I'm Puzzled by TX Law

[G26ster]

I am always puzzled when I read PC 9.31 SELF DEFENSE, and PC 9.32 DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON. What does one do if you are cornered and being threatened by someone half your age and twice your size who is coming at you threatening to "tear you apart?" As someone over 65, do I just wait to get the beating of my life (if I have no safe retreat), perhaps die of injuries, or do I defend my self with my firearm? I know what I WILL do, but I always wondered where in these statutes I would be covered, if at all? I have found nothing that allows the use of force or deadly force (and use of a firearm is always deadly force) that covers this all to common situation. I'm not talking about in my home, car or place of business or employment. Just "out and about" so to speak. It appears from PC 9.32 I could defend my self from being robbed (or in my case, over 65, it becomes aggravated robbery), but not from being beaten to death. Can someone knowledgeable please tell me where I am wrong, and perhaps set me straight? Any law or case law?

[Beiruty]

So many people died when the attacker were unarmed. Hands are deadly too. Just look a the College student who killed his girlfriend. Only bare hands were used.

I myself was fascinated by this case of the law.
If I was attacked by one like Tyson, the famous boxer, I will try to run like a deer, failure of running, I may risk one punch or 2, then I will shoot 2-tap center mass.

I guess, the legislator stopped short of allowing deploying deadly force on unarmed subject as this will open a slippery slope for minor violent encounter that turns deadly. A recent case is the parking lot attendant who was shot and killed after a fist fight. He was armed, but by law could not deploy a deadly force.

[The Annoyed Man]

I am always puzzled when I read PC 9.31 SELF DEFENSE, and PC 9.32 DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON. What does one do if you are cornered and being threatened by someone half your age and twice your size who is coming at you threatening to "tear you apart?"

If you have to, you shoot them. You are under no obligation to take a beating to avoid using deadly force. Lots of people have been beaten to death. I don't propose to be one of them.

[suthdj]

Well just to throw a wrench in the works, knowing this person means to do you serious bodily harm and you knowing you have a gun and if he gets his hands on that gun you will be in fear for your life can you use it to prevent him from getting control of your weapon?

[The Annoyed Man]

READ THIS POST ON THE SAME TOPIC IN ANOTHER THREAD. It will explain very clearly what you may and may not do.

[G26ster]

READ THIS POST ON THE SAME TOPIC IN ANOTHER THREAD. It will explain very clearly what you may and may not do.

TAM, yes it clearly backs up my point. The situation involved a "robbery" or imminent robbery in the eyes of the law, because physical force was used an property was demanded. Use of deadly force is then justified under the law. I probably won't die from a robbery (at least I hope not), but I might die or be seriously injured from an "aggravated assault," which is not mentioned under PC9.32. I find it strange, in the law as written, that I can use my weapon to defend my property but not my physical self or life. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[OldCannon]

If there was a trial afterwards, it would focus on 3 things: Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Texas Castle laws remove the need for "Preclusion")

I'd say that a hulking guy that's 2x your size, half your age, enraged and saying he's going to kill you, and coming at you, is a pretty good ground for self-defense.

[Quahog]

I'd say that a hulking guy that's 2x your size, half your age, enraged and saying he's going to kill you, and coming at you, is a pretty good ground for self-defense.

Given the OP's description of the situation, I'd say he would be justified.

[MoJo]

The saying "It's better to be judged by 12 of your peers than carried by six of your friends." comes to mind. If you're dead you're dead and all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put you back together again.

We can obsess endlessly about what the minutia of the law says - - - ultimately, you and only you, are responsible for your survival.

edit: If there is no law or case law this is one of the few instances I would be willing to be the test case. The very first case here in Texas of an CHL defending himself was very similar and he was acquitted.

[Beiruty]

In fist fight that turns deadly, witnesses are the key for acquittal at the trial. If the witnesses can testify the shooter was vocal enough to warn the attacker to back off, tried his best to retreat before shooting, and he did not provoke the attacker, then this is what gets the shooter home. In case of absence of witnesses, the case is very tough.

[E.Marquez]

In fist fight that turns deadly, witnesses are the key for acquittal at the trial. If the witnesses can testify the shooter was vocal enough to warn the attacker to back off, tried his best to retreat before shooting, and he did not provoke the attacker, then this is what gets the shooter home. In case of absence of witnesses, the case is very tough.

My belief and personal position is as above.

A guy talking smack,, he don't get shot.
A guy talking smack about causing me physical harm? He gets told.. STOP, DO NOT COME CLOSER. If his words of intended physical aggression are combined with movement towards me and my family and if time allows a second warning STOP OR DEADLY FORCE WILL BE USED, if no time allows then as I now feel the BG has verbally stated his intent to cause me bodily harm and physically shown the intent, if he also has the capability (position, size, number of associates, weapon of any kind at hand) I intend to draw and present my weapon.. If at all possible moving to a position of cover or placing an obstacle between us at the same time to delay the engagement allowing the BG a extra moment to reconsider his options before he is shot multiply times in effort to stop the attack.
Thats the long version, about 3 seconds in real time on the ground.

The short one is I perceive a physical threat, have no tactical retreat, and BG movement toward me has already begun.

I would prefer to avoid any such events,,,,, I'll walk away from a verbal assault any day and be the better person for it.... But I'll deal with the ramifications of Texas law to avoid being eulogized any sooner then needed.

[remington79]

In your situation you have a disparity of force. You would be justified.

[G26ster]

I think we all know, or have a pretty good idea what we would do in a case like this, and I appreciate all the responses. I still find it odd that the law is specific in allowing defense against simple robbery, but I could find nothing specific as to assault or aggravated assault. Seems to me it would be simple to add those to PC9.32.

[tacticool]

A kick or punch from an adult or teen is deadly force.

[srothstein]

I think many of you are misreading the law on self-defense. It has many specific examples in it and explanations, but the first sentence of Section 9.31 covers all you really need to know.
[quote](a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. [/unquote]

An assault or an aggravated assault is an unlawful use of force against you. You are justified in using the amount of force necessary to defend yourself. If the person is half my size and unarmed, I could not use as much force as if he were twice my size and wearing a karate gi with a black belt. This goes with what I was saying in the shooting by the LEo during the custody turnover.

You need to be able to articulate exactly what you felt and why you did what you did. If you reasonable believed your life was in immediate danger, you can use the force necessary to save your life. If your belief was reasonable will be decided in court. But most of us are reasonable people and if we can say why we felt what we did, we will be found reasonable.