TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

Reports of actual crimes and investigations, not hypothetical situations.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B

User avatar

oljames3
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 5350
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:21 pm
Location: Elgin, Texas
Contact:

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#31

Post by oljames3 »

This is not rocket surgery. The law of self defense is rather simple. Attorney Andrew Branca explains:
https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/
I have a confession: self-defense law is simple. There, I said it—my expertise is simple.

I know what you’re thinking—sure, maybe self-defense law is simple for a self-defense law scholar and lawyer, who reads legalese like a native language, but what about normal not-crazy people?

In fact, self-defense law is simple for everyone.

That said, there is a catch: You have to be taught self-defense law by someone who understands the subject well enough to effectively translate all the legalese into plain English, to distill that legal knowledge from the theoretical to the actionable.

Find that person and you’re well on your way to understanding the law of self-defense because it's not actually that complicated.

The simple truth is that you don’t have to know 500 legal concepts to really understand self-defense law. Not even 50.

In fact, there are at most 5 elements to any self-defense case (and often not even that many). That’s it—just 5. And that’s true in every one of the 50 states, and all US territories.

And it all begins with the first element:

Innocence
You can’t start the fight.

That’s the first element—you can’t have been the initial aggressor, and then justify your use of force as self-defense. Pretty simple, huh? What could be more obvious than that, right? You got this.

Often, however, whether you, in fact, started the confrontation can easily be a fact in dispute. Naturally, you’ll say the other guy was the initial aggressor. But that other guy—or his buddies—could say that you were. That kind of uncertainty is the “messy” part of this “simple” element.

Bottom line, if a prosecutor reviews your case and sees evidence that suggests you might have started the fight, you’ve just made yourself way more likely to be brought to trial on criminal charges, because now you look like a vulnerable target for conviction.

But starting (or appearing as if you started) the fight isn’t the only thing you must avoid, there’s also the second element:

Imminence
The law allows you to defend yourself from an attack that’s either happening or about to happen very soon, meaning within seconds. It’s not intended to justify vengeance for some past act of violence, nor to “stop” a speculative future attack that you have time to avoid by other means.

You can think of the element of imminence as a window that opens and closes. Before the window of imminence is open—before the threat is actually occurring or imminently about to occur—you can’t use defensive force. After the window of imminence has closed —after the threat is over—you again cannot use defensive force.

It’s only while that window of imminence is open that you can lawfully use defensive force.

Imminence has to do with when you can use defensive force, but what about how much defensive force you can use? That has to do with the third element:

Proportionality
The law puts any use of force into one of two buckets: the non-deadly force bucket, or the deadly force bucket.

What qualifies as deadly force? Legally, deadly force is more broadly defined than only force that kills. Force that can cause death is part of the definition, but deadly force also includes force that causes serious bodily injury, like maiming injuries, as well as rape.

What qualifies as non-deadly force? Non-deadly force is essentially all lesser degrees of force that cannot readily cause death or serious bodily injury.

If the threat you’re facing is non-deadly, then you’re only allowed to use non-deadly force in response. If the force you’re facing is deadly in nature, then you’re entitled to use deadly force OR non-deadly force to defend yourself.

If you respond with deadly force to an attacker using only non-deadly force, you’re using disproportional force, you’ve “lost the element of proportionality,” and you are not acting lawfully.

It’s essential to make sure you limit yourself to only the degree of defensive force that’s proportional to the threat you’re defending against.

But what about running rather than fighting? Does the law require you to resort to flight before you can resort to fight? That brings us to the fourth element of self-defense law:

Avoidance
Could you have safely avoided the fight? That’s the question the fourth element addresses.

A minority of about 13 states impose a legal duty to run away, when you can do so safely, rather than fight. These are called “duty-to-retreat” states.

The large majority of states do not impose such a legal duty to retreat, even if you could have done so with complete safety. These are the “stand-your-ground” states.

In the minority 13 states that do impose a legal duty to retreat, however, failing to run when you safely could have is not lawful, loses you the required element of avoidance, and therefore loses you self-defense.

Even the duty-to-retreat states only impose that legal duty when retreat is possible with complete safety. That begs the question, however—was a completely safe avenue of retreat actually available under the circumstances facing that specific defender?

To put it another way, would a reasonable defender under attack have been aware that a safe avenue of retreat was available? This leads us to the last of the five elements of self-defense law:

Reasonableness
I like to call this the “umbrella” element because it overlays the other four.

