Deadly Force in REsponse to Assualt

GrillKing · Post by **GrillKing** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:35 am

stroo wrote: So tactically, in a public place, if I can retreat and avoid a fight, I will whether required by statute or not.

There is nothing to be gained, IMHO, by staying in a fight when not necessary. My goal is to protect myself and my family and if retreat is a viable option and the best way to accomplish that, I'll take it. Just because I have a right under the law, doesn't mean I have to exercise it. If you successfully retreat, the fight is over. If you don't retreat, the fight may last for months or years.

RioShooter · Post by **RioShooter** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:17 pm

If I understand this situation correctly, I must take a beating if my life is not in danger. I too, am somewhat physically limited. If I am lying on the ground getting kicked and punched, I cannot use my CCW until I feel my life slipping away. Hopefully, I'll I enough strength to pull my weapon before I become unconscious.

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:27 pm

RioShooter wrote:If I am lying on the ground getting kicked and punched,

Being struck in the chest or head is deadly force, and you can respond with deadly force to protect yourself from what is attempted murder at that point.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:01 pm

GrillKing wrote: There is nothing to be gained, IMHO, by staying in a fight when not necessary. My goal is to protect myself and my family and if retreat is a viable option and the best way to accomplish that, I'll take it. Just because I have a right under the law, doesn't mean I have to exercise it. If you successfully retreat, the fight is over. If you don't retreat, the fight may last for months or years.

My philosophy exactly.

If I can retreat from a confrontation in safety (of both myself and others), I certainly will attempt to do so. Not only is it MUCH easier to end the situation that way, but even if the BG presses forward and forces you to take stronger action, you can truthfully testify to the fact that you did everything you could to resolve things WITHOUT using force.

And any witnesses who happen to be present will have seen what you did, so there is a likelihood that they will corroborate your account.

To me, the best thing about the Castle Doctrine law is the civil immunity provision.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:29 am

RioShooter wrote:If I understand this situation correctly, I must take a beating if my life is not in danger. I too, am somewhat physically limited. If I am lying on the ground getting kicked and punched, I cannot use my CCW until I feel my life slipping away. Hopefully, I'll I enough strength to pull my weapon before I become unconscious.

Not true. In additional to deadly force includes Serious Bodily Injury, not just injury that can kill.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:31 am

seamusTX wrote:
RioShooter wrote:If I am lying on the ground getting kicked and punched,
Being struck in the chest or head is deadly force, and you can respond with deadly force to protect yourself from what is attempted murder at that point.

- Jim

It MIGHT be deadly force Jim. It is not always, and depends on the circumstances. There is no law or case law that says getting struck in the chest or head is always deadly force.

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:00 am

txinvestigator wrote:
seamusTX wrote:Being struck in the chest or head is deadly force, ...
It MIGHT be deadly force Jim. It is not always, and depends on the circumstances. There is no law or case law that says getting struck in the chest or head is always deadly force.

In the scenario described above (a disabled person being stomped), I think any Texas jury would consider being struck in the head deadly force. It worked for Gordon Hale.

- Jim

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:15 am

seamusTX wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
seamusTX wrote:Being struck in the chest or head is deadly force, ...
It MIGHT be deadly force Jim. It is not always, and depends on the circumstances. There is no law or case law that says getting struck in the chest or head is always deadly force.
In the scenario described above (a disabled person being stomped), I think any Texas jury would consider being struck in the head deadly force. It worked for Gordon Hale.

- Jim

I agree Jim, but you made a blanket statement that getting struck in the chest or head is deadly force, and that is just not true in all cases.

player_twister · Post by **player_twister** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:57 pm

It MIGHT be deadly force Jim. It is not always, and depends on the circumstances. There is no law or case law that says getting struck in the chest or head is always deadly force

It's deadly force as far as I am concerned. Some of you may be like superman, but I am physicaly challenged. I'm not going to allow ANYONE to hit me, bottom line. Been there, done that, was out of work for 3 months. Wasn't pretty. I Will NEVER allow a Bigger person to strike again.

casingpoint · Post by **casingpoint** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:07 pm

"Being struck in the chest or head is deadly force"

Precisely the position of the prosecutor in the recent Jena Six case. What's the difference to a victim between being kicked in the head in a non-lethal versus lethal manner. That's a very fine line indeed.

Jumping track, while there may be no duty to retreat, doing so can be an effective legal measure of the necessity for self defense.

Bottom line, if someone is doing something that will cause you to lose the ability to defend yourself, you are justified. Don't wait until they render you unabled. Then the other guy will be on trail and not you.