TexasCHLforum.com

I agree, it does seem contradictory.

I'll point out, too, that PC9.02 says that it is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is "justified under this chapter". That would seem to say that if a DA tried to charge you under PC46.035(h), your defense would be citing PC9.04 and PC9.02. Not sure if a "defense to prosecution" in CH9 applies to ch46. My head hurts now...

sjfcontrol wrote:I agree, it does seem contradictory.

I'll point out, too, that PC9.02 says that it is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is "justified under this chapter". That would seem to say that if a DA tried to charge you under PC46.035(h), your defense would be citing PC9.04 and PC9.02. Not sure if a "defense to prosecution" in CH9 applies to ch46. My head hurts now...

That's why I'm glad I've murdered off most of my brain cells...

jamisjockey wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:My head hurts now...

That's why I'm glad I've murdered off most of my brain cells...

One can argue that taking a beating is deadly whether it was inflicted on the victim by one actor or more. Basically simple force can be upgraded to deadly force. of cousre, this is were disparity of force comes to play.

Beiruty wrote:One can argue that taking a beating is deadly whether it was inflicted on the victim by one actor or more. Basically simple force can be upgraded to deadly force. of cousre, this is were disparity of force comes to play.

An argument I made earlier in the thread,with supporting news stories.

A better solution is to ammend the defense for unconcealment when deadly force is justifed or the threat of deadly force is justified