Everything that you perceive, decide, and do in defense of yourself or others must be reasonable and prudent, given the circumstances you faced, the information you knew, and your abilities (or disabilities).

Mistakes in self-defense are allowed, and a mistaken use of defensive force can still qualify as lawful self-defense. The bad guy’s “gun” turned out to be a toy? That’s not a problem for your defensive use of force against the apparent gun if perceiving it as a real gun was a reasonable belief under the circumstances.

Bottom line: We’re not required to make perfect decisions in self-defense, just reasonable ones.

What’s reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another, however. This element of reasonableness is partly a reflection of the particular defender under the specific circumstances. The reasonable perception of, and defensive options for, a defender who is young, healthy, and fit may well differ from the reasonable perceptions and defensive options of an elderly, ill, or disabled defender.

The 5 Elements Are Easy … But Real Life is Complicated
And that’s it, folks—the 5 MUST KNOW elements of self-defense law. Easy-peasy, right? How hard can applying just five elements be?

Well, maybe more complicated than one might think. While the elements themselves are relatively simple, applying them to a real-world case can be complicated.

Why? Because the real world is not simple. It is messy and involves real people, real victims, real violence, and so forth. So, applying these elements to the real-world takes practice. Applying them quickly enough in real-time to respond correctly in the critical moment of an attack takes even more practice.

And that’s precisely why we do what we do at Law of Self Defense: We help you understand the law of self-defense so that you can not only make yourself hard to kill, you can also make yourself hard to convict.

Interested in Learning More and Becoming Your Own Self-Defense Law Expert?
Of course you are!

Where can you find the kind of training and experience that I’m talking about? A lot of it is right here, at Law of Self Defense, where it’s our mission to help you make better informed, more confident, and more decisive decisions in self-defense.
Free mini course. https://lawofselfdefense.com/mini/
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
2/19FA, 1st Cavalry Division 73-78; 56FA BDE (Pershing) 78-81
NRA, NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor, Rangemaster Certified, GOA, TSRA, NAR L1
User avatar

aaangel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:06 am
Location: Grand Prairie

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#32

Post by aaangel »

the 9 and 14 year old kids are old enough to understand the whole situation. so sad for these kids who will now grow up without both of their dads and the psychological problems they have to deal with! praying for the kids 🙏😢
'got to Texas ASAIC.
User avatar

der Teufel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: In the vicinity of Austin

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#33

Post by der Teufel »

I don't have all the facts, I've only looked briefly at the video.
I don't see a good self-defense claim from what I've seen.
It will be interesting to see what develops…
A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition. — Rudyard Kipling
NRA Endowment Member
TSRA Life Member
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 11451
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#34

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

aaangel wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:07 pm the 9 and 14 year old kids are old enough to understand the whole situation. so sad for these kids who will now grow up without both of their dads and the psychological problems they have to deal with! praying for the kids 🙏😢
About 65% of minority kids grow up with no dad. Unfortunately, that is not nearly as uncommon these days as one would wish for.
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 11451
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#35

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

oljames3 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:46 am This is not rocket surgery. The law of self defense is rather simple. Attorney Andrew Branca explains:
https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/
I have a confession: self-defense law is simple. There, I said it—my expertise is simple.

I know what you’re thinking—sure, maybe self-defense law is simple for a self-defense law scholar and lawyer, who reads legalese like a native language, but what about normal not-crazy people?

In fact, self-defense law is simple for everyone.

That said, there is a catch: You have to be taught self-defense law by someone who understands the subject well enough to effectively translate all the legalese into plain English, to distill that legal knowledge from the theoretical to the actionable.

Find that person and you’re well on your way to understanding the law of self-defense because it's not actually that complicated.

The simple truth is that you don’t have to know 500 legal concepts to really understand self-defense law. Not even 50.

In fact, there are at most 5 elements to any self-defense case (and often not even that many). That’s it—just 5. And that’s true in every one of the 50 states, and all US territories.

And it all begins with the first element:

Innocence
You can’t start the fight.

That’s the first element—you can’t have been the initial aggressor, and then justify your use of force as self-defense. Pretty simple, huh? What could be more obvious than that, right? You got this.

Often, however, whether you, in fact, started the confrontation can easily be a fact in dispute. Naturally, you’ll say the other guy was the initial aggressor. But that other guy—or his buddies—could say that you were. That kind of uncertainty is the “messy” part of this “simple” element.

