Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 4:08 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
txinvestigator wrote:seamusTX wrote:txinvestigator wrote:If a person pulls a knife, and I have a long pipe next to me, I am under no obligation to try to use it rather than use my handgun.
We'll have to see how DAs handle situations when the new law goes into effect. Fortunately, cases like those of Gordon Hale and Harold Fish are few and far between.
- Jim
That is no different from how the law has been for over decades.
I'm not sure if you're talking about those two specific cases, or the use of deadly force in general.
Chas.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 4:42 pm
by txinvestigator
Charles L. Cotton wrote:txinvestigator wrote:seamusTX wrote:txinvestigator wrote:If a person pulls a knife, and I have a long pipe next to me, I am under no obligation to try to use it rather than use my handgun.
We'll have to see how DAs handle situations when the new law goes into effect. Fortunately, cases like those of Gordon Hale and Harold Fish are few and far between.
- Jim
That is no different from how the law has been for over decades.
I'm not sure if you're talking about those two specific cases, or the use of deadly force in general.
Chas.
____________________________________________________________
seamusTX wrote:The phrase "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary" implies that if there is any way to avoid the use of deadly force while still eliminating the threat, it should be employed.
txinvestigator wrote:If a person pulls a knife, and I have a long pipe next to me, I am under no obligation to try to use it rather than use my handgun.
seamusTX wrote:We'll have to see how DAs handle situations when the new law goes into effect. Fortunately, cases like those of Gordon Hale and Harold Fish are few and far between.
txinvestigator wrote:That is no different from how the law has been for over decades
I am referring to 9.32 and what "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary", means.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:40 pm
by seamusTX
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not sure if you're talking about those two specific cases, or the use of deadly force in general.
I was referring specifically to Messrs. Hale and Fish, whom DAs though were not justified in the use of deadly force; and unfortunately for Mr. Fish, the jury agreed.
I'm also referring more generally to cases where the attacker is armed with something that is not generally considered a deadly weapon, even though fists can be deadly.
txinvestigator wrote:I am referring to 9.32 and what "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary", means.
My thinking is muddled on this issue. I need to study what has changed more carefully.
- Jim
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:04 pm
by TX Rancher
Charles L. Cotton wrote:The "Castle Doctrine" also creates a presumption that you reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary, if someone unlawfully and with force enters, attempts to enter, removes you, or attempts to remove you, from your home, business (premises under your control), or car. In my opinion, this is the single most important aspect of the "Castle Doctrine." The removal of the retreat duty and the additional civil liability protection are certainly important, but the "presumption" is huge.
Chas.
The presumption is the biggie for me too...
