TexasCHLforum.com

Morgan wrote:He's suggesting you were being catty.

Oh not me...He was quoting boomerang...

I guess this is one way for a new poster to introduce themselves...

pbwalker wrote:I guess this is one way for a new poster to introduce themselves...

Like a bull in a china shop!

pbwalker wrote:

Morgan wrote:He's suggesting you were being catty.

Oh not me...He was quoting boomerang...

I guess this is one way for a new poster to introduce themselves...

I'm sorry, yes.... LOL He was saying boomerang is being catty.

Quote: "I'm sorry, yes.... LOL He was saying boomerang is being catty."

Correct, and I believe he was...

But he DID answer your question, and you have seemed to ignore the answer.

The act of the criminal grabbing your gun triggers (pardon the pun) a reaction from you. If that reaction falls under the deadly force provisions, then you're justified in using deadly force. There isn't anything hypothetical about most situations that can't be answered with the law. If the (insert whatever wild or mild hypothetical situation you care to contrive) makes you feel deadly force is legally justified, then deadly force is legally justified. You may have to PROVE that.

Heck, I could come up with a scenario where it may be justified to shoot a 5 year old... but it wouldn't be likely to HAPPEN.

Morgan wrote:But he DID answer your question, and you have seemed to ignore the answer.

The act of the criminal grabbing your gun triggers (pardon the pun) a reaction from you. If that reaction falls under the deadly force provisions, then you're justified in using deadly force. There isn't anything hypothetical about most situations that can't be answered with the law. If the (insert whatever wild or mild hypothetical situation you care to contrive) makes you feel deadly force is legally justified, then deadly force is legally justified. You may have to PROVE that.

Heck, I could come up with a scenario where it may be justified to shoot a 5 year old... but it wouldn't be likely to HAPPEN.

Well, not exactly.

Your perceptions of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy need to be in accordance with those of a reasonable man to fall within the law. A person who sees a deadly threat where there is none and responds with deadly force will find himself living rent free in the greybar hotel for quite some time to come.

That's what I said... "you may have to prove that." :)

Morgan wrote:That's what I said... "you may have to prove that." :)

You need to prove more than that you felt threatened. To stay out of the greybar hotel, you need to prove that your perception was objectively reasonable.

This is a critical distinction that is often misunderstood.

I understand... That's what I meant but I agree, I didn't say it well. Thanks for clarifying for the people who read it.