PC §9.21 in Course Outline

[sjfcontrol]

So the Course Outline starts it's discussion of Chapter 9 with section 9.21, "Public Duty"

§ 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by
Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor
reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law,
by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental
tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is
used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect
property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by
virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is
specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful
conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to
retreat before using it.
(d) The justification afforded by this section is available
if the actor reasonably believes:
(1) the court or governmental tribunal has
jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or
governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is
unlawful; or
(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a
public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though
the servant exceeds his lawful authority.

As near as I can tell, this entire section deals only with public officials or LEOs, not us mere citizens.I don't understand what we're supposed to be teaching. Now it is possible the last section (in blue) is applicable to a civilian who is asked to assist a LEO, Is that what DPS is referring to? I would guess that THAT would be extremely rare. In fact, I would think that a request for assistance from a LEO would open up some serious liability issues for the department.

The first entry in the outline states "No legal duty to protect against, or prevent, a crime." Again, are they referring to LEOs? Or civilians? And I don't see that in the text of the section.

The second entry in the outline states "Last resort." Don't see that in the text either.

I'm at a loss as to what they are trying to get across from this section.

[Tic Tac]

I don't know what's in the new lesson plan but I used to teach with the example of a cop yelling "grab him!" when you're an univolved third party up to that point. If you grab the person fleeing, you are justified (not guilty of assault) based on this defense.

It helps me to understand the first part if I step out of the framework of force, and consider conduct in general as the statute says. Even if a court order is flawed, there's a justification defense if you comply with the court order in good faith.