Using Deadly Force against Fists?

[txinvestigator]

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).

Aggravated kidnapping does not have to include force. It can include force.

[seamusTX]

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

I know, but there is no plaintiff in a criminal case. There may be a victim. The victim is usually not present at voir dire.

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

The two counties I've lived in, Galveston and Cook County, Illinois, have large backlogs. I was on a civil jury in Chicago. The event that gave rise to the case occurred five years before the trial.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

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

I know, but there is no plaintiff in a criminal case.

Nice catch .

[/i]

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

The two counties I've lived in, Galveston and Cook County, Illinois, have large backlogs. I was on a civil jury in Chicago. The event that gave rise to the case occurred five years before the trial.

- Jim

5 years is crazy. A lot of that can be motions, discovery, negotiations, depositions.......................

[seamusTX]

5 years is crazy.

The whole case was crazy. It was a grudge match between two former friends and business partners. When they testified, I could see they wanted to thrash one another. They undoubtedly spent more in legal fees than the amount in dispute.

I was also on a panel for a criminal case in Galveston. (Wasn't selected for the jury.) In that case, the crime took place about two years before the trial.

- Jim

[flintknapper]

...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

Criminal case, victim still had "red" scars above one eye and on one cheek bone. I don't know when this happened (we didn't get that far).

One of the attorneys already had his "props" in place though. A big sheet of paper on a pad with a definition of aggravated assault, possible penalties, felony degree.

We often get cases to go to court pretty quickly here in small town USA.

I happen to know the Bailiff, and I stopped to talk with him as I was leaving. He said the guy that was being tried had only recently been released for a State Jail Felony, so apparently this latest incident was pretty fresh.

I would have liked to have heard the circumstances.

[Boma]

When I talk about a girl being dragged into a car, I mean my girlfriend's niece or someone I know personally, not a stranger.

What made me ask this question was....

A couple of months ago I was at my girlfriend's family's house and two of her nieces were playing in the front yard (half an acre). They were apparently throwing rocks, and a guy in a green pickup stops in the street and talks to them.

Her niece (who is 9) told us that he was saying they were throwing rocks at his truck. But she said that she wasn't throwing rocks at the truck.

Well my girlfriend's mom walked off towards the man in the truck to see what was going on. The man didn't say anything to her mom and just took off, and the girls were crying. Who knows what really happened.

[stevie_d_64]

When I talk about a girl being dragged into a car, I mean my girlfriend's niece or someone I know personally, not a stranger.

What made me ask this question was....

A couple of months ago I was at my girlfriend's family's house and two of her nieces were playing in the front yard (half an acre). They were apparently throwing rocks, and a guy in a green pickup stops in the street and talks to them.

Her niece (who is 9) told us that he was saying they were throwing rocks at his truck. But she said that she wasn't throwing rocks at the truck.

Well my girlfriend's mom walked off towards the man in the truck to see what was going on. The man didn't say anything to her mom and just took off, and the girls were crying. Who knows what really happened.

Boma,

Thats not a good situation muh man!

A genuinely mature person who was concerned with the trajectory of the rocks, would have at least voiced the concern to an adult, regardless of the situation, and not took off at the sight of an adult approaching the scene...

I'd counsel the kids on the rock throwing, and legitimately keep an eye on the playtime for a while...

I just have a concern about that situation over there...And am not trying to create an over-reaction to this incident...Just throwing a bit of caution into it for a while...

[kauboy]

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).

Aggravated kidnapping does not have to include force. It can include force.

You gave us the legal definition of Aggravated Kidnapping:
§20.04. Aggravated kidnapping.

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

You also provided the legal definition for "abduct":
(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.

Whether (a) or (b) are met, it still means some type of force was used. Nobody is restrained without force being applied. Force doesn't have to be violent to be counted. If there is a definition of force that contradicts this, please share it.

[txinvestigator]

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).

Aggravated kidnapping does not have to include force. It can include force.

You gave us the legal definition of Aggravated Kidnapping:
§20.04. Aggravated kidnapping.

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

You also provided the legal definition for "abduct":
(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.

Whether (a) or (b) are met, it still means some type of force was used. Nobody is restrained without force being applied. Force doesn't have to be violent to be counted. If there is a definition of force that contradicts this, please share it.

Of course a person can be restrained without force being used.

Restraint can be by force, deception or intimidation. (TPC 20.01)

If I restrain a person without force, but with deception or intimidation I have not used force.

[kauboy]

Restraint can be by force, deception or intimidation. (TPC 20.01)

If I restrain a person without force, but with deception or intimidation I have not used force.

Interesting point. But what is force? Does it have to be physical? Or is there a different classification for non physical force, such as "intimidation" or "deception".
Does the law only count physical force as "force"?

Sorry, this is kindof off topic. (as if we haven't been leading farther away all along )

[txinvestigator]

Restraint can be by force, deception or intimidation. (TPC 20.01)

If I restrain a person without force, but with deception or intimidation I have not used force.

Interesting point. But what is force? Does it have to be physical? Or is there a different classification for non physical force, such as intimidation or deception.
Does the law only count physical force as "force"?

Sorry, this is kindof off topic.

Nah, its an interesting point. intimidation and deception are listed separately, so they are NOT force.

If I tell you that I have your child and that if you don't some with me, you will never see her again, that is not force. It IS intimidation.

If a BG tells your 8 year old that he lost his puppy, and asks her to get into his pedophilemobile, and she gets in and he drive away, he restrained her without force. He used deception.

[kw5kw]

Restraint can be by force, deception or intimidation. (TPC 20.01)

If I restrain a person without force, but with deception or intimidation I have not used force.

Interesting point. But what is force? Does it have to be physical? Or is there a different classification for non physical force, such as intimidation or deception.
Does the law only count physical force as "force"?

Sorry, this is kindof off topic.

Nah, its an interesting point. intimidation and deception are listed separately, so they are NOT force.

If I tell you that I have your child and that if you don't some with me, you will never see her again, that is not force. It IS intimidation.

If a BG tells your 8 year old that he lost his puppy, and asks her to get into his pedophilemobile, and she gets in and he drive away, he restrained her without force. He used deception.

But, once he/she grabs the child by the arm... just once mind you, they have used force.

If Bad Guy calls and tells me that he's-a-gonna kill my kid, to me that is implied deadly force.

Russ

[txinvestigator]

Restraint can be by force, deception or intimidation. (TPC 20.01)

If I restrain a person without force, but with deception or intimidation I have not used force.

Interesting point. But what is force? Does it have to be physical? Or is there a different classification for non physical force, such as intimidation or deception.
Does the law only count physical force as "force"?

Sorry, this is kindof off topic.

Nah, its an interesting point. intimidation and deception are listed separately, so they are NOT force.

If I tell you that I have your child and that if you don't some with me, you will never see her again, that is not force. It IS intimidation.

If a BG tells your 8 year old that he lost his puppy, and asks her to get into his pedophilemobile, and she gets in and he drive away, he restrained her without force. He used deception.

But, once he/she grabs the child by the arm... just once mind you, they have used force.

If Bad Guy calls and tells me that he's-a-gonna kill my kid, to me that is implied deadly force.

Russ

Me too, but "implied" deadly force is not a legal concept.

[kauboy]

But that is a threat of deadly force. So now we fall into 9.33, do we not?

§ 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.

[txinvestigator]

But that is a threat of deadly force. So now we fall into 9.33, do we not?

§ 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 don't believe so.