Search found 1 match

by Purplehood
Wed May 12, 2010 8:08 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: I'm Puzzled by TX Law
Replies: 74
Views: 9987

Re: I'm Puzzled by TX Law

G26ster wrote:It's been a lively discussion, but the thread took the turn I thought it might ("What would I do")

The question was never "what would I do?" I was hoping I made it clear by saying "I know what I WILL do, but I always wondered where in these statutes I would be covered, if at all?"

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my OP. I agree with the action most stated they would take if at or near my age or disabled in any way. I am NOT taking the beating. But the real question I was seeking an answer for was where I was covered under the law. TAM and Steve Rothstein have the view that I am covered by both 9.31 and 9.32. The only reason I had doubts about this is the wording of those two statutes.

9.31 covers the use of force. Both TAM and Steve feel that includes deadly force if "reasonable." I can accept that, except I am troubled by the statement in 9.31 that says, "The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34." The situation I described is covered by law as "assault." If I follow the the sentence in 9.31 I just quoted, there is only one place in 9.32 that "implies" I can use deadly force to stop or prevent assault. That is (A) below.

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;

In other words, I have to hope a DA, Grand Jury, good lawyer, etc. believe that a attempted "whuppun" by big Bubba on a person over 65 is deadly force and my reason for me to use deadly force in return. So that leaves open the possibility of trial, etc. if they don't agree, for whatever reason, it could have severe consequences.

My whole point was that it would be better if "aggravated assault," especially on a Senior or disabled person, was added to (B) below, because frankly I believe aggravated assault provides a much greater degree of harm to those individuals than does simple "robbery."

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

If "aggravated assault on a person over 65, or disabled person" were added to (B), there would be no way a jury could find otherwise, as it's right there in black and white. Well, I guess juries can always do what they want, but in this case very doubtful.

So, hopefully to end this thread, I appreciate all the responses, and will rely on the good people of Texas to have my back if this, hopefully unlikely, scenario ever plays out. I'm quite sure most of you think I am concerned over nothing, and you may be absolutely correct :tiphat:

Oh, and TAM, I'm in Bedford and get to Grapevine quite often. I'd like to buy you a beer (or soft drink of your choice) sometime :cheers2:
G26ster,

My take on the whole issue of the law, various peoples perceptions and the possible repercussions of defending yourself is that while I agree that the vagaries of all of the above regarding your right to defend yourself are aggravating at best, the need for a grand jury, jury or DA to look at each and every situation is the ultimate failsafe (though it may not work out that way 100% of the time).
What I am trying to say is that each and every incident where one party engages another and somebody takes action that equates to force or deadly force is different from each and every other incident. No two are going to be alike. So society as a whole absolutely has to review each of these incidents and weigh them to determine if force was justified. If they didn't, the accusations of the anti-2A crowds would start to ring true and we all might begin to wonder if folks defending themselves were getting "excessive" in their responses to the perception that another party was using force.
We all worry about how different parties perceive what little they know of these incidents. We worry that a Grand Jury will see things our way. The list goes on.
But in reality not every individual out there is as concerned with the rule of laws and morality as the majority of posters on this forum appear to be. And those folks that don't worry about the law and morality are the ones that everyone else in society needs to keep a thumb on and monitor to make sure that they are not going all vigilante or simply enjoy using force to resolve issues on others.
Thus ends my lecture on why Texas law is the way that it is.

Return to “I'm Puzzled by TX Law”