TexasCHLforum.com

I assume no one would disagree that a high power laser causes grievous bodily hard, and may be met with deadly force. Same as getting splashed with acid.

So, low power lasers and harmless liquids may be met with deadly force, like pointing a toy gun? There is no way to distinguish between danger and simple assault.

bbhack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:57 pm I assume no one would disagree that a high power laser causes grievous bodily hard, and may be met with deadly force. Same as getting splashed with acid.

So, low power lasers and harmless liquids may be met with deadly force, like pointing a toy gun? There is no way to distinguish between danger and simple assault.

However, determining the attacker may be very difficult. Also, the law does not require perfect decisions, just reasonable. Thus, a toy gun can be reasonably seen as a deadly threat.

The communists are increasingly using lasers to blind unarmed people.

This bring up a couple of questions.

1. Why were they going after this woman? Was she targeted at random? If not, why her?

2. She was surrounded by a mob of several. They were attempting to blind her. Then one even grabbed her. I think lethal force would have been justified by a neighbor under the defense of a third party part, right?

This is mess, already out of control, is going to reach its boil-over point before too long if this keep up and a lot of people will die before it stops.

For what it’s worth:

“ 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons
The 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) prohibits use of blinding laser weapons as a means or method of warfare as well as their transfer, to any state or non-state actor.”

http://www.weaponslaw.org/weapons/blind ... er-weapons

Yes, I would use deadly force against blinding laser.

bbhack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:57 pm I assume no one would disagree that a high power laser causes grievous bodily hard, and may be met with deadly force. Same as getting splashed with acid.

So, low power lasers and harmless liquids may be met with deadly force, like pointing a toy gun? There is no way to distinguish between danger and simple assault.

The law addresses this problem. The use of deadly force is justified if you have an objectively reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent the use of unlawful deadly force. The law does not require that belief to be right, just objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

However, while it seems clear to me that the use of lasers powerful enough to cause permanent eye injury constitutes unlawful deadly force, the issue might be muddier than we might like. While the law ought to be clear, never forget that the law is administered by politicians and can never be completely severed from politics, and public perception can be more important than technical legal correctness in a high profile case. I was reading the other day that one federal agency (I think it was CBP) issued guidance that deadly force is not authorized to protect against lasers. This may seem nuts to you or me, but perhaps not as crazy for an agency that answers to political appointees who are interested in keeping their jobs.

Like several other weapons used by the rioters, this is the "I'm not touching you" strategy. You know how a child might harass a sibling but claim that the sibling can't retaliate because "I'm not touching you"? The rioters are hoping to provoke a police response that they can later claim was disproportionate for propaganda purposes: "Cops shot at people just for using toy laser pointers," while ignoring that the lasers are not toys and can cause permanent injury. Or, "Cops shot at people just for throwing water bottles," while ignoring that the water bottles were frozen.

The best thing we can do is get the word out about the injuries these tactics can cause and are causing, before we are ever called upon to defend ourselves from them.

Here's my logic train:

TPC 9.01.(3) Definition of "Deadly Force":

(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

TPC 1.07(a) Definitions:

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

TPC 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;

I'm not a lawyer, nor will I likely be selected to be on your jury. However, knowing the risk of permanent damage a laser can cause to the retina (a bodily member/organ) that could result in partial or total blindness, I would see how a 'reasonable person', knowing at the time of the event that 'protracted loss or impairment of function' was a high risk, would 'reasonably believe' that it was 'immediately necessary' to use deadly force to protect against the other's UNLAWFUL use of deadly force (remember that 'deadly force' incorporates 'serious bodily injury' within its definition, as it should. No law should require you to be circling the drain before allowing you to defend yourself).

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... m/PE.9.htm

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm

Ready to start seeing some of these "mostly peaceful protesters" assume room temperature.

AndyC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:03 pm To stop someone from deliberately trying to blind me, I have no doubt that I would shoot them.

BINGO!! We have a winner!! Same here - once you are blinded then you are incapacitated / not able to function properly / not able to defend yourself - "I was in fear for my life so I stopped the threat!"

Andy - I agree....assuming that we have welding goggles on and our eyes are not affected (??) I guess it would be prudent to point a laser back at them? Oh, that laser is attached to something else...

Actually, I've been thinking, if I ever want to own a high powered laser, I better buy one now, since when things settle down, they're bound to be outlawed. Keeping ahead of the Democrats outlawing things has cost me a lot of money over the years, between assault rifles, normal capacity mags, and Freon...who knows what's gonna be next?

I looked up anti-laser glasses and there are different glasses for different types and color of lasers so no one size fits all!
When the first police sniper picks off the first guy using a laser, that stuff will end!