G26ster wrote:srothstein: Can't say I think it's quite that simple, IF we consider the use of my weapon as deadly force (which I believe it would be), and based on 9.32 and the big and:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
In the situation I described, the attacker fits in neither (A) or (B). He is unarmed, so proving his attempted use of deadly force with his fists is left to a jury, and he is not attempting to commit any of the offenses listed in (B). I just find it odd that I have to "hope" a jury would agree that someone half my age and twice my size attempted the use of deadly force with his fists. Simply adding a few words to (B), like "assault," would require no other justification or defense on my part. If we can have the term "robbery" in (B), why not have "assault" or more specifically "assault on an elderly person." Seems a reasonable law to me.
Perhaps I was not clear enough in this, but I really do think it is that simple. Remember that force is any force, up to and including deadly force. When you look at 9.32, you have the immediately justifiable uses for deadly force. But there is nothing in the law that restricts deadly force to just those times. This is why 9.31 includes the term "when and to the degree necessary". This term is what allows use of higher levels of force if necessary. Note that there is no limit on the degree necessary to limit it to less than deadly force.
My understanding of the law is that the basic rule is when you can use force at all. Then there are some limits and some extensions to it. 9.32 gives times where you can jump immediately to deadly force instead of having to justify the upgrading from lesser levels of force.
And we always have 9.22 as a further example of this logic. This is the defense of necessity. It says you can do anything that is necessary as long as the harm you are trying to prevent outweighs the harm you are doing and there is no law expressly forbidding what you did. So, if I am a 72 year old and am being attacked by a 27 year old athlete, I can use force to the degree necessary to protect myself. This includes shooting him if it is necessary to save my life. this matches well with my interpretation of 9.31.
