I'm Puzzled by TX Law

[gigag04]

Can I just say that I *love* that so many people are turning to the PC in this discussion...


It warms my heart. Keep it up boys/girls!

[driver8]

Sorry, Thelma Lou might have been a better example.

[The Annoyed Man]

[
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?

TAM. With great respect for your opinion, I agree with boomerang. I think you missed the "and." The way I read 9.32, you can only use deadly force if the conditions of 9.31 apply and one of the crimes in 9.32(a)(2)(B) are occurring or imminent.

That's a good point, but from where I was when writing it, I left off the "and" because it was self-evident in the scenario. The "and" conditions were met.

Of course I would not use deadly force against a 5 year old trying to kick me in the shins. That's why the law includes words like "reason," "reasonable," and "reasonably." I am a reasonable person. I don't actually see the alleged inconsistencies that others see, and the reason I don't see them is because the law seems to me to be written in a manner that requires the actor to use judgment based upon reason. I see breathing room where others don't, because I trust my own on-the-scene instincts more than I do those of someone who wasn't there. And like someone else said, I would rather trust my fate to 12 of my peers than 6 pallbearers.

If others disagree, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. All I know is that I make a number of concessions to the avoidance of trouble in my life. I don't go places where I may find trouble, and I don't go out at times when trouble may find me. I worked the evening shift in an ER for enough years to know that nothing good happens after 10 p.m. I don't use drugs, and I rarely ever drink. When I do drink, it is in extreme moderation, and almost always in the privacy of my own home. I live in peace with my neighbors, and pretty much everybody who knows me personally knows I am a friendly and hospitable person (my screen name notwithstanding ). The point of this isn't to list all of my virtues because I am only a sinner saved by grace; but rather to illustrate that I am not a person who fears the law when it comes to the decision to defend myself, or do so with deadly force if necessary, because the decision is being made by a reasonable mind.

That decision is an intensely person one for each and everyone of us because nobody makes that kind of decision in an emotional, moral, or biological vacuum. Adrenaline makes a thing as personal as it can be. To me, the logic of the law is already irreducibly simple. I think the problem we have as individuals with it is that we keep looking for scenarios in which the protections of the law might not apply to us. But for me, when it comes to the decision to exercise self-defense, my mind already works the same way the law is written, so I don't obsess over it. I look at 9.31, 9.32, 9.33 and 9.34, and I say, "Of course! Why would anyone think differently?" And G26ster, to the point or your original question about the age of the actor, I think the law is flexible enough to take the age and/or other incapacities of the actor into account in the decision to defend him/herself. I guess we just have slightly different paradigms by which we process our worlds. That's what makes life interesting.

[driver8]

"Reasonable" IS the key I think. It allows wiggle room for the jury or the grand jury. As always you have to hope for reasonable jurors. What my jury experience has shown me is that there are usually about 2 that are not reasonable but they won't hold out but so long when they see how stubborn the reasonable ones are. I would still like the law to be written better and I would still like to see Charles chime in.

[G26ster]

My problem is that I agree with most every comment made here, but that single sentence in 9.31, "The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32,9.33, and 9.34" causes me concern. Nothing more.

[The Annoyed Man]

My problem is that I agree with most every comment made here, but that single sentence in 9.31, "The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32,9.33, and 9.34" causes me concern. Nothing more.

G26ster, try reading it this way: A) 9.31 is what provides for the lawful use of force against another; B) 9.32-9.34 provide for the lawful use of deadly force; and C) 9.32-9.34 assume 9.31 to be already in play.

When subsection (d) of 9.31 says: "(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34;" I do not take that to read that use of lethal force is never justified. I simply take that to read as "see sections 9.32-9.34 for the justification for use of lethal force. In other words, they are not exclusionary. Rather, they work hand in hand and are part of a whole philosophy of self-defense which allows flexibility for the varying circumstances under which we are likely to need to use force... ...IF we are reasonable people.

I actually like that the law makes allowance for the reasonable use of force, because the "reasonable" standard acknowledges that there is no hard and fast rule. It is the philosophical opposite of "Zero Tolerance" policies, which are wrong headed because they allow the actor to abdicate any responsibility for using his head, and they allow the authority to abdicate any responsibility for making circumstantial allowances. Zero tolerance is the philosophical opposite of justice. When the legal standard specifies "reason" "reasonable" and "reasonably," there is room for justice to prevail.

And where justice can prevail, we have freedom to act in our best interests with whatever response is the appropriate one to the offense against our persons. Of course, freedom does not come without risk. Therefore, we minimize risk by exercising reason.

[MechAg94]

Here's where I think the disconnect falls in this thread:

Some folks are focusing on a single punch or single kick, either out of the blue or after multiple credible threats.

I've never once heard of an attacker threatening, "I'm going to punch you exactly one time! And them I'm going to turn and walk away!"

The logical and legal presumption is that if someone is willing to walk up and punch/kick me, he is willing to do so more than once, and that the victim may assume the attacker doesn't intend to stop.

