In fear for your life

[frankie_the_yankee]

See the following excerpt from a story in the Austin American Statesman. It relates to an officer involved shooting.

****************************************

The woman, who was handcuffed, motioned with her eyes to a hall, and police followed her signal, Police Chief Art Acevedo said.

That's when a man emerged from around a corner wielding a knife, and the officers told him to put it down.

Instead, Acevedo said, he raised it, and one of the officers fired two shots, killing him.

"The officers were within eight to 10 feet of the suspect, fearing for their lives, and had no other choice," he said.

********************************************

Note that the chief cited 'fear for their lives' as justification for the officers' use of deadly force.

BTW, I fully agree from the info given that this was a legitimate use of force.

IMO, if reasonable "fear for their lives" is good enough for the police, it is good enough for you and me.

[seamusTX]

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

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

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

- Jim

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

Yesterday, he fired an APD officer for using deadly force under improper circumstances. (Luckily, no rounds hit home so no one was hurt.)

[seamusTX]

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

[frankie_the_yankee]

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

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

[Renegade]

"The officers were within eight to 10 feet of the suspect, fearing for their lives, and had no other choice," he said.

There were lots of other choices, the one they chose was to shoot him.

Even if they were not fearing for their life, sounds like it would have been a good shot too.

[seamusTX]

"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

[Renegade]

"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

Excellent example.

[seamusTX]

Thanks.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

"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

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.

TX law simply words it a little differently than some other jurisdictions, but the meaning is the same.

An alternative wording might be, "...in reasonable fear of imminent and unavoidable danger of death or grievious bodily harm.", with the source of that fear having the means, motive, and opportunity to cause such harm.

It's all the same.

[seamusTX]

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

[txinvestigator]

See the following excerpt from a story in the Austin American Statesman. It relates to an officer involved shooting.

****************************************

The woman, who was handcuffed, motioned with her eyes to a hall, and police followed her signal, Police Chief Art Acevedo said.

That's when a man emerged from around a corner wielding a knife, and the officers told him to put it down.

Instead, Acevedo said, he raised it, and one of the officers fired two shots, killing him.

"The officers were within eight to 10 feet of the suspect, fearing for their lives, and had no other choice," he said.

********************************************

Note that the chief cited 'fear for their lives' as justification for the officers' use of deadly force.

BTW, I fully agree from the info given that this was a legitimate use of force.

IMO, if reasonable "fear for their lives" is good enough for the police, it is good enough for you and me.

Its not good enough for me Frankie. Nowhere in the use of force laws does that phrase appear.

It might describe how you felt, but it is not a legal justification. Regarding the officers in this story, based on that story their justification was ;

Texas Penal Code

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force;

[stevie_d_64]

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

BINGO!!!

But when you say something like:

"I reasonably determined that the deceased presented a threat that had previously not been subdued by my verbal requests to "stop" what they were doing, I reasoned that the use of deadly force was needed to "stop" the threat from continuing...As awful as the result was, I determined that this was the only option left to "stop" that threat, from harming myself and others around me."

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...

It sounds cold, it sounds callous, but I am of the opinion that if my counsel determines that I need to make a statement, this would be a good thing to let them know where my mind was at the time...And if it needs a little tweeking...Sure, I can wrap around that idea...

[Xander]

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 of an imminent threat is not synonymous with facing an immediate threat. The scenario presented doesn't have to be hearsay. You could be standing across a room facing Fred. He could tell you: "Just you wait, 'cause when your you turn your back to me, I'm going to kill you." That's an imminent threat that could cause you to fear for your life. It is not, however, an immediate threat to your life, and you do not have justification to pull out a firearm and shoot him dead as he stands.

[seamusTX]

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