Bottom line, if a prosecutor reviews your case and sees evidence that suggests you might have started the fight, you’ve just made yourself way more likely to be brought to trial on criminal charges, because now you look like a vulnerable target for conviction.

But starting (or appearing as if you started) the fight isn’t the only thing you must avoid, there’s also the second element:

Imminence
The law allows you to defend yourself from an attack that’s either happening or about to happen very soon, meaning within seconds. It’s not intended to justify vengeance for some past act of violence, nor to “stop” a speculative future attack that you have time to avoid by other means.

You can think of the element of imminence as a window that opens and closes. Before the window of imminence is open—before the threat is actually occurring or imminently about to occur—you can’t use defensive force. After the window of imminence has closed —after the threat is over—you again cannot use defensive force.

It’s only while that window of imminence is open that you can lawfully use defensive force.

Imminence has to do with when you can use defensive force, but what about how much defensive force you can use? That has to do with the third element:

Proportionality
The law puts any use of force into one of two buckets: the non-deadly force bucket, or the deadly force bucket.

What qualifies as deadly force? Legally, deadly force is more broadly defined than only force that kills. Force that can cause death is part of the definition, but deadly force also includes force that causes serious bodily injury, like maiming injuries, as well as rape.

What qualifies as non-deadly force? Non-deadly force is essentially all lesser degrees of force that cannot readily cause death or serious bodily injury.

If the threat you’re facing is non-deadly, then you’re only allowed to use non-deadly force in response. If the force you’re facing is deadly in nature, then you’re entitled to use deadly force OR non-deadly force to defend yourself.

If you respond with deadly force to an attacker using only non-deadly force, you’re using disproportional force, you’ve “lost the element of proportionality,” and you are not acting lawfully.

It’s essential to make sure you limit yourself to only the degree of defensive force that’s proportional to the threat you’re defending against.

But what about running rather than fighting? Does the law require you to resort to flight before you can resort to fight? That brings us to the fourth element of self-defense law:

Avoidance
Could you have safely avoided the fight? That’s the question the fourth element addresses.

A minority of about 13 states impose a legal duty to run away, when you can do so safely, rather than fight. These are called “duty-to-retreat” states.

The large majority of states do not impose such a legal duty to retreat, even if you could have done so with complete safety. These are the “stand-your-ground” states.

In the minority 13 states that do impose a legal duty to retreat, however, failing to run when you safely could have is not lawful, loses you the required element of avoidance, and therefore loses you self-defense.

Even the duty-to-retreat states only impose that legal duty when retreat is possible with complete safety. That begs the question, however—was a completely safe avenue of retreat actually available under the circumstances facing that specific defender?

To put it another way, would a reasonable defender under attack have been aware that a safe avenue of retreat was available? This leads us to the last of the five elements of self-defense law:

Reasonableness
I like to call this the “umbrella” element because it overlays the other four.

Everything that you perceive, decide, and do in defense of yourself or others must be reasonable and prudent, given the circumstances you faced, the information you knew, and your abilities (or disabilities).

Mistakes in self-defense are allowed, and a mistaken use of defensive force can still qualify as lawful self-defense. The bad guy’s “gun” turned out to be a toy? That’s not a problem for your defensive use of force against the apparent gun if perceiving it as a real gun was a reasonable belief under the circumstances.

Bottom line: We’re not required to make perfect decisions in self-defense, just reasonable ones.

What’s reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another, however. This element of reasonableness is partly a reflection of the particular defender under the specific circumstances. The reasonable perception of, and defensive options for, a defender who is young, healthy, and fit may well differ from the reasonable perceptions and defensive options of an elderly, ill, or disabled defender.

The 5 Elements Are Easy … But Real Life is Complicated
And that’s it, folks—the 5 MUST KNOW elements of self-defense law. Easy-peasy, right? How hard can applying just five elements be?

Well, maybe more complicated than one might think. While the elements themselves are relatively simple, applying them to a real-world case can be complicated.

Why? Because the real world is not simple. It is messy and involves real people, real victims, real violence, and so forth. So, applying these elements to the real-world takes practice. Applying them quickly enough in real-time to respond correctly in the critical moment of an attack takes even more practice.

And that’s precisely why we do what we do at Law of Self Defense: We help you understand the law of self-defense so that you can not only make yourself hard to kill, you can also make yourself hard to convict.

