TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:

srothstein wrote: This is why 9.31 includes the term "when and to the degree necessary". This term is what allows use of higher levels of force if necessary. Note that there is no limit on the degree necessary to limit it to less than deadly force.

Steve, if the above is so, can you explain to me why 9.31 says, "The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32,9.33, and 9.34?" This why I keep going back to 9.32(a)(2)(B). Seems like 9.31 is saying one can use force to the degree necessary, but not deadly force, unless the conditions of 9.32 are met. I am not challenging your opinion, but I am genuinely confused.

Actually, you are correct and I am the one who misread the law. I really am sorry. I did not read down far enough and forgot that section. I have to retract my statement about to the degree necessary. That is what I get for going on my memory and only checking the wording of what i thought I needed to check.

But after rereading all of 9.31 and 9.32, you do need the justifications under 9.32 to use known deadly force. But the logic still applies, mostly. The secret is to know what constitutes the other person's unlawful use of deadly force to be justified under 9.32 also. The disparity of force argument still applies. If the pro football player is coming at the 72 year old retiree, just using fists might be deadly force. We need to remember that deadly force is not always lethal, but includes anything that causes serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury is defined as serious permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or substantial risk of death. While each DA will interpret this differently, a good rule of thumb I have been taught is any broken bone or any injury requiring hospitalization are examples of serious bodily injury. I did have one rural DA in Caldwell county who accepted a small scar on the lip as permanent disfigurement, but I thought that was pushing it.

So, if the person attacking, even with just his hands, is going to be big and/or strong enough to put you in a hospital, he is using deadly force. Some things that would go into this decision include the attitude, statements, size, physical condition, and number of opponents. All of this is a judgment call, but in most cases, you are reasonable and the cops are reasonable. You will both agree on the justification (especially if you talk to your attorney first and can articulate your reasoning). Obviously, there are cases in the gray area where the police may disagree with you (especially if the media plays it differently).

But in all honesty, I think most of the cases out there will be clear cut on the disparity of force and the justification will be clear. And there is still the necessity defense to supplement the defense laws.

It's been a lively discussion, but the thread took the turn I thought it might ("What would I do")

The question was never "what would I do?" I was hoping I made it clear by saying "I know what I WILL do, but I always wondered where in these statutes I would be covered, if at all?"

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my OP. I agree with the action most stated they would take if at or near my age or disabled in any way. I am NOT taking the beating. But the real question I was seeking an answer for was where I was covered under the law. TAM and Steve Rothstein have the view that I am covered by both 9.31 and 9.32. The only reason I had doubts about this is the wording of those two statutes.

9.31 covers the use of force. Both TAM and Steve feel that includes deadly force if "reasonable." I can accept that, except I am troubled by the statement in 9.31 that says, "The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34." The situation I described is covered by law as "assault." If I follow the the sentence in 9.31 I just quoted, there is only one place in 9.32 that "implies" I can use deadly force to stop or prevent assault. That is (A) below.

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

In other words, I have to hope a DA, Grand Jury, good lawyer, etc. believe that a attempted "whuppun" by big Bubba on a person over 65 is deadly force and my reason for me to use deadly force in return. So that leaves open the possibility of trial, etc. if they don't agree, for whatever reason, it could have severe consequences.

My whole point was that it would be better if "aggravated assault," especially on a Senior or disabled person, was added to (B) below, because frankly I believe aggravated assault provides a much greater degree of harm to those individuals than does simple "robbery."

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

If "aggravated assault on a person over 65, or disabled person" were added to (B), there would be no way a jury could find otherwise, as it's right there in black and white. Well, I guess juries can always do what they want, but in this case very doubtful.

So, hopefully to end this thread, I appreciate all the responses, and will rely on the good people of Texas to have my back if this, hopefully unlikely, scenario ever plays out. I'm quite sure most of you think I am concerned over nothing, and you may be absolutely correct

Oh, and TAM, I'm in Bedford and get to Grapevine quite often. I'd like to buy you a beer (or soft drink of your choice) sometime

Thanks Steve. I posted my last post BEFORE I read yours. I think we are in complete agreement.

G26ster wrote:Oh, and TAM, I'm in Bedford and get to Grapevine quite often. I'd like to buy you a beer (or soft drink of your choice) sometime

And I'd like to take you up on that. Thanks for the offer! I'll PM you my details and we can get together some time.

Sorry G26ster, did mean to take your topic in another direction.

I know what I would do.

I don't think age should have anything to do with it. That was my point.

If ANYONE is in fear for their life, they should be able to take any means necessary to preserve their life.

It only takes one hit no matter how old you are.

Didnt mean to hi-jack.

Ty

AustinBoy wrote:Sorry G26ster, did mean to take your topic in another direction.

I know what I would do.

I don't think age should have anything to do with it. That was my point.

If ANYONE is in fear for their life, they should be able to take any means necessary to preserve their life.

It only takes one hit no matter how old you are.

Didnt mean to hi-jack.

Ty

If I implied "hijack", sorry I did not mean that. I just knew it would probably turn to "What would I do" after I re-read my initial post some hours later. I agree with you, and perhaps I'm just being unfair in singling out seniors and disabled persons, because the TX law allows for greater penalties for crimes against those groups, and I am a member of one of those groups. I still think assault and aggravated assault are far more violent and dangerous crimes than simple robbery and should be listed in that paragraph. Your point is well taken.

gigag04 wrote:I agree with most of what you're saying but these statements are not equal. I responded to the first statement. I think you feel like my disagreement comes from your follow up statements - it does not...I only wanted to highlight that a single kick or punch (as specified in your post) does not in and of itself amount to deadly force, in MOST circumstances.

