of how/when/why you can or can't use them in a given situation. :thumbs2:
by Keith B
Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:08 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: attacked with pepper spray?
Replies: 48
Views: 6334

Re: attacked with pepper spray?

dewayneward wrote:SeamusTx and Keith,

the way I am reading this, if someone gets in "your space" and tells you he is gonna pound you, it looks like you aren't justified in shooting from the way I am reading everything.
...was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
I know there are the other things like unlawful entry, breaking into cars, etc. but it is 2pm and I am on the street and some nutjob says that he is gonna smoke me in the face and starts rearing back to do it, It looks like I would be legal trouble if I were to pull my gun. I remember reading somewhere (and this may be from the MO laws as I visit there from time to time), but if it 2 on 1 or something like that then you have a chance in the court room.

I get the whole judge by 12 then carried by 6, but if some dude comes up telling me that I was the guy that slept with his wife or some other kookie thing, it looks like I am not allowed to defend myself with a gun (thankfully I have a background in martial arts). I also get that if some old lady wants to hit me with her cane or something, that wold be "dumb" to do something. I am talking about where you would be equally matched or less than equally matched against a person or persons.
Unless you can meet the use of deadly force guidelines, then that is correct, you can't use deadly force.

IANAL, but if you reasonably believe that the person who is going to use force against you is severe enough to be deadly or cause serious bodily injury, then deadly force would be justified to defend yourself. Every case is going to be different.
by Keith B
Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:39 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: attacked with pepper spray?
Replies: 48
Views: 6334

Re: attacked with pepper spray?

Beiruty wrote:Say someone jumped me punched me for no reason, or reason known only to the assailant. Or, Used/Wanted to use an incapacitating force but not deadly force like a tazer or Peperspray. Say, I had I had quick reaction and I was able to draw and shoot the assailant in the legs or the arm. i.e. non fatal shot?

Is my reaction justified under the law ?
Shooting someone is use of deadly force, period. Sections 9.31 and 9.32 deal with justification. You must meet the guidelines of 9.31, and then 9.32 to be able to use deadly force.
Section 9.31

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] 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.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
EDIT TO ADD: seamusTX beat me to some of this. ;-)

Return to “attacked with pepper spray?”