In fear for your life

[WarHawk-AVG]

3 things you MUST prove to a jury of your peers

1. Ability
2. Opportunity
3. Jeopardy

If those are met then the use of DF is authorized

You will go to jail for murder if you shoot and kill someone "jus cause they was on my land"

[stevie_d_64]

This is one of those "gem" discussions that keep me jazzed about this place...

One thing...And it may sound funny, but it leans towards what I am trying to imply...

Is there anything "reasonable" about "fear"???

Thats why I'm getting myself weened off the terminology altogether...

"Reasonable" being a logical term...

And "fear" being an emotional term...

I would think it best to not even mix the terms in anything I say about the use (justified or not) of Deadly Force...

Its one of those Steve's concepts that obviously I do not fear bantering around here for others to throw rocks at if they dissagree...No one will hurt my feelings at all if they dissagree with anything I say...Well, mostly...

[frankie_the_yankee]

Is there anything "reasonable" about "fear"???

Thats why I'm getting myself weened off the terminology altogether...

"Reasonable" being a logical term...

And "fear" being an emotional term...

Of course fear can be reasonable.

We are human beings. Fear is a normal human emotion. If you think that you are in danger of being killed, it is perfectly normal to experience fear.

If something is a normal human reaction, it must by definition be "reasonable" for a human being to experience it.

[Xander]

If something is a normal human reaction, it must by definition be "reasonable" for a human being to experience it.

Is that necessarily true? Is it reasonable to fear mice? Many, many folks would be afraid of a mouse running across the floor of the room they're in. Enough people that it's certainly within the scope of normal human reaction. Does that mean that the mouse, by definition, constitutes a real and reasonable threat to the life and well being of that individual?

[Xander]

I guess this is what I'm really getting at. Being afraid is not justification for a response to a situation. It is *part* of your response to a situation.

Fear is an emotional and physiological reaction to stimulus. If someone is charging you with a knife, and you defend yourself, it doesn't, and shouldn't make any difference whether that was a cool calculated decision devoid of emotion, or if you were indeed feeling fear. It shouldn't make a difference, for that matter if your emotional response was to feel faint, or to feel anger at being attacked either. Certainly being angry isn't a justification for deadly force. If the situation calls for deadly force however, your emotional response to the situation shouldn't add to or detract from your other responses, and specifically your actions.

[WarHawk-AVG]

If something is a normal human reaction, it must by definition be "reasonable" for a human being to experience it.

Is that necessarily true? Is it reasonable to fear mice? Many, many folks would be afraid of a mouse running across the floor of the room they're in. Enough people that it's certainly within the scope of normal human reaction. Does that mean that the mouse, by definition, constitutes a real and reasonable threat to the life and well being of that individual?

It is when they in a blind fit of fear smash into the wall, breaking their nose, get a concussion, and injure themselves

A good friend of mine a big burly 6'4" and built like a tank Marine would NOT get in his truck until that itty bitty spider that was on the inside of his windshield was killed and removed.

Tell me fear is NOT a valid reaction and you will be wrong..now fear for you life and imagine what a person is capable of!

And you are right...training cannot eliminate or offset fear, but it can give you a solid base in which to react...because someone in "fear" will not rise to the occasion, but will fall back to the level of training and REACT instinctively based upon their level of training

[Charles L. Cotton]

Is there anything "reasonable" about "fear"???

Thats why I'm getting myself weened off the terminology altogether...

"Reasonable" being a logical term...

And "fear" being an emotional term...

I would think it best to not even mix the terms in anything I say about the use (justified or not) of Deadly Force...

That's exactly why you don't see the word "fear" in TPC §§9.31 or 9.31 and why it's not a justification for the use of deadly force. In those statutes, the adjective "reasonably" modifies "believes" and fear is never mentioned. What scares people varies widely, so there would be no realistic way to establish a standard for what constitutes a "reasonable" fear.

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

Is there anything "reasonable" about "fear"???

Thats why I'm getting myself weened off the terminology altogether...

"Reasonable" being a logical term...

And "fear" being an emotional term...

I would think it best to not even mix the terms in anything I say about the use (justified or not) of Deadly Force...

That's exactly why you don't see the word "fear" in TPC §§9.31 or 9.31 and why it's not a justification for the use of deadly force. In those statutes, the adjective "reasonably" modifies "believes" and fear is never mentioned. What scares people varies widely, so there would be no realistic way to establish a standard for what constitutes a "reasonable" fear.

Chas.

Mucho Gracias!

[frankie_the_yankee]

If something is a normal human reaction, it must by definition be "reasonable" for a human being to experience it.

Is that necessarily true? Is it reasonable to fear mice? Many, many folks would be afraid of a mouse running across the floor of the room they're in. Enough people that it's certainly within the scope of normal human reaction. Does that mean that the mouse, by definition, constitutes a real and reasonable threat to the life and well being of that individual?

I think I am being misunderstood.

Fear is a normal human reaction to certain situations. But that does not mean that all fear is reasonable.

If someone is afraid of a mouse, for instance, that would be an example of UNreasonable fear. The mouse is not capable of causing significant harm.

But if someone is in REASONABLE fear for their life due to an imminent threat posed by another, they have AT THE SAME TIME satisfied the criteria for employing deadly force as it is stated in the law, IMO.

The expression "in (reasonable) fear for my life" is essentially no more than a brief way to say it.

[Xander]

I think I am being misunderstood.

