You're reading it to say that if the attacker was provoked you cannot do anything no matter how violent the attacker has become. The point of the law is that you cannot provoke someone in order to develop the justification for using deadly force against them. But even if you provoke someone to violence, there comes a point where their violence crosses a line and deadly force becomes justified. Just because you provoked someone does not mean they are allowed to beat you senseless and you are not allowed to defend yourself.zero4o3 wrote:baldeagle wrote:I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. The cause of an altercation does not enter into the legal justification for using deadly force in defense of another person.zero4o3 wrote:Yes if your going to draw your gun, it matters what it was about.suthdj wrote:Does it really matter what it was aboutThe reasons for the attacker using deadly force against the third person are not part of the legal justification for using deadly force.Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
In this particular situation, a CHL holder would have been justified, under Texas law, in drawing their weapon and threatening to use it if the two attackers did not cease and desist immediately. If they had continued to beat the victim, a CHL holder would have been justified, under Texas law, in shooting one or both of them to stop the attack.
That is exactly what I would have done in this situation. I would have drawn my weapon and ordered them to stop repeatedly. (Stop or I will shoot!) If they had continued to beat the victim, I would have shot them.
BTW, the fact that you provoked someone does not give them the right to use deadly force against you. Even if the victim provoked the two attackers, they would not be justified, under Texas law, in beating her until she suffered brain damage (which she clearly did.) The purpose of the provocation clause is to nullify a defense where you clearly provoked someone so that you could use deadly force.
I never said I thought the 2 girls where legaly kicking the snot out of the one.
I read this to mean that to be justified under section 9.33 you would have to meet the requirments of 9.32, which states that the person force was used on was not provoked.under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
I admit I could be wrong.
The issue here is how does provocation affect your justification for deadly force when you are not the one who provoked the attacker. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the law would expect you to never use deadly force when someone is being beaten senseless simply because they provoked the attack. There's a huge difference between provoking someone to the point that they punch you and provoking someone who then proceeds to get a tire iron and beat you until your bones are breaking and you lapse into seizures from brain damage.