TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks.

Let me illustrate what I'm saying with an example. If I am walking alone somewhere and hear a voice yell, "Hey, you with the pony tail," (that would be me), and see a couple of skinheads hurrying toward me, I would most likely be in fear for my life. That would not be legal justication to use deadly force or even to threaten it, at that point.

I can use deadly force only when necessary to prevent the other's unlawful use of deadly force or the imminent commission of murder, robbery, sexual assault, or aggravated kidnapping. (I am leaving out the property-related justifications and defenses.)

Being in fear is an emotion. You are not justified for acting on an emotion. You have to act on a reasonable understanding of observable facts.

- Jim

txinvestigator wrote: Being in fear of your life may be a valid way to explain how you FELT when you were justified in using deadly force, but it is NOT justification.

I think that is a fine distinction, and a valid one, that is often blurred in the course of general discussions on the legitimate use of deadly force.

Being in reasonable fear for your life is one element that (along with others) goes towards establishing that your actions were those of a reasonable person.

DSARGE wrote:but what about the drunk or pothead starting a physical altercation

without condoning anything, I'd like to point out that a pothead has never, in the history of the world, ever started a fight.
I'm just saying.

meth on the other hand...

Quote: "I'd like to point out that a pothead has never, in the history of the world, ever started a fight."

Your age is obvious, friend. And probably, so is mine.