Using Deadly Force against Fists?

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:32 pm

TX, as you already posted, the law is plainly written. Its not intended to confuse.
Texas Penal Code;

Â§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

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

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

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

Â§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.

9.32(3)(b) is written to expressly dictate the crimes that already meet 9.33(1). Thats why, as you stated, regular kidnapping is not a justifiable reason for use of DF. All others would meet the requirement of 9.33 in their own right. They may not all allow the use of your gun (only the actual event will dictate this), but you can certainly intervene if you feel you must and won't put yourself at unnecessary risk.

nitrogen · Post by **nitrogen** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:37 pm

There was a great story I read on The High Road, I wish I could find it.

Readers Digest version: Guy was protecting a female friend from the estranged ex-husband and father of her child, who was threatening them.

The ex-husband dove through the front window of her house, and the guy shot him, ending up in the ex's death.

FAst Forward a few months. The girl sues the guy protecting her for the loss of the ex's income. I Can't remember the outcome, but its obviously not pretty whatever it is.

As Ricky Roma said in Glengarry Glen Ross (A non-10 year old daughter compliant movie, but an excellent one) "you never open your mouth till you know what the shot is." Or, draw your gun. Make sure you know what's going on. My personal rule is that I will not get involved unless I know exactly what's going on.

The man dragging his child in kicking and screaming to his car might be the father, taking his unruly son home.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:47 pm

kauboy wrote:TX, as you already posted, the law is plainly written. Its not intended to confuse.
Texas Penal Code;

Â§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

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

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

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

Â§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.

9.32(3)(b) is written to expressly dictate the crimes that already meet 9.33(1). Thats why, as you stated, regular kidnapping is not a justifiable reason for use of DF. All others would meet the requirement of 9.33 in their own right. They may not all allow the use of your gun (only the actual event will dictate this), but you can certainly intervene if you feel you must and won't put yourself at unnecessary risk.

I see your point, but 9.33 does not allow the use of deadly force to protect a third party from Aggravated kidnapping. It only allows the use of deadly force to protect a third party from the others use of force or deadly force.

Do you see my point? Why not just write the law like this;

Â§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; and

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

They specifically included language that limits what parts of 9.31 or 9.32 are applicable.

No?

casselthief · Post by **casselthief** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:52 pm

txinvestigator wrote: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 "?

excellent point. what I'm getting at is this, when we learned about the law, in my class, my instructor (who is a cop), broke apart things in plain english. and that's what he told me.

now, had he been ole Joe Good ol' Boy teachin' class outta his barn, I wouldn't put nearly as much creedence in what I was taught.
but this guy knows his stuff.
or at least is supposed to

moreso than the average schlub!

that's all I'm sayin'

Tote 9 · Post by **Tote 9** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:00 pm

I have read all the replies and as sure as I'm sitting here typing this reply, if
I couldn't retreat from a situation where 2 men were thretening to beat me up
with their fist, right or wrong they would have a hard time doing it if I had my pistol. Thats a fact.-----Then again look at my signature.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:03 pm

Tote 9 wrote:I have read all the replies and as sure as I'm sitting here typing this reply, if
I couldn't retreat from a situation where 2 men were thretening to beat me up
with their fist, right or wrong they would have a hard time doing it if I had my pistol. Thats a fact.-----Then again look at my signature.

I think that considering the facts, you would probably be justified.

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:28 pm

txinvestigator wrote:I see your point, but 9.33 does not allow the use of deadly force to protect a third party from Aggravated kidnapping. It only allows the use of deadly force to protect a third party from the others use of force or deadly force.

Do you see my point? Why not just write the law like this;

Â§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; and

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

They specifically included language that limits what parts of 9.31 or 9.32 are applicable.

No?

Even though 9.33 doesn't, 9.32 does. I see your point about it not allowing the defense of a third person, because the title is "DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON", but 9.31 is specifically called "SELF-DEFENSE", so I don't think that 9.32 is only talking about oneself, but a person in general, both self and third party. I believe this to be true do to 9.31(d) which allows deadly force for 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34, even though its kindof confusing how self-defense...of a third person's...health would fall together

(a little joke)

I do like your version of the law, and it would do a good job to clarify things, but I don't think anyone could argue that a little girl being dragged by the hair by a man with a gun toward a waiting van wouldn't constitute an immediate need for deadly force to protect the little girl. There's not a jury in the world that would convict you.

flintknapper · Post by **flintknapper** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:55 pm

RATS!

Just got back a little while ago from jury duty.

The case involved an "Aggravated Assault", the defendant allegedly struck the other man repeatedly with his fists.

Judge Kline came out and dismissed us all...after explaining that the defendant had just plead guilty. Thanked us all, and sent us on our way.

I was actually looking forward to this trial. If there is any doubt in anybody's mind that "fists" alone can not deal out serious injury, then you should have seen the plaintiff.

