To report or not to report...

[Cruentus]

Okay, but how do you DETERMINE that lethal force is required?

That's why I posted these 3 rules:

1. Aggreesor had the means to kill or mame you
2. The aggressor had the opportunity to mame or kill you
3. The aggressor has shown intent to mame or kill you.[verbally or physically ]

Following these 3 rules are a good way to determine if lethal force is required, especially from a legal standpoint.

If you yell at me from accross a parking lot, "I am going to kill you!" but that is all you do (no gun or anything like that brandished) I can't just run accross the lot and stab you to death because you fit rule #3, the"intent" to kill me. You didn't have the means to kill me from accross the lot w/o a gun, nor did you have the opportunity. Lethal force, therefore, would not be justified.

But as you say, the laws are not perfect, or even good when determining the "situation." So we need to keep in mind first and foremost, that if we use lethal force, we have to be able to justify this morally to ourselves, and live with our decisions. 2ndly, we need to be able to justify the above 3 rules in a court of law.

That, it seems, is the best we can do.:asian:

 

[jwreck]

Originally posted by lvwhitebir
From what I've read, that only applies to defense of home. If you're attacked in your home, must states say you don't have to retreat. Otherwise you do. It would be interesting if Texas or any state says that you never have to be able to retreat. Can you verify this for me?

If true, that means that if I'm on the 3rd floor of a building and someone screams up to me from the ground that he's coming up to kill me with his gun (immediate threat with a lethal weapon) that I have the legal right to shoot him where he stands. I have a hard time understand why that would be true.

WhiteBirch

Actually, Texas law is very liberal when it comes to use of force, even deadly force. Not too long ago a guy in Houston shot six kids for stealing the spinners of his wheels (5 sitting in the car, one actually stealing the spinners). I'll find the laws for you. Here, even criminal mischief at night is just cause to use deadly force. So you could be shot for wrapping someone's house. Something to think about.

 

[Nightingale]

when I was attacked, I didn't call the police. mainly because it didn't even occur to me til later!

 

[jwreck]

§ 9.21. Public Duty

(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.

§ 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against 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 the deadly force 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 uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

Note, even though it is stated that "if a reasonable person would not have retreated", that is taken very liberally and is not considered a duty to retreat, mostly bacause of other instances when deadly force is authorized.

§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So yes, if you steal something, I can shoot you in the back while you're running away.

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by jwreck Note, even though it is stated that "if a reasonable person would not have retreated", that is taken very liberally and is not considered a duty to retreat, mostly bacause of other instances when deadly force is authorized. So yes, if you steal something, I can shoot you in the back while you're running away.

Well okay but is it NECESSARY? I mean, can't you replace that which I've stolen? Probably yes, mebbe no. But why didn't you at least try to hit me in the leg to stop me from running and I can learn my lesson sitting in jail? Running away makes me what kind of threat to you that you need to justify killing me? So I don't steal from you again? Lock up your stuff tighter dude. Make it harder for me next time. I think there'd be little chance that I'd return to steal from you again...especially if I know I almost got caught the last time... A lot simpler I would think. Now if I were kidnapping your wife or kid then yeah, because you don't know if I'm going to let them live or not right?

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

And again can we reasonably assume that MOST people would KNOW when it's necessary??
A guy pulling a gun on me can be construde as a necessary time to use lethal force before he uses it on me. But how can I be sure that he intended to shoot it and not use it to intimidate me with it? I can't be sure thus have to defend my life to the best of my ability...but does it mean I have to KILL him to ensure that?
Thus my post (above) stating the "Oath of Peace". Nobody wants to kill anybody...except for psychotics and morons and a-holes. Nobody I mean by average everyday citizens that abide by the law and go about our daily lives with no thoughts/desires to hurt anyone else...so long as they don't try to hurt us.
Only a extreme few of us (per capita) are trained to quickly assess a "life-threatening" situation (I admit I am NOT one of those "trained") and further still few of us are "experienced" to quickly assess the same...(of those I am). But at the same time I cannot assume the course of actions of another person simply because they branish a weapon or speak/act of an intent to kill/harm me.
I can only react to the situation as it presents itself and hope the outcome will be in my favor. So far it has been, as I'm alive and typing this post.
We are justified in learning self-defense techinques via guns, MA and other methods. Knowing when to use them is IMO the key. Other wise we're gonna end up shooting every poor shmuck wearing a long black trench coat walking down the street towards us, because he looks "lean and mean and big and bad and pointing that gun at me!" (Lynyrd Skynyrd).

It's a moral question we each have to ask ourselves. Can we live with it...WILL we live with it? The taking of a life I feel is only necessary when it will prevent the loss of another life. Reporting it is another matter... if you don't have a good place to hide the body...

 

[jwreck]

I'm simply pointing out what the law says you can do, not what you should do, or even what I would do. However, know that shooting someone in the leg still constitutes deadly force, so that argument is basically moot.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by jwreck
So yes, if you steal something, I can shoot you in the back while you're running away.

Except where it says this...

and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Pretty confusing though! The lawmakers definitely left wiggle room for the court. I guess that's good, because it leaves your state of mind open and probably helps to keep you on the non-deadly-force side of things, just in case.

From the studying I've done, in general, lethal force is allowed if:
1. the attacker has a weapon drawn (not necessary for you to be certain he's going to really use it or that it's even real because by the time you assess either, you could be dead)
or
2. there are multiple attackers.

Of course, the other self-defense rules apply (immediate and no escape possible).

WhiteBirch

 

[jwreck]

Well, the example I was given in a class taught by a state trooper was that if a 6 year old kid steals a candybar from a store and goes running out the door, accrding to the law he could be shot. AGain, not what should happen, just what could happen. Also of note, this is just criminal law, I'm sure a civil suit would come out differently.