Friends?

Sure. I should have said a A kick or punch from an adult or teen is potential deadly force because you're right saying many semi-consensual fist fights don't result in death or serious bodily injury. However, I was assuming a criminal attack on an innocent, not recreational brawling. I should have been more specific.

Didn't we just wittness ( TV ) something like this ??..Austin Police Officer, videoed..running backwards, away from an attacker, who was charging him...
I know there is probaly more to the story than what most of us saw via, KXAN ...over and over again !
The only thing I know and saw, was the violent rush on the Officer, to get at him !
I can't imagine what would have happened to the young Officer, if the suspect had gotten his hands on him ?!
It's scary, even for an Officer of the law.
Your senario might vary !

Mac

I have never been in a fight in my life. Ever. I am 38.

If you come at me, I will warn you and then I will stop you. I am not willing to take that ONE hit.
I have been in fights and I have been hit in the head and I can tell you it hurts. I was much younger when it happened last and I'm pretty sure it hurt worse now. I think most guys who think they would just take a shot to the head and still not be willing to let the air out of somebody have probably never been hit or they watch too much TV.

G26ster wrote:It's been a lively discussion, but the thread took the turn I thought it might ("What would I do")

The question was never "what would I do?" I was hoping I made it clear by saying "I know what I WILL do, but I always wondered where in these statutes I would be covered, if at all?"

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my OP. I agree with the action most stated they would take if at or near my age or disabled in any way. I am NOT taking the beating. But the real question I was seeking an answer for was where I was covered under the law. TAM and Steve Rothstein have the view that I am covered by both 9.31 and 9.32. The only reason I had doubts about this is the wording of those two statutes.

9.31 covers the use of force. Both TAM and Steve feel that includes deadly force if "reasonable." I can accept that, except I am troubled by the statement in 9.31 that says, "The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34." The situation I described is covered by law as "assault." If I follow the the sentence in 9.31 I just quoted, there is only one place in 9.32 that "implies" I can use deadly force to stop or prevent assault. That is (A) below.

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

In other words, I have to hope a DA, Grand Jury, good lawyer, etc. believe that a attempted "whuppun" by big Bubba on a person over 65 is deadly force and my reason for me to use deadly force in return. So that leaves open the possibility of trial, etc. if they don't agree, for whatever reason, it could have severe consequences.

My whole point was that it would be better if "aggravated assault," especially on a Senior or disabled person, was added to (B) below, because frankly I believe aggravated assault provides a much greater degree of harm to those individuals than does simple "robbery."

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

If "aggravated assault on a person over 65, or disabled person" were added to (B), there would be no way a jury could find otherwise, as it's right there in black and white. Well, I guess juries can always do what they want, but in this case very doubtful.

So, hopefully to end this thread, I appreciate all the responses, and will rely on the good people of Texas to have my back if this, hopefully unlikely, scenario ever plays out. I'm quite sure most of you think I am concerned over nothing, and you may be absolutely correct

Oh, and TAM, I'm in Bedford and get to Grapevine quite often. I'd like to buy you a beer (or soft drink of your choice) sometime

G26ster,

My take on the whole issue of the law, various peoples perceptions and the possible repercussions of defending yourself is that while I agree that the vagaries of all of the above regarding your right to defend yourself are aggravating at best, the need for a grand jury, jury or DA to look at each and every situation is the ultimate failsafe (though it may not work out that way 100% of the time).
What I am trying to say is that each and every incident where one party engages another and somebody takes action that equates to force or deadly force is different from each and every other incident. No two are going to be alike. So society as a whole absolutely has to review each of these incidents and weigh them to determine if force was justified. If they didn't, the accusations of the anti-2A crowds would start to ring true and we all might begin to wonder if folks defending themselves were getting "excessive" in their responses to the perception that another party was using force.
We all worry about how different parties perceive what little they know of these incidents. We worry that a Grand Jury will see things our way. The list goes on.
But in reality not every individual out there is as concerned with the rule of laws and morality as the majority of posters on this forum appear to be. And those folks that don't worry about the law and morality are the ones that everyone else in society needs to keep a thumb on and monitor to make sure that they are not going all vigilante or simply enjoy using force to resolve issues on others.
Thus ends my lecture on why Texas law is the way that it is.

Well stated Purplehood. Anything posted after this is redundant.

glbedd53 wrote:I have never been in a fight in my life. Ever. I am 38.

If you come at me, I will warn you and then I will stop you. I am not willing to take that ONE hit.
I have been in fights and I have been hit in the head and I can tell you it hurts. I was much younger when it happened last and I'm pretty sure it hurt worse now. I think most guys who think they would just take a shot to the head and still not be willing to let the air out of somebody have probably never been hit or they watch too much TV.

Um....

LOL. I was wondering the same thing. For a guy who's never been in a fight, you sure have been in a lot of fights :)

The first line is a quote from one of AustinBoy's posts.

No, I tried to copy and paste the other guy's comment and then put in my own 2 cents but I screwed it up.