Interested in Learning More and Becoming Your Own Self-Defense Law Expert?
Of course you are!

Where can you find the kind of training and experience that I’m talking about? A lot of it is right here, at Law of Self Defense, where it’s our mission to help you make better informed, more confident, and more decisive decisions in self-defense.
Free mini course. https://lawofselfdefense.com/mini/
My brother lives in OHIO. Up until 2020 it was a required to flight state. Someone in his small town or near it, had shot and killed a burglar who broke into his home while he was there. They charged and convicted the homeowner and put him in jail because they claimed he had time to escape out the front door since the bad guy was coming in a window in the back of the house. I still remember thinking it sounded crazy. It has been a dozen years ago this happened but I had given my brother a 12 gage mossberg to defend his home and he said he would take it with him as he ran from his house. It sounded crazy to me. In 2020 they finally signed a "stand your ground" law into affect.
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 11451
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#36

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

My SIL is a sizable guy. And I don't mean fat sizable. Many folks on this forum are fat sizable and that can be considered as dibilitating as short and fat. Fat is fat. LOL. He is 43 and has been doing serious weight training for years. Along with a history of pro-wrestling and MMA training. He is 6'5". Most folks are considerably smaller than he. He makes a considerable effort to avoid any confrontation. He has made the comment several times that he is starting off at a legal disadvantage when it comes to self defense. I'm 5'10" and 300 pounds. And 20 years older than he. He could easily restrain me if he chose to. Unless he shoots a person trying to stab him or shoot him, a jury could easily claim he did not have to shoot. On the other hand, I would be able to show disparity of force if he was pummeling me with his fists.
User avatar

oljames3
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 5350
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:21 pm
Location: Elgin, Texas
Contact:

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#37

Post by oljames3 »

Attorney Andrew Branca details the law as it applies to this case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JyVw5LU8EA
Chad Read Shooting: Evidence Supports Manslaughter, Not Justification
Last edited by oljames3 on Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
2/19FA, 1st Cavalry Division 73-78; 56FA BDE (Pershing) 78-81
NRA, NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor, Rangemaster Certified, GOA, TSRA, NAR L1
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 11451
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#38

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

oljames3 wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:32 am Attorney Andrew Branca details the law was it applies to this case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JyVw5LU8EA
Chad Read Shooting: Evidence Supports Manslaughter, Not Justification
Thanks for posting.

wil
Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:37 pm

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#39

Post by wil »

srothstein wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:05 amI agree that the ambiguity with which most laws are written is one of the worst things about the law.


where they placed that word "and" changes the relationship between both of those codes. Had they put it at the beginning of 9.42 it would read far more clearly. It is a damnable thing the way so much of the law is written.
srothstein wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:05 amYou can get some clues on reading them by checking Government Code Chapters 311 and 312 on Code Construction as general guidelines to the interpretation of the laws. I am not a lawyer either, so any reading I give may be as wrong as anyone else's. My training in this taught me to use the terms "and" and "or" like logic requires instead of what may occur in normal speaking or writing. "And" requires the terms on both sides of the word to be met, while "or" says either side or both can be met. So, I read this as saying in 9.42 that to use deadly force, subsections 1, 2, and 3 must all be true.
it is a question owing to the grammer, the words 'and' & 'or' can be synonyms depending on the grammatical usage.

'This' and ''this' meaning it covers both. 'This' or 'this', meaning it covers both. Now we get into splitting hairs, does 'or' mean the two are separate yet covered the same? whereas 'and' means they are connected and have to have both? It gets to be a real rabbit hole.

Also where do I find chapters 311 & 312?

the penal code I wrote came from this:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/

are those chapters in there? I looked but didn't find them. if they're somewhere else let me know & I will read them.
srothstein wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:05 amWe can agree to disagree on this. I freely admit that I could be wrong and you could be correct. However, I do strongly suggest that you ask a lawyer (preferably the one you would hire if you ever need a defense attorney) for his interpretation before you rely on either of our interpretations.
And I also agree that proposing ridiculous theoretical cases helps no one in an understanding of the law.
I dont consider it a disagreement, more so an attempt to answer a question. Both of us could be entirely wrong or one of us has a correct understanding.
I would absolutely agree consulting an attorney for a clarification is the best course of action. One of the dangers of perhaps reading the law from a standpoint of essentially common sense or understanding is that is not how the law is written.
We don't have qualified immunity and can't stand behind the claim that we genuinely believed this is what the law says owing to how it is written.
Neither can we claim the law is written in such confusing fashion that there's no genuine way for us to have a clear understanding of it and hence abide by it.
It is another damnable aspect of the law, LE can claim they were acting in good faith yet we are held to an entirely different standard, yet both face the same in terms of reading & understanding the law.
User avatar

oljames3
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 5350
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:21 pm
Location: Elgin, Texas
Contact:

