TexasCHLforum.com

Not sure how many, if any, of you regularly watch tennis. But some of my family and friends do and I've been caught up in discussions elsewhere of this tirade by tennis player Serena Williams against a tennis official/referee at the US Open this weekend. Won't bore you with all the tennis mumbo jumbo, but I've been taking the position that what this athlete did qualifies as "assault" under the law (Texas Statute Section 22.01 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#22.01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and if she had done what she did on a public street she could (and should) be arrested for it.

IMHO, what she did goes above and beyond the cry-baby tantrums by John McEnroe and Illie Nastase (tennis players of decades past with anger-management issues) because they merely threw a fit like a 3-year-old; I don't recall either of them physically threatening harm to an official. This distinction is what raises Serena Williams' actions to the level of assault and not just pathetic immaturity.

Here are some video clips to bring you up to speed. :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcjtcB9W ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
She clearly yells obscenities and threatens the official. She is also waving a tennis racket. Lastly, Serena Williams is a 6-foot tall professionl athlete with more muscle mass than many men I know and the official she threatens is a small-statured Asian woman.

Other video shows the full incident from another angle and clearer image of the official (good "replay" of whole thing around the 5:20 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_B96q9dekI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So my role-playing question is ...
Pretend you are this small-statured woman and you're on a public street (not in a sports arena where laws apparently don't apply to athletes). This 6-foot tall female athlete begins verbally assaulting you while approaching you in a deliberative fashion, swinging a stick of some kind and saying she is going to "shove (some object) up your (bodily orifice)".

At what point (if ever) are you legally justified in ...

a) "covering" your firearm (preparing to draw, but not drawing nor displaying your weapon in any way
b) brandishing your firearm
c) threatening to use force or deadly force (i.e. "Stop, or I'll shoot")
d) actually firing your weapon, thus using deadly force

What further actions by the aggressor in this case would be necessary for you to be legally justified in proceeding with a, b, c, or d above?

There is a huge difference between the reported behavior of Ms. Williams and your street scenario.

Ms. Williams and the tennis official had an existing relationship. People in relationships often say things that are unwise, ill-tempered, and could possibly be construed as criminal. For example, a wife might tell her husband, "If you come home drunk at 4 in the morning again, I'm going to kill you." She doesn't mean it literally. He knows she doesn't mean it literally. It's just verbal excess.

Second, in the stadium, security people and other officials presumably would assist the official if she were physically assaulted.

Third, the supervising body of the sport can impose sanctions on ill-behaved players that are probably worse than being hauled into jail (given the huge amount of money these people are paid, they sometimes are hit with five-figure fines or banned for a period of time).

Being threatened by a random stranger on the street is a completely different situation.

The use of force is not justified on response to verbal provocation alone (PC 9.31(b)(1)). The scenario that you present has openings for de-escalation, retreat, and use of non-lethal means before the heater comes out.

- Jim

P.S.: You didn't ask, but I have to say that baseball players and managers do far worse than verbal tirades, including beaning other players. The latter could be prosecuted as aggravated assault. Basketball players also do a lot of trash-talking and intentional fouls that seem to be taken for granted. Hockey should be conducted under the Geneva Conventions.

I guess that's why you can't carry at a sporting event. Emotions and raw adrenalin.

Jim, great points as usual. A few counter points (keeping in mind I'm trying to place this scenario in the "real world" and not in a sports arena) ...

seamusTX wrote:There is a huge difference between the reported behavior of Ms. Williams and your street scenario.

Ms. Williams and the tennis official had an existing relationship. People in relationships often say things that are unwise, ill-tempered, and could possibly be construed as criminal. For example, a wife might tell her husband, "If you come home drunk at 4 in the morning again, I'm going to kill you." She doesn't mean it literally. He knows she doesn't mean it literally. It's just verbal excess.

Your husband/wife scenario is different in the other direction. The athlete/official relationship lies somewhere in between a husband/wife and complete strangers. Also the wife threatening husband scenario takes out the "immediate threat" with the "if... then... " construction. Someone saying they're going to harm you while approaching you with a "weapon" (I sure don't want to be hit with a tennis racket by Serena Williams) is a different scenario.

But, your point is a good one and well understood. I believe this is how most LEOs would treat such a situation - DE-ESCALATE. That's why I also asked what more would aggressor have to do to escalate the situation to a deadly force self-defense scenario.

seamusTX wrote:Second, in the stadium, security people and other officials presumably would assist the official if she were physically assaulted.