I think I understand what you're saying. I just respectfully disagree.

On the other hand, we may just be playing semantic games and dancing around the same ideas with different words.

I think my second post may have explained my thoughts a bit better than the first post with the mouse example.

I disagree that fear can be either intrinsically reasonable or unreasonable. It's simply an emotional response to a real situation. A situation in which either a threat reasonably exists, or reasonably does not. When the standards for the use of deadly force are applied, a reviewer should be able to discern whether it was reasonable to believe that a threat existed, and my feelings at the time should be immaterial. If there is a reasonable threat, it's completely understandable that I would be afraid. My fear would be caused by the threat, it wouldn't, however create a reasonable threat. Once a real threat exists, it doesn't matter whether you feel understandable fear, or anger, or cold indifference, the threat is there. Also, without a reasonable threat, it doesn't matter whether you're feeling fear, anger, or any other emotion, your emotions alone don't create a situation that allows for the use of deadly force.

For what it's worth, if you're arguing that fear itself can be part of the justification, I think the law used to agree with you more than it does now. Specifically, the Napoleonic Code used to make provisions for crimes of passion, accepting that the anger of a husband finding his wife in adultery was justification for the use of deadly force. This is no longer the case in western law, and I think that this is example of how we no longer accept that our emotions can justify responses that wouldn't otherwise be reasonably justified. Then, if this is indeed the case, the fact that one fears for one's life is mere fluff. One can call the fear reasonable, but it's only superfluous. One's life is in reasonably in danger, and if that fact is embellished with details of emotion then fine, but the embellishment is no matter of consequence.

[frankie_the_yankee]

More from the new Austin chief.

On Monday, officers faced grave danger trying to save the life of a mother and her 3-year-old girl. Inside a Southeast Austin apartment, officers found a woman who was handcuffed and bloody holding a child whose throat had been slashed. The perpetrator (an ex-boyfriend) still was loose in the apartment. The mother motioned with her eyes to the hallway, and officers followed her signal. A man emerged from around a corner wielding a knife. Officers ordered the man to drop the knife. Instead, he raised it. Officer Michael Metcalf then fired two shots, killing the man.

Acevedo did not hesitate to explain why the shooting was justified:

"There was a child with a slashed throat who, without intervention, would have perished. Someone had threatened officers directly, and an officer, fearing for his own life and for the lives of innocent parties, fired two rounds, delivering fatal injuries to the suspect.

"Based on my training and experience, this was a potential murder-suicide scene."

Reasonable fear wasn't the only element present, but it was an element.

But it was the absence of immediate danger to an officer or third party that led Acevedo to fire officer Wayne Williamson on Saturday. Williamson fired shots on March 14 while chasing a burglary suspect outside a shopping center near U.S. 183 and Manor Road. No one was injured, but one of the shots struck a vehicle with children inside.

Firing a gun near a shopping center was a serious flaw in judgment that easily could have ended tragically. Some witnesses were understandably more afraid of Williamson then the suspect who was trying to run away while holding up his shorts.

Acevedo said the situation didn't meet the deadly force test: "There was no reasonable articulation of being in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death to an officer or innocent third party. The use of deadly force in this case ended up creating more of a threat to officers and to the public."

This guy sounds like he knows what he is talking about.

[Xander]

Acevedo did not hesitate to explain why the shooting was justified:

"There was a child with a slashed throat who, without intervention, would have perished. Someone had threatened officers directly, and an officer, fearing for his own life and for the lives of innocent parties, fired two rounds, delivering fatal injuries to the suspect.

"Based on my training and experience, this was a potential murder-suicide scene."

Reasonable fear wasn't the only element present, but it was an element.

Ok, after that post, I think we are indeed on the same page, and we're well and truly caught up in the semantics of the word "fear."

In this story, for instance, it isn't emotional fear that's being described. "fearing for his own life..." in the story could easily and accurately be re-written "concerned for his own life.." or "assessed the situation and believed there was a danger to his own life..." It's not describing fear as an emotional driver of the officer's actions, it's simply a succinct way to state that he believed there was sufficient danger to require deadly force. In that context, I agree that it is an appropriate usage, and that it can accurately describe a rational thought process leading to the conclusion that deadly force is required in a given situation.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Ok, after that post, I think we are indeed on the same page, and we're well and truly caught up in the semantics of the word "fear."

In this story, for instance, it isn't emotional fear that's being described. "fearing for his own life..." in the story could easily and accurately be re-written "concerned for his own life.." or "assessed the situation and believed there was a danger to his own life..." It's not describing fear as an emotional driver of the officers actions, it's simply a succinct way to state that he believed there was sufficient danger to require deadly force. In that context, I agree that it is an appropriate usage, and that it can accurately describe a rational thought process leading to the conclusion that deadly force is required in a given situation.

[KBCraig]

Just to throw this semantical monkeywrench into the discussion: "God-fearing" does not mean "scared of God".

So "fear" does have more than one connotation.

[shaggydog]

fear /fɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.
3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.
4. reverential awe, esp. toward God.
5. that which causes a feeling of being afraid; that of which a person is afraid: Cancer is a common fear.
–verb (used with object) 6. to regard with fear; be afraid of.
7. to have reverential awe of.
8. Archaic. to experience fear in (oneself).
–verb (used without object) 9. to have fear; be afraid.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: bef. 900; ME fere, OE fær sudden attack or danger; c. OS fār ambush, D gevaar, G Gefahr danger, ON fār disaster]