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#40

Post by oljames3 »

wil wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 11:34 am
srothstein wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:05 amI agree that the ambiguity with which most laws are written is one of the worst things about the law.


where they placed that word "and" changes the relationship between both of those codes. Had they put it at the beginning of 9.42 it would read far more clearly. It is a damnable thing the way so much of the law is written.
srothstein wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:05 amYou can get some clues on reading them by checking Government Code Chapters 311 and 312 on Code Construction as general guidelines to the interpretation of the laws. I am not a lawyer either, so any reading I give may be as wrong as anyone else's. My training in this taught me to use the terms "and" and "or" like logic requires instead of what may occur in normal speaking or writing. "And" requires the terms on both sides of the word to be met, while "or" says either side or both can be met. So, I read this as saying in 9.42 that to use deadly force, subsections 1, 2, and 3 must all be true.
it is a question owing to the grammer, the words 'and' & 'or' can be synonyms depending on the grammatical usage.

'This' and ''this' meaning it covers both. 'This' or 'this', meaning it covers both. Now we get into splitting hairs, does 'or' mean the two are separate yet covered the same? whereas 'and' means they are connected and have to have both? It gets to be a real rabbit hole.

Also where do I find chapters 311 & 312?

the penal code I wrote came from this:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/

are those chapters in there? I looked but didn't find them. if they're somewhere else let me know & I will read them.
srothstein wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:05 amWe can agree to disagree on this. I freely admit that I could be wrong and you could be correct. However, I do strongly suggest that you ask a lawyer (preferably the one you would hire if you ever need a defense attorney) for his interpretation before you rely on either of our interpretations.
And I also agree that proposing ridiculous theoretical cases helps no one in an understanding of the law.
I dont consider it a disagreement, more so an attempt to answer a question. Both of us could be entirely wrong or one of us has a correct understanding.
I would absolutely agree consulting an attorney for a clarification is the best course of action. One of the dangers of perhaps reading the law from a standpoint of essentially common sense or understanding is that is not how the law is written.
We don't have qualified immunity and can't stand behind the claim that we genuinely believed this is what the law says owing to how it is written.
Neither can we claim the law is written in such confusing fashion that there's no genuine way for us to have a clear understanding of it and hence abide by it.
It is another damnable aspect of the law, LE can claim they were acting in good faith yet we are held to an entirely different standard, yet both face the same in terms of reading & understanding the law.
Wil, these links go to Texas Government Code chapters 311 and 312.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.311.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.312.htm

This article, by Texas lawyers, explains that deadly force is not justified against trespassers.
Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 explains that a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a mere trespass or interference with property.
https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
2/19FA, 1st Cavalry Division 73-78; 56FA BDE (Pershing) 78-81
NRA, NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor, Rangemaster Certified, GOA, TSRA, NAR L1
User avatar

Jim Beaux
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:55 pm

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#41

Post by Jim Beaux »

I dunno. Green shirt made offensive contact. Too much for me to sort out - maybe manslaughter?
“In the world of lies, truth-telling is a hanging offense"
~Unknown

Topic author
philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 17957
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#42

Post by philip964 »

Jim Beaux wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 4:11 pm I dunno. Green shirt made offensive contact. Too much for me to sort out - maybe manslaughter?
Did I see it wrong, didnt he back away about five feet and then take his shot.
User avatar

Jim Beaux
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:55 pm

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#43

Post by Jim Beaux »

This is why we have juries. I saw the big guy invade the smaller guy's space and then chest bumped him. He then brushed at the rifle while saying something along the lines of "I will take that and kill you with it" The small guy tactically retreated a few feet and took his shots.

As I see it, this is a summation of 2 guys both acting questionably. I dont want to be on that jury.
“In the world of lies, truth-telling is a hanging offense"
~Unknown

wil
Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:37 pm

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#44

Post by wil »

oljames3 wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 3:03 pmWil, these links go to Texas Government Code chapters 311 and 312.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.311.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.312.htm

This article, by Texas lawyers, explains that deadly force is not justified against trespassers.
Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 explains that a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a mere trespass or interference with property.
https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/
I read the article and it does not answer some questions.