By this logic, if someone attacked me in a room full of police officers I would not have the right to self defense just because there are police officers nearby?

seamusTX wrote:Being threatened by a random stranger on the street is a completely different situation.

Precisely. What I'm looking for is how could/should you react if this similar scenario played out on public street. Also, I'm not sure the random stranger vs. a known person is necessarily as stark as you make it. Just because I know someone, does not mean they are not still advancing toward me with a "weapon" and making verbal threats.

seamusTX wrote:The use of force is not justified on response to verbal provocation alone (PC 9.31(b)(1)). The scenario that you present has openings for de-escalation, retreat, and use of non-lethal means before the heater comes out.

Completely agree with this assessment. Caveat being the tennis racket "weapon" ... how much closer, how much more violent would aggressor have to be to raise this to level of a deadly force situation? Change the tennis racket in our scenario to a baseball bat ... now what? What if it is a knife? A gun? Some of these questions have obvious answers, but I'm just trying to get the role-playing going.

seamusTX wrote:P.S.: You didn't ask, but I have to say that baseball players and managers do far worse than verbal tirades, including beaning other players. The latter could be prosecuted as aggravated assault. Basketball players also do a lot of trash-talking and intentional fouls that seem to be taken for granted. Hockey should be conducted under the Geneva Conventions.

Absolutely agree with above. Other athletes/sports do much worse. Frankly bench-clearing brawls in baseball, hockey, basketball should all be treated as aggravated assaults, IMHO. The incident with the Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons years ago that spilled into the stands is a prime example. Not at all related to my "role-playing scenario", but I don't understand why the law does not apply to athletes in the course of an athletic contest. Certainly there is a bit of "you agreed to this level of force being used against you by agreeing to play" .... but no athlete, coach, official agrees to punches being thrown, threats to "kill" someone or purposely injure someone. Sure, this can all be dismissed as merely "part of the game" .... but when it goes too far, then how do you police it?

Hockey should be conducted under the Geneva Conventions.

No kidding Jim!!

I've often wondered why a hockey player was not immediately arrested, right after a fight on the rink. Those get genuinely bloody.

Many years ago, my dad took me to a professional boxing match at Dallas Memorial Auditorium (so it had to be in the early 60's). Anyway, right in the middle of the fight, a hockey game broke out.

Old saying from my days in sports journalism ...

"People go to hockey games to see fights and NASCAR races to see wrecks."

austinrealtor wrote:Your husband/wife scenario is different in the other direction.

You're right, but there are many situations where people who know each other make threats that they do not carry out, and no one calls the police.

By this logic, if someone attacked me in a room full of police officers I would not have the right to self defense just because there are police officers nearby?

I didn't say the official didn't have the right to defend herself. She did.

What I am saying is that there probably was no need for her to defend herself, because the security people would have stopped Ms. Williams.

Tennis has a history of deranged fans assaulting players, so the security people probably are numerous and alert.

Also, I'm not sure the random stranger vs. a known person is necessarily as stark as you make it. Just because I know someone, does not mean they are not still advancing toward me with a "weapon" and making verbal threats.

Yes. Most assaults occur between acquaintances. However, an acquaintance is more of a known quantity. You know the person has no history of actual violence, or that he or she has a hot temper and has been known to strike the first blow.

If a stranger threatens you, you have to assume that he or she may carry out the threat -- but you're still dealing with probability, not certainty.

Caveat being the tennis racket "weapon" ... how much closer, how much more violent would aggressor have to be to raise this to level of a deadly force situation? Change the tennis racket in our scenario to a baseball bat ... now what? What if it is a knife? A gun?

The law is simple on its face: You can use deadly force only to prevent the other's unlawful use of deadly force (I'm leaving out sexual assault, kidnapping, etc., because they are irrelevant to this discussion).

The question then becomes what constitutes the other's use of deadly force. A tennis racket in the hands of a professional tennis player could probably be used to deadly effect. Even fists and boots can be deadly.

Some weapons are presumed to be deadly weapons. Firearms always are. Knives, clubs, arrows and other things designed to be weapons are all deadly if the attacker is in a position to use them.

The further you get from those scenarios, the more difficult it is to defend your use of deadly force. Every CHL holder that has been prosecuted has shot an unarmed attacker -- even in one case of three men against one. (Most were no-billed.)

I think the bottom line is that if you shoot an attacker who is coming at you with a firearm or knife, the police will probably recognize the situation immediately and not even arrest you. If you shoot someone who is ranting and waving a bat or stick, you would have some 'splainin' to do.

