The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
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.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.
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".Ruark wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:28 amBy 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.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.
^^^ This ^^^Beiruty wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:46 amNo, 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".Ruark wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:28 amBy 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.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.
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?Beiruty wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:46 amNo, 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".Ruark wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:28 amBy 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.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.
That being said, as CHL/LTC folks, all the time, we cannot stress enough the value and duty to deescalate any charged encounter.
In your case, as mentioned earlier, "the disparity of force" rule does apply and if the defendant (you, if charged) can raise this rule and the fear of life rule too.Ruark wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:53 amOf 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?Beiruty wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:46 amNo, 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".Ruark wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:28 amBy 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.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.
That being said, as CHL/LTC folks, all the time, we cannot stress enough the value and duty to deescalate any charged encounter.
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."
I would suggest you reread my earlier post as it described a scenario between an older person and a younger person. Also understand you are on an Internet forum asking legal questions that you really should be asking an attorney. If you prescribe to one of the prepaid legal services, most will have a way for you to contact them and ask questions to an actual attorney who specializes in Texas self defense laws.Ruark wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:53 amOf 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?Beiruty wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:46 amNo, 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".Ruark wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:28 amBy 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.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.
That being said, as CHL/LTC folks, all the time, we cannot stress enough the value and duty to deescalate any charged encounter.
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."
My second-best option is a "TXCHLforum" folder in my web browser bookmarks file where I store the URLs of posts here that I find important or worth referring to later. I give the bookmark a "friendly" name that briefly describes the subject. Steve's post definitely was bookmarked in that folder.Mike S wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:03 am Excellent breakdown of the OPs question & relevant statutes, Steve!
This forum really needs a "bookmark" function!