1. what constitutes 'force' under 9.41? It is not defined, only stated.

2. if it's non-lethal, what is that? Physical restraint via hands-on? Physically forcing whatever party off the property via the same? 9.41 does not define what constitutes force.

3. what is the recourse under 9.41 if that is not a viable option. Such as disparity of physical strength, outnumbered, etc.

4. the article doesn't really address a situation such as Lubbock. The individual is told to leave, doesn't and advances in a hostile and threatening manner. Are we forced to go hands-on with the genuine potential risks involved with that?
Trespass means someone has been told to leave, they refuse to do so and display hostile and aggressive intent, what is the force allowed to make them leave under 9.41?

If it is physical force only, We have no way of knowing whether or not that individual has training in unarmed combat such that they are far overmatched to ourselves.
An 60 year old individual is generally not a physical match for someone 20 or more years younger in terms of strength, speed, etc.
9.41 does not address any of these questions and it's why I brought up the fallacy of "are you going to shoot a 9 year old kid for tresspassing?' No, there is no likely physical disparity where that childs physical abilities present a danger to oneself if physical force is what is covered in 9.41. A 19 year old is a different story is a different story in terms of physical ability.

9.42 addresses these questions in terms of physical risk to oneself.

these are reasons why I tend to think 9.41 works in conjunction with 9.42 and the article doesn't specify if they are non-related and if so, why.
Also 9.41 not defining what constitutes force leaves the question as to how it applies to 9.42, which specifically mentions if force is legal under 9.41, then it seems 9.42 applies. The article does not address this or 9.42.

still the same question.

wil
Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:37 pm

Re: TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

#45

Post by wil »

wil wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:16 pm
oljames3 wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 3:03 pmWil, these links go to Texas Government Code chapters 311 and 312.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.311.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.312.htm

This article, by Texas lawyers, explains that deadly force is not justified against trespassers.
Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 explains that a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a mere trespass or interference with property.
https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/
I read the article and it does not answer some questions.

1. what constitutes 'force' under 9.41? It is not defined, only stated.

2. if it's non-lethal, what is that? Physical restraint via hands-on? Physically forcing whatever party off the property via the same? 9.41 does not define what constitutes force.

3. what is the recourse under 9.41 if that is not a viable option. Such as disparity of physical strength, outnumbered, etc.

4. the article doesn't really address a situation such as Lubbock. The individual is told to leave, doesn't and advances in a hostile and threatening manner. Are we forced to go hands-on with the genuine potential risks involved with that?
Trespass means someone has been told to leave, they refuse to do so and display hostile and aggressive intent, what is the force allowed to make them leave under 9.41?

If it is physical force only, We have no way of knowing whether or not that individual has training in unarmed combat such that they are far overmatched to ourselves.
An 60 year old individual is generally not a physical match for someone 20 or more years younger in terms of strength, speed, etc.
9.41 does not address any of these questions and it's why I brought up the fallacy of "are you going to shoot a 9 year old kid for tresspassing?' No, there is no likely physical disparity where that childs physical abilities present a danger to oneself if physical force is what is covered in 9.41. A 19 year old is a different story is a different story in terms of physical ability.

9.42 addresses these questions in terms of physical risk to oneself.

these are reasons why I tend to think 9.41 works in conjunction with 9.42 and the article doesn't specify if they are non-related and if so, why.
Also 9.41 not defining what constitutes force leaves the question as to how it applies to 9.42, which specifically mentions if force is legal under 9.41, then it seems 9.42 applies. The article does not address this or 9.42.

still the same question.
Edit: here is 9.42 in it's entirety.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

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

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

the things that stand out in this:

part 1. if force is justified under 9.41. Tresspass and they refuse to leave.

item B under part three, to protect land and if doing so would expose the actor to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Perhaps it does beg the question, do we have to have every single element of that entire section of the code in place to use lethal force under 9.41? or are those sections attempting to address individual situations?

9.41 allows for force, depending on what that actually is, if it's non-lethal, then what happens if that's not a viable option for the individual? Such as the examples I gave? And it exposes someone to grave risk of injury or death?

Then my thinking is 9.42 covers that in part (A) cant be done by any other means, or part (B) places oneself in grave physical risk.

I could be wrong however that seems to be a reasonable line of thinking.
Post Reply

Return to “The Crime Blotter”