The two were nearly equal in size...but there didn't appear to be a scratch on the defendant, the plaintiff on the other hand... looked mighty rough by anyone's standards.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:43 pm

kauboy wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:I see your point, but 9.33 does not allow the use of deadly force to protect a third party from Aggravated kidnapping. It only allows the use of deadly force to protect a third party from the others use of force or deadly force.

Do you see my point? Why not just write the law like this;

Â§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; and

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

They specifically included language that limits what parts of 9.31 or 9.32 are applicable.

No?
Even though 9.33 doesn't, 9.32 does. I see your point about it not allowing the defense of a third person, because the title is "DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON", but 9.31 is specifically called "SELF-DEFENSE", so I don't think that 9.32 is only talking about oneself, but a person in general, both self and third party. I believe this to be true do to 9.31(d) which allows deadly force for 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34, even though its kindof confusing how self-defense...of a third person's...health would fall together (a little joke)

9.31 and 9.32 are only for yourself, not others.

Read 9.31 and 9.32 carefully. it reads that a person may use force/deadly force....

(A) to protect himself ....

9.33 is the ONLY authorization for using force/deadly force to protect another person.

(OK, except for suicide which is no deadly force, and to save the others life in an emergency)

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:03 pm

Yeah, I can see your point. So you would absolutely have to know that the person being kidnapped is suffering from DF or the threat of DF, in order for 9.33 to allow you to use DF in their defense, right?

If I ever see what looks to be a kidnapping, and there is a gun involved, I won't be trying to argue with myself in my head. That person is in direct danger of life or limb and needs help. The cops will of course be called, but I could never live with myself if I just let them continue and later found out they were raped or killed, or both. I will do what I can, even if that means putting myself in potential danger. I live by the good Samaritan rule and will do what I can to help.

barres · Post by **barres** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:06 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the definition of "Agravated Kidnapping" imply, if not state outright, that force is used against the victim? If so, then why wouldn't 9.33 apply to defending a 3rd party from agravated kidnapping?

You're all assuming that we're talking about protecting a complete stranger. I'm talking about protecting my two sons. Who are, by definition, a third party that I will protect from agravated kidnapping by any means necessary. If I can't use 9.33 to protect anyone, then I have no legal means to protect my sons. I guess that means I'll go to jail if someone tries to take my boys, because I will not stand aside and let them.

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:11 pm

Aggravated kidnapping does indeed imply force being used, but that force apparently does not justify deadly force as a defense. If you can beat them off with your hands, great. However, we are discussing the legality of using deadly force to stop aggravated kidnapping if you are unsure of the extent of force being applied during the act (i.e. deadly or just force).

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:06 pm

flintknapper wrote:RATS!

Just got back a little while ago from jury duty.

The case involved an "Aggravated Assault", the defendant allegedly struck the other man repeatedly with his fists.

Judge Kline came out and dismissed us all...after explaining that the defendant had just plead guilty. Thanked us all, and sent us on our way.

I was actually looking forward to this trial. If there is any doubt in anybody's mind that "fists" alone can not deal out serious injury, then you should have seen the plaintiff.

The two were nearly equal in size...but there didn't appear to be a scratch on the defendant, the plaintiff on the other hand... looked mighty rough by anyone's standards.

Looks can be deceiving can't they...You just never know...Thats why assumption is not in my self-defense vocabulary...

I wish you had the chance to see how that case played out...Might have put an interesting spin on the discussion here...

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:25 pm

flintknapper wrote:...the defendant had just plead guilty.

If there is any doubt in anybody's mind that "fists" alone can not deal out serious injury, then you should have seen the plaintiff.

The two were nearly equal in size...but there didn't appear to be a scratch on the defendant, the plaintiff on the other hand... looked mighty rough by anyone's standards.

Was this a criminal or civil case?

Trials almost always take place a year or two after the incident that triggered them. I wouldn't expect superficial wounds to be visible after that much time. Are you talking about scars?

In any event, there's no doubt that fists can kill. Boxers get killed, despite the use of gloves and helmets and the fact that they're not supposed to kill each other.

- Jim

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:26 pm

seamusTX wrote:
flintknapper wrote:...the defendant had just plead guilty.

If there is any doubt in anybody's mind that "fists" alone can not deal out serious injury, then you should have seen the plaintiff.

The two were nearly equal in size...but there didn't appear to be a scratch on the defendant, the plaintiff on the other hand... looked mighty rough by anyone's standards.
Was this a criminal or civil case?

Trials almost always take place a year or two after the incident that triggered them. I wouldn't expect superficial wounds to be visible after that much time. Are you talking about scars?

In any event, there's no doubt that fists can kill. Boxers get killed, despite the use of gloves and helmets and the fact that they're not supposed to kill each other.

- Jim

Defendants are not guilty in civil cases, and there is no plea. There are judgements and settlements.

Here is Collin County, if the suspect is caught quickly and the case wrapped up by police, cases get to court pretty quickly.