TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:53 am

Beiruty wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:46 am

Ruark wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:28 am

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

By your definition of "deadly force" i.e. causing or capable of causing death or serious injury, if somebody shoves me and I hit him and give him a black eye, I've used "deadly force," because of the swelling of the eye causing obstructed vision.

No, since you did not start the assault, you were not the aggressor, you used force against force. However, your force was more than his force (shove vs black eye). If the story ends here, and you are charged with an assault causing bodily harm, your defense is" I did not start it".

That being said, as CHL/LTC folks, all the time, we cannot stress enough the value and duty to deescalate any charged encounter.

Of course. Any discussion of hypothetical scenarios presumes that deescalation was futile. Re: your reply... if I hit him with a piece of rebar instead of giving him a black eye, wouldn't my defense be the same?

And honestly, this is a topic for us who are "less young," and that's where I'm really coming from with this question. In my case, 72 years old, double rotator tear in one shoulder, multiple surgeries in the other, I really have to rely on some kind of "weapon" to resolve even marginally physical situations (again, assuming deescalation or escape are futile). So if The Hulk is getting in my face, I don't have many options besides ringing his bell with a piece of rebar or something. I just don't want to get into the legal conundrum of "you used deadly force against simple force, so you're screwed."

Ruark wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:28 am

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

By your definition of "deadly force" i.e. causing or capable of causing death or serious injury, if somebody shoves me and I hit him and give him a black eye, I've used "deadly force," because of the swelling of the eye causing obstructed vision.

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:13 pm

Ruark wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:33 pm

Caliber wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:00 pm

Ruark wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:58 pm There are clear cut differences in the law between "force" and "deadly force" and specific code pertaining to when each can and can't be used. Using a gun or knife, for example, is considered using "deadly force," even if you just point it at a person.

Not totally correct.

Sec. 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.

As I understand it, according to a workshop I was in recently, this does NOT include actually pointing a gun at somebody, only exposing it or maybe placing your hand on it without drawing.

I have no problems here if any internet lawyer wants to chime in here. It was explained to me that pointing a gun at someone was considered deadly force. As per PC 9.04 displaying a firearm to show that you are able to defend yourself against potential deadly force or serious bodily injury changes if you draw and point your weapon at a person. I'm not an attorney and can only speak on the actual codes as they relate to carrying a handgun.