I'm Puzzled by TX Law

[gigag04]

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

And singing the UT fight song is DOC - language

[tacticool]

Aggies.

I can find freedom of speech in the constitution but I can't find freedom to assault.

[Keith B]

Keep on topic please

[gigag04]

Aggies.

I can find freedom of speech in the constitution but I can't find freedom to assault.

I can't find where a kick or punch is deadly force -

Penal Code Ch 9.01:

(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Penal Code Ch. 1.07:
(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

The stuff here is talking broken bones on up. I've taken quite a few punches, as well as seen the effects of punches/kicks on others, and rarely does it get to this level.

Generally a punch or kick is considered simple assault.


Back on Topic Keith :)

[tacticool]

You're saying if someone breaks your nose or stomps on your throat, it's simple assault?

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[gigag04]

You're saying if someone breaks your nose or stomps on your throat, it's simple assault?

No. I'm saying A punch or A kick is simple assault....most of the time. And I said it is rare that said punch or kick will cause the devastating injuries mentioned above. I don't discount the effect of a well placed strike, but generally speaking when people fight it is clumsy haymakers being thrown...which 12 people in their right minds will not find to be deadly force.

[tacticool]

If someone attacks me, I can't trust their good will to stop with minor punches or ineffective kicks. They already proved their lack of restraint and lack of concern for my well being by ILLEGALLY ATTACKING ME. There are plenty of deaths from unarmed criminals in the UCR so I have to assume the worst when a CRIMINAL attacks me.

Like I said before, I'll believe it when I see it. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[gigag04]

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

If someone attacks me, I can't trust their good will to stop with minor punches or ineffective kicks. They already proved their lack of restraint and lack of concern for my well being by ILLEGALLY ATTACKING ME. There are plenty of deaths from unarmed criminals in the UCR so I have to assume the worst when a CRIMINAL attacks me.

I agree with most of what you're saying but these statements are not equal. I responded to the first statement. I think you feel like my disagreement comes from your follow up statements - it does not...I only wanted to highlight that a single kick or punch (as specified in your post) does not in and of itself amount to deadly force, in MOST circumstances.

Friends?

[G26ster]

Getting off track here. I proposed a "specific" personal situation in which a person over 65 (elderly person in the eyes of TX law) is being attacked by someone twice their size and half their age. I think there's more than just a size difference here. And yes, a single punch or kick can be deadly to that person. When you're pushing 70, bones break easier, and your body is far less tolerant to punishment. Hope that's not bad news for you "young'uns."

srothstein: Can't say I think it's quite that simple, IF we consider the use of my weapon as deadly force (which I believe it would be), and based on 9.32 and the big and:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

In the situation I described, the attacker fits in neither (A) or (B). He is unarmed, so proving his attempted use of deadly force with his fists is left to a jury, and he is not attempting to commit any of the offenses listed in (B). I just find it odd that I have to "hope" a jury would agree that someone half my age and twice my size attempted the use of deadly force with his fists. Simply adding a few words to (B), like "assault," would require no other justification or defense on my part. If we can have the term "robbery" in (B), why not have "assault" or more specifically "assault on an elderly person." Seems a reasonable law to me.

[Vic]

I agree that the law should be more clear, and should strive to include likely situations, such as assaults/attempted assaults. It is possible, however, that the case of assault/attempted assault was omitted precisely because lawmakers did not want to include it.

That being said, a good lawyer will paint the appropriate picture and will make the case that a younger and stronger attacker did in fact pose a lethal threat. That would satisfy requirement "A".

As Mark Twain said, a jury is 12 people who come together to decide who has the better lawyer.

[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.

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.

I don't think you are reading the law correctly. There would be no point in a CHL law, if self-defense were not the primary motivation for it. I had a longer answer prepared, but that says it about as simply as I can.

[G26ster]

I don't think you are reading the law correctly. There would be no point in a CHL law, if self-defense were not the primary motivation for it. I had a longer answer prepared, but that says it about as simply as I can.

TAM. Perhaps, but to me, any use of a handgun by anyone is "deadly force." Reading the law that justifies the use of deadly force, is very specific in it's conditions combining PC 9.31 and 9.32. The SELF-DEFENSE statute 9.31 is very clear that the use of deadly force is not justified "except as provided in 9.32, 9.33, or 9.34.
The situation I outlined is not covered IMHO in any of those paragraphs. If the legislators thought enough to be specific about the justifications in 9.32(a)(2)(B), they could have easily added assault on an elderly person.

