TexasCHLforum.com

There is no stand your ground deal in texas. I will review the laws, but thought there was a retreat when possible aspect - when it does not place you in a worse situation. The travon Martin deal had the stand your ground deal.

Backfire wrote:There is no stand your ground deal in texas. I will review the laws, but thought there was a retreat when possible aspect - when it does not place you in a worse situation. The travon Martin deal had the stand your ground deal.

Yes there is. It's called the Castle Law here and I can't remember the number. It basically says that I do not have to retreat as long as I am somewhere I legally have a right to be. Also, IIRC, even before this law was passed we did not have a duty to retreat from our own homes like some other states. This law expanded that right beyond the walls of our homes.

Try this: (last two sentences)

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. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Yes there it is - very Good thanks. Senate Bill 378 a "Stand Your Ground" clause. So how about that. Interesting. Still at all costs right people? Avoid a jury in determining reasonableness to use deadly force. If you make every attempt as was described in scenario 2 -to avoid deadly force. But i thank you for the information - this helps.

Backfire wrote:Yes there it is - very Good thanks. Senate Bill 378 a "Stand Your Ground" clause. So how about that. Interesting. Still at all costs right people? Avoid a jury in determining reasonableness to use deadly force. If you make every attempt as was described in scenario 2 -to avoid deadly force. But i thank you for the information - this helps.

Of course. You won't find too many or anyone here that would be so willing to take another's life without there being justification or it being the last or "only" choice. We just don't have to worry about it so much any more.

Again Thanks to All. It helps clarify.

clarionite wrote:The reason it's asked so much, and the reason everyone is confused is that the answer is "It Depends"

In addition to the factors you mention, and the articulation ability Jumping Frog mentioned, there is another point many people miss. We forget what the definition of deadly force is. This is a very complicated topic because there are some very vague definitions and some very specific definitions.

Use of a firearm is ALWAYS use of deadly force. This comes from section 1.07 which defines a deadly weapon as a firearm or other device. So it doesn't matter if it is a .22 from a NAA belt buckle derringer aimed at the lower leg, a .45 from a 1911 aimed at the head, or a round from a 75mm howitzer aimed anywhere close, it is use of deadly force.

But the very same section says it is ANYTHING that in its manner of use can cause serious bodily injury. And Section 9.01 confuses this just a little by redefining deadly force to be the use of anything capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. So, use of a firearm may not be quite as always as I first stated, but since it would be hard to argue that a firearm is not capable as indicated, it is probably still safe to say always. But the anything could include fists, legs or other personal weapons.

And one of the really important parts people forget when discussing this is the second half of the definition. Serious bodily injury is a term defined in the law. Section 1.07 says it is death, serious risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted impairment of or loss of any organ or bodily member. This is important because the law specifically says the other guy does not have to be trying to kill you, just seriously hurt you. The vague part is how protracted in the use of a member or organ and how serious must the disfigurement be.

My experience is that most courts will take broken bones as serious bodily injury (protracted impairment), as will most stabbings with knives. Clubs and similar weapons generally will be accepted as causing serious bodily injury also. So, if someone has a weapon in general, the courts will look at it as an attempt to commit serious bodily injury. But for personal weapons, you are going to need to show the injuries I think (again, from my experience). But, it doesn't have to be the serious injuries you show, just some injuries with more to come.

And all of this shows why the answer really is "it depends" and most cases are very gray areas.

srothstein wrote: But the very same section says it is ANYTHING that in its manner of use can cause seriouJs bodily injury. And Section 9.01 confuses this just a little by redefining deadly force to be the use of anything capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. . .

And all of this shows why the answer really is "it depends" and most cases are very gray areas.

Like sidewalks applied vigorously to the back of a person's head . . .

The answer to the question is actually more questions. When wondering if I can shoot someone the answers come in the following questions:
1- Do you feel your life is in jeopardy? if so, then shoot. Nothing in the penal code says only if the suspect has a weapon.

2- Will the District Attorney and Grand Jury feel that you acted in a reasonable manner?

The problem comes in that at the time of a shooting you will not have the time to consider these questions, you will have to act. The DA and Grand Jury will take all the time in world to second guess your decision you had to make in a nano second.

Clear as mud I know. But welcome to the world of shoot-don't shoot.

