https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... %20himself.Ruark wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:16 pm The past few months, we've seen some excellent articles from attorneys and legal defense networks about the legal ramifications of responding to being caught in a riot, e.g. having your car surrounded, blocked from moving, etc. Obviously, you can't run over somebody just because they're blocking the street, and obviously, you can use deadly force if somebody's trying to drag you out of your car.
But there are two VERY common situations that I have YET to see anybody addressing specifically, and I'd like to see somebody do so.
1. Your car is blocked by a crowd of protestors. Some of them start breaking your car windows, NOT acting as if they wanted to drag you out, but just smashing in your windows. Maybe it's the driver's window, which is inches from your head and may have different implications from smashing, say, a rear or side window. At what point does this clearly warrant a deadly force response? By "clearly" I mean "clearly to a jury," not your personal opinion.
For example, watch the first couple of minutes of this:
2. You're walking down a sidewalk and some Antifas step in front of you and deliberately block your way, maybe holding up a pole or stick as a barrier. Isn't this considered to be an illegal use of force, justifying using force in response, e.g. a club, pepper spray, hitting or kicking? Would you be justified, for example, in whipping out a telescoping baton and whacking him across the teeth? Not trying to be dramatic here, just contemplating where the legal lines are drawn. I would personally have a very hard time peacefully dealing with this one.
One ugly example is the elderly couple attempting to cross a street as they were leaving some event.
Of course, there are variables to consider. For example, if you shoot somebody from your car and you're surrounded by protestors with guns, you're a sitting duck. Same goes if somebody's blocking you on the sidewalk and you attack them and they're surrounded by 200 protestors with clubs. In a couple of seconds, you could be in a very bad situation.
In any case, I have yet to read or hear of either of these scenarios addressed. It's always about "somebody dragging you from your car," etc.
scenario 1. the legal argument I would act on, and make in court is based on subchapter C, part 9.31
(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;
Part A is what I would act on. Breaking a window constitutes an effort to enter the vehicle, lethal force is legal under that section of the law.
I am not an attorney however the question I'd raise in court is:
What was their intent? Can you prove they weren't attempting to enter the vehicle by breaking a window? It was a violent situation to begin with, why would I not perceive thier actions as intent to enter the vehicle by breaking a window and gains means to physically access myself? The totality of the circumstances would present to myself a given intent.
scenario 2.
Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct;
I would cite this as reason for using lethal force, showing prior actions by antifa as grounds for doing so.
I have no duty to retreat if I'm lawfully where I am. Walking down the street lawfully and peacefully? then confronted and having my path blocked? Antifa blocking the sidewalk and deliberately preventing someone from passing through is illegal.
If I continue on through them, which is my lawful right to do so, it is likely they will resort to violence given prior actions they've demonstrated.
Sec. 9.31
(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.
the third factor in this, disparity of numbers = disparity of force. A mob is a weapon by itself owing to the amount of force it has due to sheer weight of numbers. Antifa has me outnumbered and lethal force I would think is legal under section 9.22 parts 1 and 2.