Page 1 of 1
Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:53 am
by Jumping Frog
Another example where a single punch to the head caused serious bodily injury
Cotton candy vendor in critical condition, after being punched by teen
I am not letting anyone punch me. If I have to shoot them first, so be it.
As far as the cotton candy vendor goes, the teenager's defense may be "he needed punching". The old guy is a convicted sex offender. All that said, I just wanted to illustrate a case where unarmed was still deadly force.
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:46 am
by jimlongley
I would think that Kenny Tavai would be the best, indeed the benchmark, example.
And it was responded to appropriately by the CHL holder being attacked, Gordon Hale III.
And Texas law still required a person under attack to retreat.
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:51 pm
by Jaguar
jimlongley wrote:I would think that Kenny Tavai would be the best, indeed the benchmark, example.
And it was responded to appropriately by the CHL holder being attacked, Gordon Hale III.
And Texas law still required a person under attack to retreat.
Really? I am not sure but it looks like PC 9.21 says differently.
Subch. B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY
PC §9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.
Now, does the initial attack arise to justification for use of force or deadly force? I don't know, but I don't believe there is a duty to retreat.
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:00 pm
by Keith B
Jaguar wrote:jimlongley wrote:I would think that Kenny Tavai would be the best, indeed the benchmark, example.
And it was responded to appropriately by the CHL holder being attacked, Gordon Hale III.
And Texas law still required a person under attack to retreat.
Really? I am not sure but it looks like PC 9.21 says differently.
Subch. B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY
PC §9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.
Now, does the initial attack arise to justification for use of force or deadly force? I don't know, but I don't believe there is a duty to retreat.
He means at the time the Kenny Tavai event occured Texas still required you to retreat.
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:03 pm
by Jaguar
Keith B wrote:Jaguar wrote:jimlongley wrote:I would think that Kenny Tavai would be the best, indeed the benchmark, example.
And it was responded to appropriately by the CHL holder being attacked, Gordon Hale III.
And Texas law still required a person under attack to retreat.
Really? I am not sure but it looks like PC 9.21 says differently.
Subch. B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY
PC §9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.
Now, does the initial attack arise to justification for use of force or deadly force? I don't know, but I don't believe there is a duty to retreat.
He means at the time the Kenny Tavai event occured Texas still required you to retreat.
Ah, my bad. I am not familiar with that case. Thanks for the clarification, time to do a search.
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:22 pm
by hi-power
Jumping Frog wrote:I am not letting anyone punch me. If I have to shoot them first, so be it.
Same here. I have not taken a punch in 30+ years, but I suspect today it would be a lot more damaging than when I was in my teens.
Heck, 10 years ago while playing softball I attempted to field a smokin' hot grounder and the ball bounced higher than I expected and smacked me in the temple area. I was in a brain fog for days. I finally went to a doctor who was worried about a brain bleed, (which would have been very bad news), and scheduled me for a CT scan. Luckily I felt much better right before the CT so my doctor cancelled it. And that was one shot from a softball, not a bony knuckle sandwich.
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:08 pm
by sjfcontrol
Jumping Frog wrote:Another example where a single punch to the head caused serious bodily injury
Cotton candy vendor in critical condition, after being punched by teen
I am not letting anyone punch me. If I have to shoot them first, so be it.
As far as the cotton candy vendor goes, the teenager's defense may be "he needed punching". The old guy is a convicted sex offender. All that said, I just wanted to illustrate a case where unarmed was still deadly force.
Nothing in that article about the cotton-candy vendor being a sex offender, but it did mention that the confrontation started when he yelled at the teen when the teen took some cotton-candy without paying.
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:38 pm
by WildBill
sjfcontrol wrote:Jumping Frog wrote:Another example where a single punch to the head caused serious bodily injury
Cotton candy vendor in critical condition, after being punched by teen
I am not letting anyone punch me. If I have to shoot them first, so be it.
As far as the cotton candy vendor goes, the teenager's defense may be "he needed punching". The old guy is a convicted sex offender. All that said, I just wanted to illustrate a case where unarmed was still deadly force.
Nothing in that article about the cotton-candy vendor being a sex offender, but it did mention that the confrontation started when he yelled at the teen when the teen took some cotton-candy without paying.
It is possible that the cotton-candy thief knew about it and thought he could get away without paying. I am curious why no charges have been filed.
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:34 am
by Valor
sjfcontrol wrote:Jumping Frog wrote:Another example where a single punch to the head caused serious bodily injury
Cotton candy vendor in critical condition, after being punched by teen
I am not letting anyone punch me. If I have to shoot them first, so be it.
As far as the cotton candy vendor goes, the teenager's defense may be "he needed punching". The old guy is a convicted sex offender. All that said, I just wanted to illustrate a case where unarmed was still deadly force.
Nothing in that article about the cotton-candy vendor being a sex offender, but it did mention that the confrontation started when he yelled at the teen when the teen took some cotton-candy without paying.
Also, doesn't say anything about a punch to the head.
The teen then punched the vendor, causing him to fall to the ground and hit his head.
A thief just turned into a robbery. Deadly force now may be used. It could not have been used prior to the punch leading to brain damage.
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:10 am
by barstoolguru
hey kid; here have some pepper spray with that candy
Re: Unarmed was still deadly force.
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:29 pm
by Jumping Frog
sjfcontrol wrote:Nothing in that article about the cotton-candy vendor being a sex offender, but it did mention that the confrontation started when he yelled at the teen when the teen took some cotton-candy without paying.
The article gave the vendor's name as Felix Radvilavicius. Rather unusual name. On a different forum, someone took the time to do a search and found he was a registered sex offender and subsequently found the court record. Same name, same town, same age.