In fear for your life

[Xander]

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.

Which is why the blanket "fear for your life" term is such a lousy choice of words, and particularly so in an arena as technical and pedantic as the law.

When the intended definition can only be implied from the contextual cues, you get a phrase that can describe a response that could be completely reasonable, or equally ridiculous.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Which is why the blanket "fear for your life" term is such a lousy choice of words, and particularly so in an arena as technical and pedantic as the law.

Only if one is willfully determined to ignore context.

Otherwise, it is a succinct way of expressing a particular thought without droning on and on quoting the statute word for word.

[seamusTX]

Otherwise, it is a succinct way of expressing a particular thought without droning on and on quoting the statute word for word.

"He needed shootin'" is even shorter.

- Jim

[Xander]

Which is why the blanket "fear for your life" term is such a lousy choice of words, and particularly so in an arena as technical and pedantic as the law.

Only if one is willfully determined to ignore context.

Otherwise, it is a succinct way of expressing a particular thought without droning on and on quoting the statute word for word.

But Charles had an excellent point in the other thread. A "reasonable fear" itself is *not* justification for deadly force, even if term is used to described a justified use of deadly force, and there *are* situations were someone could reasonably be afraid for their life, even though the situation doesn't meet the tests for reasonable use of deadly force. Being surrounded by thugs in a dark alley, for instance. You may certainly be reasonably afraid for your life, but you may not be free to use deadly force.

I think we've agreed that it *can* be used as a semantic shortcut for a logical and reasonably but regrettable decision to use deadly force. I think from the thread that it's also clear that it's a word that can be easily misinterpreted, and misunderstood. think the fact that we're nearing 50 posts in this thread shows that it's pretty clearly contentious. I fully understand Charles' and TXIs reluctance to consider it to be an acceptable alternative to the language of the law. I must say, I tend to agree. We have spelled out the statutory conditions that must be met in order for deadly force to be a legal option. I don't know that paraphrasing the law with alternative phrases is necessary or beneficial. Charles has pointed out how, in fact, it can be specifically harmful. Before one choose to use deadly force one *MUST* know *EXACTLY* what the law requires, and why the current situation qualifies. If the only requirement that's been drilled into the heads of CHL holders is that they must have a "reasonable fear for their lives" some of those individuals *will* make decisions to use deadly force in scary, dangerous situations that *aren't* situations where the law allows the use of deadly force.

How you describe a situation after the fact is insignificant. The use of the phase "feared for my life" can be perfectly fine. How you make a decision about whether to use deadly force in the first place is different, and "feared for my life" shouldn't be part of the consideration...Only the language of the law can allow a determination that justification exists.

[frankie_the_yankee]

But Charles had an excellent point in the other thread. (http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... php?t=9735) a "reasonable fear" itself is *not* justification for deadly force, ..........

Yes, "itself". To which I say, "context, context, context."

[Xander]

a "reasonable fear" itself is *not* justification for deadly force, ..........
Yes, "itself". To which I say, "context, context, context."

Yes, but in order for "reasonable fear" to to be positively determined to exist within a given context, we must fall back to a definition of "reasonable fear" that can be laid out from, and constrained by the law. So, if you don't understand the conditions set forth by the law, there is no way to specifically differentiate between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" fear. So, at that point, it becomes redundant and unnecessary, and until that point it isn't adequately defined and dangerous.

[frankie_the_yankee]

a "reasonable fear" itself is *not* justification for deadly force, ..........
Yes, "itself". To which I say, "context, context, context."

Yes, but in order for "reasonable fear" to to be positively determined to exist within a given context, we must fall back to a definition of "reasonable fear" that can be laid out from, and constrained by the law.

So, if you don't understand the conditions set forth by the law, there is no way to specifically differentiate between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" fear. So, at that point, it becomes redundant and unnecessary, and until that point it isn't adequately defined and dangerous.

I agree that the expression "reasonable fear" is not a substitute for knowledge of the statute.

Knowledge of the statute is one element of proper context.