That is how i see it. If the mugger or showoff wants to impress his crowd of onlookers and decides to beat you to a pulp. When during the beatdown is your legal right to defend yourself from grave injury - a slam dunk? Take the guy in this video link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwoEh-ZwlCI

Well - the gang did not cause permanent damage to him - physically. What stinks - i mean really stinks in this, is that you are at the "mercy" or at the "good pleasure" of the animal attacking you with his fist how far he should take his "fun". It stinks, the young man in this video will never be the same emotionally. So if its a gun, knife or club - i beleive the path forward is clear. Do all you can to stop them, even a warning if time permits. Unfortunately most muggings are within 6 feet of you. In those cases, draw and live.

Backfire wrote:Question: Can you pull a weapon and shoot someone that physically attacks you with there fist only? When you know "its coming" do you have to wait until he pulls a knife, or weapon to draw and shoot the attacker? Do you have to endure a beatdown and let him go if he has no weapon and you two are comparable in size?

Anyone (like me) who has seen a victim who was beaten to death with naked fists can tell you that an assault with fists is PLENTY of reason to use deadly force. The legal standard ultimately boils down to the reasonable belief of the actor.

Read up: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.9.htm.

In short, use of force in self-defense or defense of another is justified if you feel that it is reasonably necessary to avoid imminent harm to yourself and/or another person. Use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of another is justified if you feel that it is reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

TPC Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:
......

• (46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

For the record, your skin is considered to be a bodily organ. An assault with fists has the potential to cause all of the above: death, serious permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of the function of ANY bodily member or organ. You are not required by law to wait and see if the fist breaks your skin or leaves a bruise, or breaks a bone, or ruptures your eyeball, or fractures your skull, or lacerates your liver or spleen—all of which are possible with a judiciously placed punch. If someone comes at you swinging his fists and you have a legal right to be where you are, and you have not provoked the attack, then you have a defense to prosecution if you shoot him.

This means that, while you are not normally allowed to shoot someone, you will have a defense to prosecution if you do have to shoot someone to protect yourself. But the main thing is that the law presumes you to be a reasonable person, and that a reasonable person might easily reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary even against a simple assault with bare hands. If you're a 6'4" 250 lb linebacker and someone swings at you, you may not feel that deadly force is necessary to stop the assault. But if you are a 60 year old mobility limited man like me, you might have a much lower threshold at which you reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary. But the point is that the call is mine or yours to make, not a prosecutor's, so long as we had a right to be where we were, and we did not provoke the assault. Furthermore, the law positively affirms (PC 9, subchapter B, 9.21 (c)) that "If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it."

So NO, you do not have to wait until a weapon is drawn by the bad guy before you respond with deadly force. An assault with bare hands is sufficient justification, if you reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary. HOWEVER, you may well be called before a grand jury to prove that a standard of reasonableness was met. In fact, unless the particulars of the shooting are just so overwhelmingly in your favor as to preclude a prosecutor's belief that a grand jury is necessary, you can pretty much count on it.

I am a 64 year old male that is 5'2" and about 190(yes I know I am overweight). I cannot run near as fast as I used to, and I cannot defend myself or my family as well as I used to be able to. Those are the reasons I got my CHL and so did my wife.

I will not be pounded on by anyone. I will stop the threat before it gets that far. I will not spend my elderly years crippled by not stopping the threat. Nor would I want my wife too. While we will not go looking for trouble, we will not be injured.

My $0.02

Marty

PUCKER wrote:A suggestion (or at least what I do) that gives you somewhat of an edge when using a public restroom - head for the stall - usually the door can be locked and you are not as "vulnerable" as when using the urinal.

...great advice...and be alert coming out, too...

speedsix wrote:

PUCKER wrote:A suggestion (or at least what I do) that gives you somewhat of an edge when using a public restroom - head for the stall - usually the door can be locked and you are not as "vulnerable" as when using the urinal.

...great advice...and be alert coming out, too...

+1 That's what I always do.

If someone "burst into" the restroom behind me I am going to quickly spin around and have my strong hand on my weapon, ready to draw, to see what the heck is going on. Most of the time that action alone should be enough of a deterent for thugs looking for an easy robbery.

Although I try to be aware of my surroundings and would hopefully notice someone casing me at a gas station. I constatly scan the area and I don't just walk into the restroom without pausing to look around first. Some may call it paranoia, I call it keeping myself and my family safe.