Using Deadly Force against Fists?

[seamusTX]

You can use deadly force to prevent kidnapping, but you had better be sure it's a kidnapping. Sometimes an incident is not what it first appears to be.

Someone called the cops on me because my son was having a tantrum (he was a toddler) and I was trying to get him out of the middle of the sidewalk. Fortunately, nothing came of it.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

So if I see someone kidnapping my girlfriend's niece (9 years old) and they're dragging her into a car, I can legally shoot the man right?

NO! Only for aggravated kidnapping

Again, be careful. Deadly Force is never automatically "legal". Under certain conditions you have a defense to prosecution for using deadly force.

Texas Penal Code;

§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not
have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.





§9.33. Defense of third person.

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against
another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes
them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32
in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful
force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be
threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is
immediately necessary to protect the third person.

I am going to ask Charles to confirm me, but the way I read that is that a third party can only use deadly force to protect another from unlawful deadly force, and not the crimes listed in 9.33. To me that means yu cannot use deadly force to protect a third person from the commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.


Of course, murder would automatically give you the prevention of unlawful deadly force.

[txinvestigator]

Here is the difference between kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping;

Texas Penal Code

§20.03. Kidnapping.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or
knowingly abducts another person.





20.01
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to
prevent his liberation by:

(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not
likely to be found; or

(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.



§20.04. Aggravated kidnapping.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or
knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:

(1) hold him for ransom or reward;

(2) use him as a shield or hostage;

(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after
the attempt or commission of a felony;

(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;

(5) terrorize him or a third person; or

(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or
political function.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly
weapon during the commission of the offense.

[seamusTX]

You are correct about the distinction between kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping. However, I would think a stranger dragging a child into a vehicle would always be aggravated kidnapping. §20.04(a)(5) would seem to apply to that situation.

To paraphrase Venus Pax, if a man drags you into a car, he ain't taking you to the circus.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

You are correct about the distinction between kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping. However, I would think a stranger dragging a child into a vehicle would always be aggravated kidnapping. §20.04(a)(5) would seem to apply to that situation.

To paraphrase Venus Pax, if a man drags you into a car, he ain't taking you to the circus.

- Jim

Perhaps.

However, I don't believe DF is justified to protect a third person from Agg Kidnapping either based on reading 9.33.

[seamusTX]

That's not how I see it. I think 9.33 says you can use deadly force to protect another person if you would have been justified in using it to protect yourself. Dragging someone into a vehicle or forcibly restraining them is "unlawful force." But I am not a lawyer.

From a practical point of view, if someone stops a for-real kidnapping, I can't see charges being pressed.

A person could get into trouble intervening in a custody dispute or something of that sort.

- Jim

[casselthief]

I think 9.33 says you can use deadly force to protect another person if you would have been justified in using it to protect yourself.

if you can use it on yourself, you can protect someone else as well.
I have that written in my little law book I was given in my CHL class. It was taught by an active duty weapons instructor, so I figure he knows his stuff just as much as anyone here.
that's what he said, that's what I wrote down, that's what I'm going by.

but that's just me.....

[txinvestigator]

I think 9.33 says you can use deadly force to protect another person if you would have been justified in using it to protect yourself.

if you can use it on yourself, you can protect someone else as well.
I have that written in my little law book I was given in my CHL class. It was taught by an active duty weapons instructor, so I figure he knows his stuff just as much as anyone here.
that's what he said, that's what I wrote down, that's what I'm going by.

but that's just me.....

Even if what you heard in class contradicts the law plainly written in front of you?

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes
them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32
in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful
force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be
threatening the third person he seeks to protect

If it included all of 9.32 why put the qualification in there reading "against the unlawful
force or unlawful deadly force" ?




What is an "active duty weapons instructor"? Military?

[casselthief]

no.
and no, he was a cop. who taught this same stuff to other cops.
no offense to you, but I'm taking his word. cause he's the one enforcing the law. he's the one arresting you for breaking the law.
he's the guy, in my opinion.

and that doesn't contradict anything. least from what I can tell.

[casselthief]

I urge you to rethink using deadly force against somebody dragging a kid into a car. You do NOT know the full story. If you drew down on me because I was dragging my own kid into the car because he was acting up, I would be extremely upset, shoot you if I could get to my gun in time, and then sue you for drawing down on me.

Think about that.

Exactly, hence why I would get the license plate number and call the police instead of intervening myself. Me, myself, and I are the only people I will protect with my gun if I don't personally know them and know for an absolute 100% fact they actually want my help.

hope you weren't talking to me, cause that ain't what I said.
I was talking about the law.

if a kid's involved, I ain't touching that with a tenfoot pole.
hell, I have a tenyr old daughter, I know how much of a thug kids can be.

hey, anyone here not get uber-defensive all the time?
you can edit and print real big alllllllllllllll you want, doesn't change the fact of the matter.
and being argumentative doesn't make you right, either.

[txinvestigator]

no.
and no, he was a cop. who taught this same stuff to other cops.
no offense to you, but I'm taking his word. cause he's the one enforcing the law. he's the one arresting you for breaking the law.
he's the guy, in my opinion.

and that doesn't contradict anything. least from what I can tell.

Read the law. Many cops and CHL instructors make mistakes or mis-intrepret. I might be wrong too. But I need it explained to me.

How do we account for the fact that the section specifies force or unlawful deadly force, rather than just stop at saying "(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes
them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 "?

[txinvestigator]

hey, anyone here not get uber-defensive all the time?

I don't see people being defensive. It is difficult to tell tone over forums, though, I agree.