TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

Purplehood wrote:"I didn't think he was stopping the assault..."

"He never said, 'I give up!'."

I could go on all day.

The assault was stopped when the father pulled him off the little girl. What isn't clear about that?

PC 9.33 "Defense of a third person" References Section 9.32 "Deadly force in defense of a person", which in part, reads...

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
[snip]
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
[snip]
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Once the assault was stopped (and therefore, no longer imminent), what would be the justification for deadly force?

But you obviously want to kill the guy -- don't let the law stop you!

knotquiteawake wrote:I think its possible he will get charged if the following is true:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-got- ... -to-death/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After pulling the attacker off of her, the father repeatedly struck the man in the head.

If he pulled the man off his daughter then at that point the assault has been stopped. To then beat the man in the head to death looks more like vengeful homicide. Once the crime is no longer in progress I think he would not be covered by the law anymore. If he pulled the man off his daughter how then is deadly force necessary? The crime has been stopped.

What do you guys think? If I were the prosecutor that is the direction I would go with it.