IL: Man is killed trying to grab a CHL's gun during potential road rage

[03Lightningrocks]

IMO There is not a lot of clarity as to what happened, but it appears the victim made provocative contact with the shooter. In Texas this is assault/offensive touch.

PENAL CODE

TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... /PE.22.htm

I agree that he appears to have poked the shooter, which, under Texas law, is a simple assault or possibly and assault bodily injury (if the shooter felt any pain at all, it would be bodily injury). It is also debatable that, under Texas law, the man entered the shooter's occupied vehicle. Our current law, in Chapter 9, does not define "enter" though in other chapters (30 for example), it includes any portion of the body. Both of these under our law would justify using force to defend yourself.

But, under 9.32, neither of these justify deadly force being used. It requires the attacker to be about to use unlawful deadly force or commit a list of crime, none of which is assault or even aggravated assault. From the video, even if the deceased is the initiator of the argument, I do not believe the shooting would be justified in Texas. I find it hard to believe Illinois has easier laws justifying shooting than Texas does.

The short video at the link above doesn't give much context to what actually transpired, so it's hard to say if there could have been a reasonable belief by the driver that force or deadly force would have been justified. I'm thinking since the poke (assault) had already occurred & wasn't continuing, then barring any other unknown factors the "immediacy" requirement of the justification may had no longer existed.

As Steve pointed out, there's no legal justification of using deadly force to protect against a simple assault.

But, TPC 9.32 actually does include the same presumption of reasonableness for using deadly force against someone who unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully & with force, the defenders occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business (or to prevent murder, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated kidnapping). You lose this presumption of reasonableness if you provoked the person, or if the defender was committing a crime (other than a Class C traffic violation) at the time the force was used. (( TPC 9.32(B) ))

My thoughts are that once the attack has broken off and the attacker has begun to retreat, deadly force self defense turns into "pay back" deadly force. So if someone walks up, slugs me and then starts walking off, I can't shoot them and claim I was in fear of my life. But who knows. The law often does not coincide with common sense or even my belief system of what is right or wrong. As much as I would want payback, something in me won't allow me to blast a person who is in retreat after slugging me.

[K.Mooneyham]

Of course the video was edited down so that we only see a small piece of what transpired. Why not post the entire video? The likelihood is that this was meant as a clickbait, so to speak. Also likely that because things take so long to get to trial that we will never learn the outcome of this deadly incident.