Using Deadly Force against Fists?

[KD5NRH]

Don't forget aggravated kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, aggravated robbery, arson, burglary, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

I didn't forget; the intial post was about a gang beatdown by more than 1 person.

THe point I forgot to make was regarding their apparent intent, whether it is their primary intent or not; does it appear they will steal from you during of after the "beatdown," or drag you somewhere you don't want to go, or anything else that would turn the assault into one of the above crimes?

[KD5NRH]

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

Well, my butane canister says to keep it away from heat, fire or flames, so flames can't be made of fire, and neither can contain heat, huh?

Redundant listing doesn't necessarily indicate anything other than poor literary skills; since 29.03(a) defines aggravated robbery as robbery plus one or more of three conditions, (serious bodily injury, deadly weapon, or bodily injury to elderly or disabled) aggravated robbery cannot, by its definition, happen without robbery, and yet they are both listed in 9.32 and 9.42, where there is no need to specify both. Remember; if politicians or lawyers could write or use logic, they'd find respectable jobs.

[txinvestigator]

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

Well, my butane canister says to keep it away from heat, fire or flames, so flames can't be made of fire, and neither can contain heat, huh?

Redundant listing doesn't necessarily indicate anything other than poor literary skills; since 29.03(a) defines aggravated robbery as robbery plus one or more of three conditions, (serious bodily injury, deadly weapon, or bodily injury to elderly or disabled) aggravated robbery cannot, by its definition, happen without robbery, and yet they are both listed in 9.32 and 9.42, where there is no need to specify both. Remember; if politicians or lawyers could write or use logic, they'd find respectable jobs.

All of that does not change the fact that intimidation is not force, see my example. Neither is Deception; again, see my example.

Your example is flawed.

[kauboy]

KD5NRH, since I can't find definition of "force" given in the law, according to Chas, it is common practice to use the generally accepted interpretation. So, I went and looked it up. Here's what I found:
force:
-noun
...
5. Law. unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property.
...

There were quite a few definitions but they mostly pertained to physics, which is not what our topic revolves around. But I did notice that #5 here is specifically designated as being the definition for "force" used in writing and interpreting laws.
So apparently, physical violence or violent intent must exist for the force to be recognized by the law.

[casselthief]

d'you use Wikipedia for that?

sorry, carry on......

[kauboy]

I have expressed my disgust for Wikipedia in the past. So no, I didn't.

[barres]

I think we're all forgetting that in order for us to recognize that an aggravated kidnapping of a third party is occurring, there would have to be an overt use of force. If a person is deceived or intimidated into complying with the kidnapper, then we would see nothing other than the victim going with the perpetrator (apparently) willingly. In order for a third party to see an aggravated kidnapping and recognize it as such, overt force would have to be used by the perpetrator.

If we know the intended victim, then there is little (or at least less) doubt as to what is going on, and intervention can be made. In that situation, though, deadly force would not be called for until or unless the perp escalated the situation.

[Txroadcyclist]

Hello,
I'm new to the forum and have had my CHL since May 2006. My daily carry is a Taurus Model 85 .38. I also have a Ruger P95.

Regarding the use of lethal force aginst fists, I believe people should have some knowledge of hand to hand combat skills to deal with these types of situations. I took Krav Maga for about two years and feel fairly comfortable in defending myself against an unarmed BG. Even hand to hand fighting requires certain precautions in that you should only neutralize the BG to the point the he ceases his attack or you have the opportunity to flee. If the BG is , for example, a 3rd degree black belt (an overwhelming majority of black belts follow a code of conduct of using their skills in defense only) and his martial arts skills are clearly superior, I think it would be justified to pull a gun because his skills alone make him a lethal threat.