txinvestigator wrote:The law says you can use deadly force when and to the degree you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to protect yourself from another's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force against you.
Don't forget aggravated kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, aggravated robbery, arson, burglary, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
Simple robbery becomes an interesting deviation here, since, as has been discussed in another thread, it only requires the threat of bodilyinjury, not serious bodily injury. Bodily injury is defined pretty well as darn near anything that hurts. 1.07(a)(46) makes an attempt to define serious bodily injury as "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," but even still, one must question what is "serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment." If I'll limp for a month, is that a protracted impairment? How big would a facial scar have to be to qualify as a serious disfigurement?
Aggravated kidnapping is pretty broad, and so would appear include pretty much all except certain parental custody issues.
One could also argue, rather callously, that the effects of sexual assault would not constitute serious bodily harm, though I doubt that would fly with any Texas jury.
The pure property crimes as justifications are apparently unique to Texas, but seem reasonable in the context of an escalation through other levels of force.
What it all boils down to, though, is that I don't think I should ever be required to take a substantial beating simply because I am unable to prevent it by any lesser application of force. Houdini died from a single punch in the gut, and a lot of other tough guys have died from even less, regardless of whether their attackers intended to kill them.