AJ80 wrote:Beiruty wrote:If this in TX,
When physically assaulted by the lady with first punch, the guy may had the justification to use force as a response, which he did.
In TX, the guy may got a no-bill or a good lawyer may got his client cleared as his actions was in-self defense.
Now leaving the scene was a wrong move, he should have called the 911 and reported the incident. A good lawyer may say he disengaged as not to escalate the incident more and he was not aware that the lady is seriously injured.
DA most likely would charge a aggravated assault causing serious bodily harm or 2nd degree manslaughter.
If I am wrong, please correct me where due.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it unlawful to use deadly force against force?
Absolutely it is lawful. Texas law says that use of deadly force is justified when A) use of force is justified AND B) the actor
reasonably believes that the attack will cause either death
or serious bodily injury.
PC 1.07 (46) says: '"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.' As I posted earlier today in another thread, I worked in an ER for a number of years. I've seen a number of people who were beaten to death with fists and feet.
Texas is a "true man" state, meaning that A) you have no duty to retreat as long as you have a lawful right to be where you are, B) you have every right to defend yourself, C) and you are under absolutely NO obligation to accept a physical injury to your person
before you can make the reasonable determination that use of deadly force is justified. Having your teeth knocked out, nose broken, eye blinded, a concussion, a broken arm or leg, or
anything along those lines constitutes "serious bodily injury" according to PC 1.07 (46). Any single one of those things, or all of them together, can be caused by an empty handed beating, and if you
reasonably believe that your attacker can and will injure you that seriously if you don't stop him, then use of deadly force is absolutely justified.
There ARE caveats. If you threatened the other person first, and he preemptively attacked you, then you may not be justified in using deadly force. On the other hand, if you made the first threat, and the other guy shows up with 6 of his buddies and you have a change of heart and try to back down and leave, and you
still get attacked, you would
technically then be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself because of the disparity of force. The problem is, as Charles Cotton always points out in his Self Defense and Deadly Force in Texas seminars, if you kill someone, you've got 6 hostile witnesses who will swear that you attacked them without provocation when they were on their way home from Sunday School.
In other words, your own behavior determines whether or not you will have access to the protections afforded under the law. You have to remember that your CHL, and the
justification of deadly force are your
defense to prosecution if you have to shoot someone in self defense, and not a get out of jail free card. If you behave poorly and instigate the situation that leads to the use of force on your part, then you lose that defense to prosecution.
I cannot recommend Charles Cotton's above mentioned seminar enough. I've attended two of them now, and they are well worth the effort to make time in your schedule to attend one. It was his seminars that helped me to really begin to understand the deliberate use of the words "reasonable" and "reasonably" in the TPC in relationship to self-defense issues; and to understand the full scope of "serious bodily harm" and other terms that define when we may or may not use our weapons in self-defense (or defense of a third person).
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
