Explaining Penal Code 9.21 Public Duty

[Spartacus100]

Whats the best explanation for this part of the Penal Code. Its the one section that i have the most difficulty explaining it to my students.

[WildBill]

What's the best explanation for this part of the Penal Code. Its the one section that i have the most difficulty explaining it to my students.

Very good question Spartacus100. I don't recall any posts about this particular section of the Penal Code. I am anxious to read the responses from our esteemed colleagues.

[MasterOfNone]

Quick and dirty explanation:

Sec. 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process. Think of the authority a LEO has to use force again a person to make an arrest.

(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F). Self-explanatory.

(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it. Deadly must be specifically authorized in order to use it under this section. Think of an executioner.

(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:

(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or If an order is overturned or determined to be unlawful, you are justified as long as you reasonably believed it was lawful.

(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority. If a LEO directs you to assist with an action or asks for help, and the action is unlawful (like an unlawful arrest), you are still justified.

[nightmare]

I'm impressed you have time for 9.21 in a four hour class.

It helps for me to remember that Chapter 9 is justification for breaking the law generally, not only justification for use of force or deadly force. So if an employer garnishes wages because of a court order they believed was valid, they have a defense even if it turns out the court "lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful."

[Spartacus100]

Thanks Master.

I very much appreciate the reply and the education.

[Spartacus100]

Nightmare, Im only covering it as its in the class info under Module 1. I dont spend alot of time on it but if the state wants us to cover it, im covering it.

[txinstructor]

No disagreement with the quick and dirty explanation above. I also come at it from a little different direction.

"...the conduct is required or authorized by law...", "...specifically required by statute..."

In general a private citizen is not required by law to use force. LEOs have a duty to the public, and in carrying out that duty a LEO may be required to use force. A CHL holder does not have that duty. I see this section as a good opportunity to make the point that carrying a concealed handgun doesn't make us law enforcement officers. If we see a crime taking place we may or may not feel a moral obligation to help, but we have no legal duty to do so.

[jbarn]

LEO's and non LEO's have the same laws and they apply the same.

A LEO is never required to use force.

Here is the key section of 9.21

(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:
(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or
(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.

When a person administers a lethal injection, the conduct was authorized by a court, and was authorized by law.

Also under other laws a person can be lawfully compelled to assist a LEO. number 2 above would cover that conduct.


I don't cover this in CHL class.

[jbarn]

Quick and dirty explanation:

Sec. 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process. Think of the authority a LEO has to use force again a person to make an arrest.

This section does not authorize force to make an arrest. 9.51 does.

(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or If an order is overturned or determined to be unlawful, you are justified as long as you reasonably believed it was lawful.

(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority. If a LEO directs you to assist with an action or asks for help, and the action is unlawful (like an unlawful arrest), you are still justified.

Agree with the rest

[dogflight]

LEO's and non LEO's have the same laws and they apply the same.

A LEO is never required to use force.

So by 'never required", you're saying that nothing statutorily compels a LEO to use force in the line of duty - 'cuz we could list scenarios all day long where the officer had better use force, and quick.

I teach that, in contrast to LEOs, nothing in the law requires a private citizen to use force, period. I guess I need to drop the contrast part.

[WildBill]

LEO's and non LEO's have the same laws and they apply the same.

A LEO is never required to use force.

So by 'never required", you're saying that nothing statutorily compels a LEO to use force in the line of duty - 'cuz we could list scenarios all day long where the officer had better use force, and quick.

I teach that, in contrast to LEOs, nothing in the law requires a private citizen to use force, period. I guess I need to drop the contrast part.

[jbarn]

LEO's and non LEO's have the same laws and they apply the same.

A LEO is never required to use force.

So by 'never required", you're saying that nothing statutorily compels a LEO to use force in the line of duty - 'cuz we could list scenarios all day long where the officer had better use force, and quick.

I teach that, in contrast to LEOs, nothing in the law requires a private citizen to use force, period. I guess I need to drop the contrast part.

A distinction without a difference, I think. A peace officer is never statutorily required to use force. A non peace officer is never required to use force.

People tend to think LEO's operate under a separate set if laws for using force, and that is not the case. The laws allowing use of force and deadly force to protect persons and property are exactly the same for LEO's and non-LEO's. LEO's and non LEO's may use force to effect an arrest, and the same laws apply. LEO's can use deadly force to effect an arrest in situations not applicable to non-LEO's.

[switch]

Actually, private citizens may have more power than LEOs - we can shoot fleeing burglars and they cannot. :)

I agree, they do not have more leniency under the law to use deadly force, however, the prosecutors, courts, generally will NOT hold them to the same standard they impose on a non-LEO. If we 'accidently' shoot an innocent bystander, we are much more likely to be prosecuted.

[jbarn]

Actually, private citizens may have more power than LEOs - we can shoot fleeing burglars and they cannot. :)

private citizens MAY be justified in using deadly force to prevent a person from fleeing with stolen property immediately after committing a burglary. There is no law giving blanket justification to shoot fleeing burglars at all, and especially if they are not escaping with stolen property.

That said, LEO's have EXACTLY that same authority.

I agree, they do not have more leniency under the law to use deadly force, however, the prosecutors, courts, generally will NOT hold them to the same standard they impose on a non-LEO. If we 'accidently' shoot an innocent bystander, we are much more likely to be prosecuted.

I disagree. Do you have any evidence to support that?

[switch]

There is federal case law that says LEO's cannot shoot fleeing burglars. TX law says we can if they are fleeing w/property and there is no other way to recover it w/o exposing someone to death or serious injury.

I'm just observing cases reported in the news. What I would consider 'questionable' shootings - non-LEO's are prosecuted, LEOs are no-billed. Look at Zimmerman, would an LEO have been prosecuted in that case? OK, that's really not a good example, too political, still.... You may disagree.