TexasCHLforum.com

Xander wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: a "reasonable fear" itself is *not* justification for deadly force, ..........
Yes, "itself". To which I say, "context, context, context."

Yes, but in order for "reasonable fear" to to be positively determined to exist within a given context, we must fall back to a definition of "reasonable fear" that can be laid out from, and constrained by the law.

Xander wrote: So, if you don't understand the conditions set forth by the law, there is no way to specifically differentiate between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" fear. So, at that point, it becomes redundant and unnecessary, and until that point it isn't adequately defined and dangerous.

Xander wrote: But Charles had an excellent point in the other thread. (http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... php?t=9735) a "reasonable fear" itself is *not* justification for deadly force, ..........

Xander wrote: Which is why the blanket "fear for your life" term is such a lousy choice of words, and particularly so in an arena as technical and pedantic as the law.

Xander wrote: Ok, after that post, I think we are indeed on the same page, and we're well and truly caught up in the semantics of the word "fear."

In this story, for instance, it isn't emotional fear that's being described. "fearing for his own life..." in the story could easily and accurately be re-written "concerned for his own life.." or "assessed the situation and believed there was a danger to his own life..." It's not describing fear as an emotional driver of the officers actions, it's simply a succinct way to state that he believed there was sufficient danger to require deadly force. In that context, I agree that it is an appropriate usage, and that it can accurately describe a rational thought process leading to the conclusion that deadly force is required in a given situation.

On Monday, officers faced grave danger trying to save the life of a mother and her 3-year-old girl. Inside a Southeast Austin apartment, officers found a woman who was handcuffed and bloody holding a child whose throat had been slashed. The perpetrator (an ex-boyfriend) still was loose in the apartment. The mother motioned with her eyes to the hallway, and officers followed her signal. A man emerged from around a corner wielding a knife. Officers ordered the man to drop the knife. Instead, he raised it. Officer Michael Metcalf then fired two shots, killing the man.

Acevedo did not hesitate to explain why the shooting was justified:

"There was a child with a slashed throat who, without intervention, would have perished. Someone had threatened officers directly, and an officer, fearing for his own life and for the lives of innocent parties, fired two rounds, delivering fatal injuries to the suspect.

"Based on my training and experience, this was a potential murder-suicide scene."

But it was the absence of immediate danger to an officer or third party that led Acevedo to fire officer Wayne Williamson on Saturday. Williamson fired shots on March 14 while chasing a burglary suspect outside a shopping center near U.S. 183 and Manor Road. No one was injured, but one of the shots struck a vehicle with children inside.

Firing a gun near a shopping center was a serious flaw in judgment that easily could have ended tragically. Some witnesses were understandably more afraid of Williamson then the suspect who was trying to run away while holding up his shorts.

Acevedo said the situation didn't meet the deadly force test: "There was no reasonable articulation of being in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death to an officer or innocent third party. The use of deadly force in this case ended up creating more of a threat to officers and to the public."

Xander wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: If something is a normal human reaction, it must by definition be "reasonable" for a human being to experience it.

Is that necessarily true? Is it reasonable to fear mice? Many, many folks would be afraid of a mouse running across the floor of the room they're in. Enough people that it's certainly within the scope of normal human reaction. Does that mean that the mouse, by definition, constitutes a real and reasonable threat to the life and well being of that individual?

stevie_d_64 wrote: Is there anything "reasonable" about "fear"???

Thats why I'm getting myself weened off the terminology altogether...

"Reasonable" being a logical term...

And "fear" being an emotional term...

pakmc wrote:
Cannot imagine shooting a person unless he has been told several times to drop weapons.

GrillKing wrote:I bet the chief knew exactly what he was saying. This was directed to the media. Everybody understands 'fear for your life'. They probably did fear for their life, but that was not the justification for what transpired. In the interest of simplicity, I think he left off the rest of the story regarding imminent death, grievous bodily harm, etc.

That was a simple explanation that even the media would understand that gets a point across. The media is incapable (with few exceptions) of understanding and correctly reporting on the use of force and use of deadly force as it is defined in the law. It is simply too involved a discussion for the news headline mentality.

If the chief were to try and give the legal justification for the events that occurred, he'd still be there a week from now explaining and answering typical media not thought through questions.

txinvestigator wrote: Its not good enough for me Frankie. Nowhere in the use of force laws does that phrase appear.

seamusTX wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:No where in there will I imply that I was in fear for my life...I would certainly be concerned, but no one will coerce me into admitting that I was in an emotional state in the determination that deadly force was necessary to "stop" a threat...

That's a good point. I think it's better to justify your actions with facts ("He was trying to kill me so I shot to stop him") than with emotions. Emotions can be and often are unreasonable.

Something else occurred to me: Do y'all remember the case some years ago where a Japanese college student went to the wrong house for a Halloween party, and the homeowner shot him? That man was in fear of his life, but he ended up being charged with and pleading guilty to a crime.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:"Necessary" - no. But "sufficient" - yes, as long as the fear is "reasonable".

Let's say "Joe" tells me that "Fred" is running his mouth about killing me. Let's say furthermore that "Fred" is a bad dude who has been convicted of assault several times and is upset because I'm dating his former girlfriend.

I would be in fear of my life.

Would I then be justified in shooting "Fred" on sight?

No, because it would not be "when and to the degree reasonably believe the deadly force is immediately necessary to protect [my]self against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force."

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:He was also speaking as someone with what is supposed to be authoritative knowledge of the proper use of deadly force.

He wasn't giving a lecture in law school, either.

His concern is defusing public outrage over shooting someone who was armed with a knife.

Being in fear of your life is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the use of deadly force.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:The police chief was talking to the media, not testifying in court.

- Jim