In the end, I know and you know what we will do in this event. But it sure would be nice to be covered specifically under the law, rather than hope for a sympathetic jury. This was the reason I titled my post "puzzled."

I think Vic is correct, but it would be nice to have it stated in the statute.

[The Annoyed Man]

If the legislators thought enough to be specific about the justifications in 9.32(a)(2)(B), they could have easily added assault on an elderly person.

I sympathize with your point, I really do, because the elderly are too often victimized. But I think my reply would be, "why should an assault on an elderly person be any more egregious than an assault on a 57 year old man with limiting injuries (me), or assault on a 5 year old child, or assault on a 23 year old man in perfect health?" Assault is assault, and I don't think that the victim's age should make for special circumstances, because any argument you could make in favor of codifying special circumstances for the elderly would apply equally on a moral level to victims of any age.

Plus, there is a danger in the law, any law about anything, when you allege special status for someone based on their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. Here's why: whenever you allege some special status for one group of citizens, lawmakers and enforcers tend to interpret that as being exclusionary to citizens belonging to other groups. They do this because there is a common misunderstanding among people that a law is what makes something legal, and that anything which is not "permitted" by law is illegal. That is not the truth. The truth is the opposite notion — which is that ALL things are legal unless a specific law specifically forbids it. Thus, if you codify an exception to the law which grants a special "protected" status to seniors vis-a-vis self-defense, lawmakers (and law enforcers) will then tend to act on the notion that citizens who fall outside of that age group do not have the right to defend themselves against assault.

Am I making sense to you?

[G26ster]

If the legislators thought enough to be specific about the justifications in 9.32(a)(2)(B), they could have easily added assault on an elderly person.

I sympathize with your point, I really do, because the elderly are too often victimized. But I think my reply would be, "why should an assault on an elderly person be any more egregious than an assault on a 57 year old man with limiting injuries (me), or assault on a 5 year old child, or assault on a 23 year old man in perfect health?" Assault is assault, and I don't think that the victim's age should make for special circumstances, because any argument you could make in favor of codifying special circumstances for the elderly would apply equally on a moral level to victims of any age.

Plus, there is a danger in the law, any law about anything, when you allege special status for someone based on their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. Here's why: whenever you allege some special status for one group of citizens, lawmakers and enforcers tend to interpret that as being exclusionary to citizens belonging to other groups. They do this because there is a common misunderstanding among people that a law is what makes something legal, and that anything which is not "permitted" by law is illegal. That is not the truth. The truth is the opposite notion — which is that ALL things are legal unless a specific law specifically forbids it. Thus, if you codify an exception to the law which grants a special "protected" status to seniors vis-a-vis self-defense, lawmakers (and law enforcers) will then tend to act on the notion that citizens who fall outside of that age group do not have the right to defend themselves against assault.

Am I making sense to you?

Yes you make sense, except I don't necessarily agree 100%. Here's why. You (perhaps) and I already have "special status" under the law. Here is just one example:

Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

So, an actor commits robbery on a 30 year old, for example, he must cause bodily injury to cause it to be aggravated robbery. In my case, and perhaps yours, all the actor has to do is threaten or place us "in fear" of imminent bodily injury or death. So, if special status can be added to this, and other statutes, I don't see why it can't be added to PC 9.32 as it applies to use of deadly force in self-defense.

Am I making any sense?

[The Annoyed Man]

Am I making any sense?

Sure, I see your point, but whether or not a crime is "aggravated" assault has little to do with the method by which the victim responds to it. Here's why: I am 57 and have limiting injuries (chronic back issues etc.), but I am not officially disabled. I am disabled to a degree, but not officially disabled. So the same assault against you which may be classified as aggravated based on your age, may not be classified the same against me. But I can tell you that if mongo decides to beat my lunch money out of me, I'm going to draw and use my weapon, regardless of whether I am 65 or 57 or 39, and a court is likely to side with me instead of mongo. And the reason is that, whether or not it is aggravated assault, mongo's use of force is unlawful, and (paraphrasing what srothstein posted above about Section 9.31) "I am justified in using force against mongo when and to the degree I reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary to protect myself against mongo's use or attempted use of unlawful force [against me]."

Furthermore, paraphrasing Section 9.32, "I am justified in using deadly force against mongo if I would be justified in using [any kind of] force against mongo under Section 9.31."

How does that sound?