Not to mention, any blows to the head are potentially "deadly force". Many people have been killed by a single blow to the head.

The first Texas CHL to use deadly force was Gordon Hale. He shot and killed Kenny Tavai, who punched him in the head. Hale was cleared by the grand jury.

That's a pretty good precedent.

As chabouk mentions, one of the early CHL test cases involved a CHL holder who got in a fender bender in his company vehicle with another company vehicle and the other driver came up and started wailing on him with his fists. The CHL holder grabbed a gun from his seat and shot/killed the guy. He was no-billed or acquitted. I am not sure.

The crux of the case was the he had the right to use deadly force to defend himself against threat of death or serious bodily injury. His lawyer successfully argued that fists can cause serious bodily injury and were a credible threat that allowed use of deadly force in self defense.

Every class or instructor I have come across pretty much said the same thing.

[Dragonfighter]

Here's where I think the disconnect falls in this thread:

Some folks are focusing on a single punch or single kick, either out of the blue or after multiple credible threats.

I've never once heard of an attacker threatening, "I'm going to punch you exactly one time! And them I'm going to turn and walk away!"

The logical and legal presumption is that if someone is willing to walk up and punch/kick me, he is willing to do so more than once, and that the victim may assume the attacker doesn't intend to stop.

Not to mention, any blows to the head are potentially "deadly force". Many people have been killed by a single blow to the head.

The first Texas CHL to use deadly force was Gordon Hale. He shot and killed Kenny Tavai, who punched him in the head. Hale was cleared by the grand jury.

That's a pretty good precedent.

As chabouk mentions, one of the early CHL test cases involved a CHL holder who got in a fender bender in his company vehicle with another company vehicle and the other driver came up and started wailing on him with his fists. The CHL holder grabbed a gun from his seat and shot/killed the guy. He was no-billed or acquitted. I am not sure.

The crux of the case was the he had the right to use deadly force to defend himself against threat of death or serious bodily injury. His lawyer successfully argued that fists can cause serious bodily injury and were a credible threat that allowed use of deadly force in self defense.

Every class or instructor I have come across pretty much said the same thing.

No billed. There was also a huge disparity of force, 400# vs. 150# and standing vs. seated in a restrictive location. It also sold me on .40 S&W as an effective defense round.

[wheelgun1958]

Just make sure the attacker can't testify.

[AustinBoy]

Food for thought.
My cousin, not a friend of a friend of a friend, was riding with a friend. He was in his early 30's. His friend did something in traffic that made another driver mad. That guy followed them to a convience store. My cousin got out and was immediately hit in the head. He went down like a ton of bricks and fractured his skull on the curb. As luck would have it, there was an ambulance at the store. They scooped him up and took him to the hospital. He spent a month and half in the hospital. The doctor told him if the paramedics hadnt been at the store he would be dead.

Granted, a gun would have done him no good. He never even had a chance.

Point being, the guy hit him once. ONCE, and he almost died.

Makes me ask myself, what am I willing to take? I have never been in a fight in my life. Ever. I am 38.

If you come at me, I will warn you and then I will stop you. I am not willing to take that ONE hit.

Ty

[A-R]

Makes me ask myself, what am I willing to take? I have never been in a fight in my life. Ever. I am 38.

If you come at me, I will warn you and then I will stop you. I am not willing to take that ONE hit.

Ty

100% and I am roughly the same age and never been in a "real" fight in my life either.

Haven't been keeping up with the thread today so need to backtrack to catch up, but I'll just say this:

If you come at me aggressively with either overtly stated or obviously intended harmful intentions, weapon or no weapon, I WILL DEFEND MYSELF BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, interpretations of the law be ... well .... I'll self-censor the last word before Keith B comes at me aggressively with a PM

That said, I really enjoy all these interpretations, points and counterpoints and will be catching up on the rest now.

[Mike1951]

This thread, "What is Your Limit" contains some relevent discussion.

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=30394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[A-R]

And there is no difference between Mike Tyson being attacked with fists and Don Knotts being attacked by fists?

Well one difference is that Don Knotts is dead and I'm fairly sure there are laws against disturbing a corpse

[AustinBoy]

Mike 1951,
I have read that thread before. It does make me think.

However, knowing someone personally that close to death, I won't take the risk.

As I stated, I have never been in a fight. I have never hit anyone and I have never been hit. I have no idea how to fight.

I am in sales. I am REALLY good at talking and deescalation. That is why I have never been in a fight, I can and have talked my way out of it many times.

If someone comes at me and I warn them, I will not be hit. I will not get in a fight. I will stop it.

That being said, I am in kind of a unique situation. If the worst ever did happen and I was questioned as to the action I took, I could have my cousin testify.

This could explain my actions. My mindset based on his situation and the reason I was not willing to take that ONE hit.

Ty

[A-R]

Maybe the law doesn't know the difference between Don Knotts punching Mike Tyson and Mike Tyson punching Don Knotts but the jury does.

Actually, punching Don Knotts would be covered under PC42.08. It's not a justification for deadly force, though.

Darn it, you beat me to it