Deadly Force if you "ARE IN FEAR OF YOUR LIFE"

[Charles L. Cotton]

The "imminent" element is also required to prosecute the person making the threat. It's not merely an element of justification for the use of deadly force.

Regards,
Chas.

[BobCat]

Thank you for the clarifications.

The topic of "assault" came up at the CHL Seminar that Charles arranged. It was stated that threatening someone with physical harm was assault. I asked something like, if you tell a person "Keep doing that and you could get hurt." was it assault, and the answer was "Yes."

I then asked if it was assault if I instead had said, "I won't hurt you, but if you keep doing that, someone as mean as you are probably will hurt you." and the answer was "No" - because I made it clear that I was not going to be the one doing the hurting.

It just struck me odd that "Keep doing that and you could get hurt." was assault. When I was young, people told me that fairly often and I took it to mean "Cut it out or I will smack you." I did not think it constitued an actual legal offense, rather a warning.

Regards,
Andrew

[gigag04]

Hmmm....I guess my class up here on tort law was a bit more generic than specifying for TX. That is where I learned the A&B distinctions....

Sorry for the mis-information on my part.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The topic of "assault" came up at the CHL Seminar that Charles arranged. It was stated that threatening someone with physical harm was assault. I asked something like, if you tell a person "Keep doing that and you could get hurt." was it assault, and the answer was "Yes."

I then asked if it was assault if I instead had said, "I won't hurt you, but if you keep doing that, someone as mean as you are probably will hurt you." and the answer was "No" - because I made it clear that I was not going to be the one doing the hurting.

It just struck me odd that "Keep doing that and you could get hurt." was assault. When I was young, people told me that fairly often and I took it to mean "Cut it out or I will smack you." I did not think it constitued an actual legal offense, rather a warning.

I recall that discussion; I think it was when Derek was speaking. That's the value of hypothetical examples, you can keep changing or adding to them. The bottom line is, there has to be a threat of imminent physical attack.

Regards,
Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

I've stayed out of this one for as long as I can stand it...

If someone chooses to make a poor decision (not that I am concerned with their intelligence level) and verbally and physically abuse/assault me...

Why do I get the impression that regardless of that assault, whether it is responded to or not, why am I in legal jeopardy if I decide to expose, brandish, draw my formerly concealed handgun, that I use for self-defense, to repel the assault...Of course short of discharging that weapon to protect myself...

I pretty much know the answer to that, but it never ceases to amaze me why at that "hypothetical" point, I am the bad guy???

Just because at some point someone attacks me, and I show them a reason to stop the attack "or else!", does that make me look like the bad guy in the court of public opinion???

Remember, I did not start the assault, nor would I instigate one in the first place...

I do know that there is no clear place to draw a line in the sand...Thats an individuals responsibility to determine, and that even if you have an idea where that line may be...You better know how to be flexible in your response...Nor should you be hesitant in making those types of decisions...

I am not an angry or critical person by nature...But you just have to wonder why it is that if you choose to empower yourself with the responsibilities of carrying a firearm for lawful, self-defensive purposes, why we are condemned by a portion of the communities we live in as hateful, killers??? When I believe we are exactly the opposite!

Not only do I take the responsibility seriously, I also accept being accountable for my actions whether I am right or wrong in defending myself...And in reality, I will always be right regardless of what I do...

Off the soapbox...

[stevie_d_64]

And for an unofficial "off the record" response...

Yeah right...

I would never really be in fear for my life, but fearful for the other person for their poor choice they made in immenently threatening my life...

[txinvestigator]

And for an unofficial "off the record" response...

Yeah right...

I would never really be in fear for my life, but fearful for the other person for their poor choice they made in immenently threatening my life...

LOL I was waiting for the "macho" response.

[Bubba]

Why couldn't ya'll have named the hypothetical bad guy "Billy Bob" or something else ?
:)

I only want to be dangerous to the violent BG !

[stevie_d_64]

And for an unofficial "off the record" response...

Yeah right...

I would never really be in fear for my life, but fearful for the other person for their poor choice they made in immenently threatening my life...

LOL I was waiting for the "macho" response.

You know it!

But seriously...Yeah right again...

If the mear display, short of discharging the weapon, to deter or stop the attack works...

Why is the presumption that I must bear the burden beyond a reasonable doubt that my action was justified?

Especially when it can be reasonably deduced that I did not initiate the assault...

I just made it extremely unfair for the suspect to continue, and they are either no longer with us, or going to WalMart to buy (or steal) a new pair of underwear...

I can't think of anything more macho than that...