TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Otherwise, it is a succinct way of expressing a particular thought without droning on and on quoting the statute word for word.

"He needed shootin'" is even shorter.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Wrong. The guy was charged, but was acquitted in criminal court. Where he lost was in the civil suit that followed for "wrongful death". Check the facts.

You're right. Lucky guy. It only cost him $650,000 plus attorneys' fees.

Anyone who's interested, search for the name Yoshihiro Hattori for the story.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Show me someone who was in reasonable fear for their life (who was not a criminal themselves of course) who got convicted.

Harold Fish. But of course no one can prove they were in fear of their life; they can only say it. They could be and often are lying.

- Jim

stevie_d_64 wrote:No where in there will I imply that I was in fear for my life...I would certainly be concerned, but no one will coerce me into admitting that I was in an emotional state in the determination that deadly force was necessary to "stop" a threat...

That's a good point. I think it's better to justify your actions with facts ("He was trying to kill me so I shot to stop him") than with emotions. Emotions can be and often are unreasonable.

Something else occurred to me: Do y'all remember the case some years ago where a Japanese college student went to the wrong house for a Halloween party, and the homeowner shot him? That man was in fear of his life, but he ended up being charged with and pleading guilty to a crime.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:In your scenario, shooting Fred on sight would not be "reasonable" because your being in fear for your life on the basis of mere hearsay would not be "reasonable".

Your fear needs to relate to an imminent threat to be reasonable.

Fear is an emotion. It is not necessarily based on reason or facts.

That is why it is not a legal basis for the use of deadly force.

I also think it's quite normal to feel fear when you hear that someone is talking about killing you, especially when the person is a known bad actor with a grudge.

- Jim

Thanks.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:"Necessary" - no. But "sufficient" - yes, as long as the fear is "reasonable".

Let's say "Joe" tells me that "Fred" is running his mouth about killing me. Let's say furthermore that "Fred" is a bad dude who has been convicted of assault several times and is upset because I'm dating his former girlfriend.

I would be in fear of my life.

Would I then be justified in shooting "Fred" on sight?

No, because it would not be "when and to the degree reasonably believe the deadly force is immediately necessary to protect [my]self against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force."

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:He was also speaking as someone with what is supposed to be authoritative knowledge of the proper use of deadly force.

He wasn't giving a lecture in law school, either.

His concern is defusing public outrage over shooting someone who was armed with a knife.

Being in fear of your life is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the use of deadly force.

- Jim

The police chief was talking to the media, not testifying in court.

- Jim