TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:Oh, and TAM, I'm in Bedford and get to Grapevine quite often. I'd like to buy you a beer (or soft drink of your choice) sometime

And I'd like to take you up on that. Thanks for the offer! I'll PM you my details and we can get together some time.

G26ster wrote:My problem is that I agree with most every comment made here, but that single sentence in 9.31, "The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32,9.33, and 9.34" causes me concern. Nothing more.

G26ster, try reading it this way: A) 9.31 is what provides for the lawful use of force against another; B) 9.32-9.34 provide for the lawful use of deadly force; and C) 9.32-9.34 assume 9.31 to be already in play.

When subsection (d) of 9.31 says: "(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34;" I do not take that to read that use of lethal force is never justified. I simply take that to read as "see sections 9.32-9.34 for the justification for use of lethal force. In other words, they are not exclusionary. Rather, they work hand in hand and are part of a whole philosophy of self-defense which allows flexibility for the varying circumstances under which we are likely to need to use force... ...IF we are reasonable people.

I actually like that the law makes allowance for the reasonable use of force, because the "reasonable" standard acknowledges that there is no hard and fast rule. It is the philosophical opposite of "Zero Tolerance" policies, which are wrong headed because they allow the actor to abdicate any responsibility for using his head, and they allow the authority to abdicate any responsibility for making circumstantial allowances. Zero tolerance is the philosophical opposite of justice. When the legal standard specifies "reason" "reasonable" and "reasonably," there is room for justice to prevail.

And where justice can prevail, we have freedom to act in our best interests with whatever response is the appropriate one to the offense against our persons. Of course, freedom does not come without risk. Therefore, we minimize risk by exercising reason.

G26ster wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:[
Furthermore, paraphrasing Section 9.32, "I am justified in using deadly force against mongo if I would be justified in using [any kind of] force against mongo under Section 9.31."

How does that sound?

TAM. With great respect for your opinion, I agree with boomerang. I think you missed the "and." The way I read 9.32, you can only use deadly force if the conditions of 9.31 apply and one of the crimes in 9.32(a)(2)(B) are occurring or imminent.

That's a good point, but from where I was when writing it, I left off the "and" because it was self-evident in the scenario. The "and" conditions were met.

Of course I would not use deadly force against a 5 year old trying to kick me in the shins. That's why the law includes words like "reason," "reasonable," and "reasonably." I am a reasonable person. I don't actually see the alleged inconsistencies that others see, and the reason I don't see them is because the law seems to me to be written in a manner that requires the actor to use judgment based upon reason. I see breathing room where others don't, because I trust my own on-the-scene instincts more than I do those of someone who wasn't there. And like someone else said, I would rather trust my fate to 12 of my peers than 6 pallbearers.

If others disagree, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. All I know is that I make a number of concessions to the avoidance of trouble in my life. I don't go places where I may find trouble, and I don't go out at times when trouble may find me. I worked the evening shift in an ER for enough years to know that nothing good happens after 10 p.m. I don't use drugs, and I rarely ever drink. When I do drink, it is in extreme moderation, and almost always in the privacy of my own home. I live in peace with my neighbors, and pretty much everybody who knows me personally knows I am a friendly and hospitable person (my screen name notwithstanding ). The point of this isn't to list all of my virtues because I am only a sinner saved by grace; but rather to illustrate that I am not a person who fears the law when it comes to the decision to defend myself, or do so with deadly force if necessary, because the decision is being made by a reasonable mind.

That decision is an intensely person one for each and everyone of us because nobody makes that kind of decision in an emotional, moral, or biological vacuum. Adrenaline makes a thing as personal as it can be. To me, the logic of the law is already irreducibly simple. I think the problem we have as individuals with it is that we keep looking for scenarios in which the protections of the law might not apply to us. But for me, when it comes to the decision to exercise self-defense, my mind already works the same way the law is written, so I don't obsess over it. I look at 9.31, 9.32, 9.33 and 9.34, and I say, "Of course! Why would anyone think differently?" And G26ster, to the point or your original question about the age of the actor, I think the law is flexible enough to take the age and/or other incapacities of the actor into account in the decision to defend him/herself. I guess we just have slightly different paradigms by which we process our worlds. That's what makes life interesting.

G26ster wrote:Am I making any sense?

Sure, I see your point, but whether or not a crime is "aggravated" assault has little to do with the method by which the victim responds to it. Here's why: I am 57 and have limiting injuries (chronic back issues etc.), but I am not officially disabled. I am disabled to a degree, but not officially disabled. So the same assault against you which may be classified as aggravated based on your age, may not be classified the same against me. But I can tell you that if mongo decides to beat my lunch money out of me, I'm going to draw and use my weapon, regardless of whether I am 65 or 57 or 39, and a court is likely to side with me instead of mongo. And the reason is that, whether or not it is aggravated assault, mongo's use of force is unlawful, and (paraphrasing what srothstein posted above about Section 9.31) "I am justified in using force against mongo when and to the degree I reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary to protect myself against mongo's use or attempted use of unlawful force [against me]."

Furthermore, paraphrasing Section 9.32, "I am justified in using deadly force against mongo if I would be justified in using [any kind of] force against mongo under Section 9.31."

How does that sound?

G26ster wrote:If the legislators thought enough to be specific about the justifications in 9.32(a)(2)(B), they could have easily added assault on an elderly person.

I sympathize with your point, I really do, because the elderly are too often victimized. But I think my reply would be, "why should an assault on an elderly person be any more egregious than an assault on a 57 year old man with limiting injuries (me), or assault on a 5 year old child, or assault on a 23 year old man in perfect health?" Assault is assault, and I don't think that the victim's age should make for special circumstances, because any argument you could make in favor of codifying special circumstances for the elderly would apply equally on a moral level to victims of any age.

Plus, there is a danger in the law, any law about anything, when you allege special status for someone based on their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. Here's why: whenever you allege some special status for one group of citizens, lawmakers and enforcers tend to interpret that as being exclusionary to citizens belonging to other groups. They do this because there is a common misunderstanding among people that a law is what makes something legal, and that anything which is not "permitted" by law is illegal. That is not the truth. The truth is the opposite notion — which is that ALL things are legal unless a specific law specifically forbids it. Thus, if you codify an exception to the law which grants a special "protected" status to seniors vis-a-vis self-defense, lawmakers (and law enforcers) will then tend to act on the notion that citizens who fall outside of that age group do not have the right to defend themselves against assault.

Am I making sense to you?

G26ster wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:READ THIS POST ON THE SAME TOPIC IN ANOTHER THREAD. It will explain very clearly what you may and may not do.

TAM, yes it clearly backs up my point. The situation involved a "robbery" or imminent robbery in the eyes of the law, because physical force was used an property was demanded. Use of deadly force is then justified under the law. I probably won't die from a robbery (at least I hope not), but I might die or be seriously injured from an "aggravated assault," which is not mentioned under PC9.32. I find it strange, in the law as written, that I can use my weapon to defend my property but not my physical self or life. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think you are reading the law correctly. There would be no point in a CHL law, if self-defense were not the primary motivation for it. I had a longer answer prepared, but that says it about as simply as I can.

READ THIS POST ON THE SAME TOPIC IN ANOTHER THREAD. It will explain very clearly what you may and may not do.

G26ster wrote:I am always puzzled when I read PC 9.31 SELF DEFENSE, and PC 9.32 DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON. What does one do if you are cornered and being threatened by someone half your age and twice your size who is coming at you threatening to "tear you apart?"

If you have to, you shoot them. You are under no obligation to take a beating to avoid using deadly force. Lots of people have been beaten to death. I don't propose to be one of them.