Short of shooting, if you lack a justification for the use of deadly force, you are open to charges of aggravated assault, deadly conduct, and intentional failure to conceal (if you are in public with a handgun).

This is all IMHO, IANAL, etc.; but these are the principles that guide my actions.

I've been able to talk and walk my way out of quite a few situations with no one getting hurt in the last 40 years. Maybe I've been lucky. Maybe my guardian angel is working overtime, but I like to think it is possible to avoid violence most of the time.

I was also taught that being a gentlemen means tolerating rude behavior from others. it's the price of civilization.

Frankly bench-clearing brawls in baseball, hockey, basketball should all be treated as aggravated assaults, ... I don't understand why the law does not apply to athletes in the course of an athletic contest.

An assault charge (other than domestic assault) requires a complainant. If no one calls the cops, no one is going to be charged.

In a few cases, athletes have been charged with aggravated assault and murder for intentionally causing bodily injuries or death.

I think the governing bodies of the sports and economic factors are enough of a deterrent. As I wrote earlier, athletes or officials who get out of line can be thrown out of the game on the spot, fined large amounts with no legal process, suspended, and even banned for life.

Prominent players also get millions of dollars in sponsorships that are gone in a flash when they fall into disgrace.

Prosecution is not the answer to every problem. I would much rather have the police going after rapists, child molesters, and gangsters than arresting overpaid, ill-behaved athletes.

- Jim

austinrealtor wrote:Pretend you are this small-statured woman and you're on a public street (not in a sports arena where laws apparently don't apply to athletes). This 6-foot tall female athlete begins verbally assaulting you while approaching you in a deliberative fashion, swinging a stick of some kind and saying she is going to "shove (some object) up your (bodily orifice)".

At what point (if ever) are you legally justified in ...

a) "covering" your firearm (preparing to draw, but not drawing nor displaying your weapon in any way
b) brandishing your firearm
c) threatening to use force or deadly force (i.e. "Stop, or I'll shoot")
d) actually firing your weapon, thus using deadly force

What further actions by the aggressor in this case would be necessary for you to be legally justified in proceeding with a, b, c, or d above?

My opinions on this are as follows:

1. You are always legally and morally justified in covering your firearm and preparing to draw, as long as the weapon is still concealed. It might be excessive to walk around that way, but it is legal.

2 and 3 are the same question. Producing the weapon is a threat to use deadly force and is force in and of itself. You would be justified in doing this when, and as soon as, you felt the threat from the attacker.

4. You would be justified in shooting when the attacker disregarded your warnings and continued to attack. A stick of that type, swung in most methods like you described, could be reasonably believed to be a deadly weapon. You would be able to shoot as soon as the threat was close enough to put a reasonable person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. think of the Tueller drill and go with about the same distance.


And for those of you who are wondering why a fight at a sporting event is not considered an assault, I will refer you to penal code section 22.06 - Consent as a defense. Please note that if there is a reasonable risk due to employment, it is considered consent. And this caused the interesting thought of consent being the defense to all assault cases against officers. It is a reasonable risk of their occupation. Could be an interesting court case to watch.

I think consent to the use of force is intended to cover boxing, wrestling, checking in hockey, tackling in football, and that sort of thing -- which would be assaults if done without consent.

Boxers can't legally bite off an ear. Wrestlers can't gouge out eyes. Hockey players get into fistfights, but using a stick to assault another player would probably end a career.

- Jim

Steve, Jim: Thank you both for your responses. Exactly what I was looking for, especially Steve's point-by-point. I tend to agree with Jim's assessment of "consent" as applies to 22.06. A baseball player consents to being possibly hit with a batted or thrown ball, knocked over on a hard play at the plate or second base, and even to accidents such as a bat breaking or slipping and flying at another player. But no baseball player consents to being punched, kicked, beaten during a bench-clearing brawl. Similar lack of consent applies to extra-curricular activities in all sports, IMHO.

But back to the role-playing hypothesis. I agree that the situation as I laid it out could become a deadly force situation if the aggressor does not respond to "stop, or I'll shoot". A professional tennis player can swing a racket in excess of 150 miles per hour - easily enough to cause serious brain damage or death if it hits you square in the head. My mother actually knows a lady who lost most of her teeth and underwent some brain surgery when she was acidentally hit by a tennis racket (teammates playing doubles both going for same ball).

seamusTX wrote:. Hockey players get into fistfights, but using a stick to assault another player would probably end a career.

Nah, there is a penalty specifically for that. It's called high sticking. Hockey is harsh :)