defending your self from force.

In Texas there is no duty to retreat. That was taken care of in 2007 when they changed the law, and added the castle doctrine, and lawful right to be laws. (You do not have to flee if you are somewhere you have a lawful right to be. You may use deadly force to defend yourself without having to attempt retreat.)

Also they made it legal to carry a hangun locked and loaded in ones car as long as it concealed, and on body as long as in the car, or from your place of residence to your car is legal.
 
One thing I've wondered is the definition of "great/grievous bodily harm" when it comes to use of deadly force to defend yourself. Where is the line drawn? At what point is enough bodily harm done to count? A black eye? A lost tooth? A broken jaw? Broken ribs/limbs?
 
One thing I've wondered is the definition of "great/grievous bodily harm" when it comes to use of deadly force to defend yourself. Where is the line drawn?
Click to expand...

Usually this will be interpreted by your state's case law on the subject (past cases that revolved around this issue) or sometimes it will be specifically defined in statute.

For example, Section 1.07 of the Texas Penal Code defines "bodily injury" as "physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition," and it defines "serious bodily injury" as "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."

So looking at some of your examples:
A black eye?
Click to expand...
So this is not a permanent disfigurement or likely to cause protracted loss of function. It also does not cause death - and while a black eye in and of itself does not create a substantial risk of death, a grown adult hitting you in the head certainly has that potential depending on the circumstances; but overall, probably not serious bodily injury under Texas law.

A broken jaw?
Click to expand...

Somebody is hitting you in the head hard enough to break bone. This can and has caused death. A broken jaw is also likely to cause "protracted loss of function." I think a good argument can be made that this is "serious bodily injury" under Texas law.


Of course, those are not authoritative answers that you can take to the bank; but they do explain how the court will try and answer the question of whether it was serious bodily injury under Texas law. And like everything, a lot will depend on the specific facts of your case. Your state may have a different way of defining that which changes when you can use it.
 
Last edited:
BartholmewRoberts: For example, Section 1.07 of the Texas Penal Code defines "bodily injury" as "physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition," and it defines "serious bodily injury" as "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."
Click to expand...

Texas is one of the states where deadly force can be used to protect property as well, even when no threat of serious bodily injury exists. The following Texas Statutes applies and is not limited to just one's own property. As has been previously stated, one needs to know exactly what the laws in their state are. A person from Texas in some other state that
used deadly force might very well not be within the law in the same situtation. So in 9.41 3(a) below, if he believes that the land or the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, and
this does not require that he be in fear of serious bodily injury before using deadly force, although it is mentioned in the section following it. But certainly nobody can utilize this information and apply it to any other state, even if they have a recipricoal agreement or unilateral one with Texas. I try to read the statutes of any other state I might travel in.

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.
 
Oysterboy: What about vandalism? Like breaking out car windows?

Also you said nighttime so what about daytime?
Click to expand...

Well what I quoted was the Texas Statute. More leeway is given for protecting property at night, in Texas it appears to me. I am not saying that this is right or wrong, just that the law in Texas does not require a person to be in fear of grave bodily injury or death before using deadly force. And this same person in another state, could face serious charges for using deadly force where the law is different. In the OP's posting the guy was in my opinion in fear of serious bodily injury or death because he fled to what he perceived a safe place, a police station. Of course people who don't agree with the laws in any state or free to move somewhere else, or work to have them changed. We as permit holders are have the obligation to know what they are where we live, I think.
 
As a Brit is difficult to comment on US Law - probably because I don't know anything about it!

As a former soldier who spent 6 years in Northern Ireland where the locals could be very hostile to us, I can emphathise with the 'gang bangers' scenario. We offered a simple phrase that it was 'better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6'.

What it means is that if you have that right to self defence using lethal force, then have the moral courage to shoot to kill in a confrontation where your life is on the line. Afterward stand up before 12 of your peers in court and say with conviction that you shot the other person to save your own life.
 
Texas is one of the states where deadly force can be used to protect property as well, even when no threat of serious bodily injury exists.
Click to expand...

Yes; I was trying to explain what constituted a "serious bodily injury" of the type that justified deadly force. I was using the Texas statute defining "serious bodily injury" to help show how courts might interpret that.

I'm not understanding why the Texas law on deadly force in defense of property is relevant to this thread? And incidentally, the part of Texas law that you quoted is Section 9.42 of the Penal Code, not Section 9.41 (which deals with non-deadly force to protect property).
 
Bartholmew Roberts: Yes; I was trying to explain what constituted a "serious bodily injury" of the type that justified deadly force. I was using the Texas statute defining "serious bodily injury" to help show how courts might interpret that.....
Click to expand...

Your right, my 9.42 not 9.41. In view of the discussion regarding serious bodily injury or fear of serious bodily injury as the basis for use of deadly force, I was merely pointing out that in some States, at least in Texas,
that deadly force may be used withiout one being in fear of serious bodily injury. I would venture to guess that probably a lot of people believe that
it should be required before deadly force be used in all cases. I won't take
either side of that, just try to understand the laws I must folllow where I
live or travel, pertaining to use of deadly force. :o
 
Just my two cents on this thread as a LEO. I 100% agree with the earlier poster on this thread about those extremely stupid CCW badges. Also, one thing you need to remember regarding multiple assailants and gang-bangers when dealing with them is that they are going to "lie like hell", even under oath, about what happened. Food for thought. Oh and one other small issue I have with this thread. Every LEO and criminal attorney knows about the Tennesee vs. Garner decision, it's taught in every law enforcement academy in the U.S. and I would assume, every law school as well.
 
Last edited:
Another thought... the prosecutor gets to decide what is reasonable and if his definition doesn't align with yours, 12 jurors get to decide and in many cases these folks wont be gun people and will know nothing about self defense and the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top