Does the law actually give permission to kill?

[JohnKSa]

The topic title is something of an attention getter, but there is a real question behind it.

The law gives a person the legal right to use deadly force in self-defense when the proper criteria are satisfied.

BUT, is that the same thing as explicitly giving permission to kill?

Even though deadly force CAN kill, it's not a sure thing by any means. In fact, I've seen numbers indicating that shooting someone with a handgun carries less than 20% chance of killing them.

So is the wording carefully chosen? Were the lawmakers really trying to avoid giving explicit permission to kill?

Here is 9.32 slightly reworked--see if it reads the same way to you that it does to me.

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in killing another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes that killing the other person is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who kills a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

My take is that the ambiguity (using the term "deadly force" instead of explicitly using the word "kill") is intentional. By not explicitly stating that the defender may kill an attacker, the law drives home the idea that the application of deadly force must immediately stop when the attack is obviously broken off or clearly neutralized. That the goal of the law is crime prevention, not criminal elimination.

If the legislators had written the law to say that a defender can kill an attacker who attempts to commit a serious violent crime against the defender, this opens the possibility that a defender could legally finish off an attacker even after the attack has ended.

Looking at this from the other end, it also would make it very clear that one should NOT admit to trying to kill an attacker since the law doesn't explicitly give a defender that right. (You're not given permission to kill, you're given permission to use deadly force.) Or, said slightly differently, using the term "deadly force" makes it clear that the law is affirming your legal right to a MEANS (deadly force) of deterring crime, not providing you with a GOAL (death of the attacker).

This came up on another forum where a posting argued that the difference between saying you were shooting to stop and saying you were shooting to kill was pure semantics and not really relevant or important.

Ideas?

[txinvestigator]

The topic title is something of an attention getter, but there is a real question behind it.

The law gives a person the legal right to use deadly force in self-defense when the proper criteria are satisfied.

BUT, is that the same thing as explicitly giving permission to kill?

No. In fact, the law does not give permission or a legal "right" to use deadly force. It gives a justification to use deadly force in the means of a Defense to Prosecution.

The law gives those justifications to use DF. If the person dies is irrelevent to DF justification. Your points about making a "finishing blow" are well made.

This is going to be a long thread in my 9.02 thread.

[KBCraig]

My take is that the ambiguity (using the term "deadly force" instead of explicitly using the word "kill") is intentional. By not explicitly stating that the defender may kill an attacker, the law drives home the idea that the application of deadly force must immediately stop when the attack is obviously broken off or clearly neutralized. That the goal of the law is crime prevention, not criminal elimination.

I agree. This is my interpretation as well. If it were truly permission to kill, rather than to stop the act which justified use of DF, then you could go hunt someone down later and kill them.

If the legislators had written the law to say that a defender can kill an attacker who attempts to commit a serious violent crime against the defender, this opens the possibility that a defender could legally finish off an attacker even after the attack has ended.

As one of my instructors put it when explaining "shoot to stop": "When the entrance wound, exit wound, and hole in the floor line up, that's one shot too many."

This came up on another forum where a posting argued that the difference between saying you were shooting to stop and saying you were shooting to kill was pure semantics and not really relevant or important.

I'd say that person doesn't have a firm grasp on the difference between defense and retribution.

Kevin

[JohnKSa]

In fact, the law does not give permission or a legal "right" to use deadly force. It gives a justification to use deadly force in the means of a Defense to Prosecution.

Good point. Somehow I hadn't quite made that jump.

I guess that the Grand Jury can "short circuit" that to some extent which ALMOST makes it the same as a legal right in practice in many cases.

I'd say that person doesn't have a firm grasp on the difference between defense and retribution.

Right. As nearly as I can tell, the minute that the defender makes it a matter of killing the attacker (retaliating) vs stopping the attack (defending), they've gone too far.

[sdmahr]

Deadly force is merely the means by which we nuetralize the threat. Shoot until the threat is nuetralized....nothing more, nothing less. Remember: 1. Center Mass 2. Center Mass 3. Evaluate - Nuetral? - Yes, STOP - No, Resume (location dependent on your training)

Nowhere are we "Licensed to Kill".