TexasCHLforum.com

JohnKSa wrote:

the fact that Mr. Hale suffered a partially detached retina after being punched by Kenny Tavai, showed that Tavai had used deadly force, justifying Hale's use of DF in return

Wow, that's not exactly what one wants to hear.

That sounds suspiciously like one must suffer a serious injury from an unarmed attack to justify using deadly force...

I think it just made it REAL easy for the Grand Jury. Remember, this was the first case after the CHL law passed. I think everyone was really watching this one.

Not judging Hale or second guessing him, but I wonder if someone asked him if he wished he had a can of OC next to his pistol that day..............?

one eyed fatman wrote:
So your telling me that you already know what a jury is going to do when you get into an altercation? I hope not.

No. Deadly force and force have specific definitions.

I would be interested in entertaining a debate on perceptions

one eyed fatman wrote:Were doing that now.

I would prefer that be done in another thread, as this one I would rather limit to discussing the definitions rather than all of the other variables.

Thanks OEF

...deleted...

Ya know txinvestigator I wish I could say your blowing the law way out of proportion but your not. The law isn't written for anyone one to understand. It's written to be debated and argued. Here we go again.

The "known by the actor to cause" may be the point of debate. At the time of attack we cannot know what the BG is capable of.
I'm no youngster (the big 50 this yr.) but have been taking martial arts for 8 yrs. You can't afford to assume that any attacker cannot inflict DF with or without added weapons. It's that split second that has to be made to determine what their intentions are. Thats where the courts come in. I hope I never have to make thet decision. But I will be ready if the time comes.
Good discussion TX
MW

txinvestigator wrote:I thought it might be interesting to do a discussion and study of TPC chapter 9 here, taking a section at a time a dissecting it. There are lots of intelligent and logical people here, and I hope to improve my understanding of chapter 9 and learn to present it better.

I always start with definitions, so I will do the same here.


§9.01. Definitions.

In this chapter:

(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(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.

People often think of guns when they think of deadly force. By the above definition, we can see that DF includes force that even is capable of causing serious bodily in the manner it was used.

TPC 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.

So if I cut off your arm with a hatchet and you live, that caused serious bodily injury; therefore, it was deadly force (DF).

If I hit you in the arm with a baseball bat and break your arm that is serious bodily injury; therefore it was deadly force.

If I swing a bat at your head and you duck causing me to miss; in the manner in the use of my force it was capable of causing both death and serious bodily injury; therefore, that was deadly force.



Discussion??

No argument from me with regard to the specific definitions you listed. However, I always introduce the "deadly force" section with a discussion of 1.02 Objectives Of The Code with an emphisis on "purpose" of the code to the extent that we will address conduct that "unjustifiably" and "inexcusably" causes or threatens harm...bla, bla, bla...then, outline the specific objectives. After that, we discuss definitions.

Do you cover 1.02?

JohnKSa wrote:

the fact that Mr. Hale suffered a partially detached retina after being punched by Kenny Tavai, showed that Tavai had used deadly force, justifying Hale's use of DF in return

Wow, that's not exactly what one wants to hear.

That sounds suspiciously like one must suffer a serious injury from an unarmed attack to justify using deadly force...

No, it's that the force being used is "in the manner of its use or indended use is capable of causing...serious bodily injury."

Someone punching you about the head intends serious bodily injury, therefore is using unlawful deadly force.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

JohnKSa wrote:

the fact that Mr. Hale suffered a partially detached retina after being punched by Kenny Tavai, showed that Tavai had used deadly force, justifying Hale's use of DF in return

Wow, that's not exactly what one wants to hear.

That sounds suspiciously like one must suffer a serious injury from an unarmed attack to justify using deadly force...

No, it's that the force being used is "in the manner of its use or indended use is capable of causing...serious bodily injury."

Someone punching you about the head intends serious bodily injury, therefore is using unlawful deadly force.

Kevin

Its really not that simple either.

Certainly, it is necessary to have "definitions", they provide general guidelines..and if written (clearly), show the intent of the law. In reality though, they remain nothing more than "starting points" for lawyers and the courts.

The quote above might serve as a good example, if as stated, the law could be interpreted to mean that a punch to the head/neck constitutes unlawful deadly force, then every school yard fight would be prosecuted.

Fortunately, the courts take into consideration other factors that might reasonably effect the law and it's application.

Example: An 80 yr. old man might have every "intention" of taking my head off with a big roundhouse punch. By using the interpretation above, I would be justified in responding with deadly force. I'd sure hate to go to court over that one! Yes, he "intended" to cause me serious bodily injury, BUT, was he capable, was it likely...and not just (possible)?

Somehow, I just know...a few other things are going to be considered...like:

I am 52 yrs. old, he is/was 80.
I am in reasonably good health, his is declining.
I am 6'-5"....250lbs., he is significantly smaller.

The above, are things that would be readily apparent to anyone who was a witness.

But, if it goes to court, it will probably come out that:

He is actually quite frail, and unable to deliver a "telling" blow despite his "intentions".
I still have good muscle tone...and years of empty hands and weapons training.
His "best blow" could not reasonably be expected to cause serious harm (to me).
My "restrained" response might well cause him permanent damage.

Suddenly, Penal Code _____ doesn't look so concrete. The totality of the event, and what another reasonable and prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstance is what you will be judged upon.

It is well, to discuss definitions (and the intent of the law). I hope that in the course of this...we will all examine (on a personal level) what we are willing to fight over, and when it might be lawful/appropriate to do so.

Whatever conclusions you come to, I'd advise you not to "bet the farm" on the fifty pages of selected statutes/law you were handed in CHL class.

We have a smart and reasonable crowd here, so....I fully expect to learn something from this.

eagleeye wrote:The "known by the actor to cause" may be the point of debate. At the time of attack we cannot know what the BG is capable of.
I'm no youngster (the big 50 this yr.) but have been taking martial arts for 8 yrs. You can't afford to assume that any attacker cannot inflict DF with or without added weapons. It's that split second that has to be made to determine what their intentions are. Thats where the courts come in. I hope I never have to make thet decision. But I will be ready if the time comes.
Good discussion TX
MW

Good points; however, remember we are simply talking definitions here. I am posting a thread later regarding justifications and reasonable belief, etc.