TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote:Is there any definition in the Texas Penal Code of a circumstance or set of circumstances which would justify the use of the "threat of deadly force" while not also justifying the use of "deadly force"?

Short answer, yes. SubSection B of Chapter 9 details justification for use of Force, but check out 9.31 for the good stuff. and every time it says Force, it also includes that pesky Threat of Deadly Force.
check out The TPC for further reading.

mr.72 wrote: Well this debate hinges on the presumption that "threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon..." is defined as "force" or "threat of force", and not "deadly force".

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise * , as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

*They could have just said "A threat of Deadly Force" rather than that whole sentence.

mr.72 wrote:However I can find nowhere in these sub-sections where it is clearly defined. We simply have the definition that the "threat to cause death..." does not constitute the use of deadly force, without any definition of what it does actually constitute. We are presuming it constitutes "FORCE" as someone else mentioned, but it is nowhere clearly defined as such that I can find.

Also reasonably the "threat to cause death..." might lead to a situation that results in justification for the use of deadly force, such as in the baseball bat to the car idea. If you had not presented the weapon, then perhaps the slugger would not have come at you with the bat.

I think this is a gray area at best.

I'm not sure I know what definition you're looking for, but here goes.

if you can use Force, which physical stuff, they laying of hands, and so forth, THEN you can use the THREAT of FORCE.
If you can use Force, you MAY or MAY NOT be able to use DEADLY FORCE. You can use the THREAT of DEADLY FORCE only if it is limited to just being a threat.

what is a threat? anything where you give that person the idea that you are going to do what you are saying you're going to do.
If it does not constitute Deadly Force, then it must be simple Force.
in my example, the guy with the bat, when faced with the lawful threat of DF, he could of just put his bat down.
whereas, if the actor had gone out, unarmed, the crook would have seen no threat, and could have had his way with the "victim."

that make any sense? If I'm not addressing your question properly, lemmeh know.

mr.72 wrote: - so it seems that the threat of deadly force is the same (in terms of whether you are justified to do so) as the use of deadly force.

no.
you can be justified in THREATENING deadly force, so long as that's where it stops. if the perp changes courses, and then you are justified in DEADLY FORCE, then you may proceed.

instance: (and yes, this happened) a Guy is taking a baseball bat to your car, middle of the day. you go out, and threaten deadly force. he doesn't stop (still only justified to use force), and now comes at you with the bat.
The moment he turned on you with the bat, he committed an illegal imminent commission of Deadly Force, at which time you are justified in using Deadly Force as self defense.

got it?

Force and Deadly Force are two different things. Threatening Deadly Force is only Force if it stops at just a threat.

mr.72 wrote:right, so is there a difference between the justification for the threat of deadly force, and deadly force itself?

yes.
The THREAT of Deadly Force is simply FORCE.
However if you pull that trigger it becomes DEADLY FORCE.

now don't confuse Force with Deadly Force.

world of difference between the two.

This Thread had some good info in it.

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.

Well, to be honest, my CHL instructors said the same thing, and to further be honest, that is a good rule of thumb.
however, it's not necesarily always the case, and I wish I could quote you some good instances, but at the moment, I can not.
maybe you can search that topic and find something useful, I'll try to do some hunting, and see what I can come up with.

not necessarily splitting hairs. there are a few instances where you cannot use deadly force, but using the threat of deadly force can stop the illegal action and therefore can be the best solution.

I love how these RealWorld accounts turn into Product Testimonials

"I rounded the corner with my SupreTac DoubleTap Quadrail with the detachable Light/Laser/Tazer/OC dispensor and 50rd ammo drum...."