disparity of force in retreat

Aguila Blanca said:
Yes, it is.

If I have not requested that my posterior be kicked, then someone attempting to do so is assaulting me. I am a senior citizen. ANY physical assault on my person carries with it the absolute probability that I will suffer serious bodily harm, and also carries with it a reasonable possibility that I may suffer death. Any physical assault on my person IS a life threatening situation, and I am therefore legally entitled to protect myself by whatever means I choose.

Why should I have to submit to an arse kicking because somebody else is having a bad day?

I agree with Aguilia here, this in part was the sentiment behind my original question. It seems reasonable that if one did not provoke the fight as well as making an attempt to get away then they should be legally entitled to protect themselves by whatever means.... and anything can happen in a fist fight even with someone of equal size or ability.

However, Frank is very correct regarding the legal reality. Up front it seems frustrating to have to go through so much understanding of the responsible use of force, and very disconcerting to read about what folks go thru to clear themselves of prosecution in a rightful shoot. A little bit of me was kinda hoping to find some laws protecting folks in this scenario. But is is a good discussion here.
 
Koda94:

Many years ago a person was screaming and yelling at me that he was going to pound me to a pulp (for no reason known to me).

As he was advancing towards me, I turned enough to allow him to see I was armed (open carry)...he all of a sudden had better things to do elsewhere.

I am a firm believer in the deterrent effect of an openly carried pistol. I still open carry every time I go to town.

In over 43 years of carry I have never had a situation get to the point I needed to actually pull my carry out of it's holster.

The "good shot" is irrelevant if you never actually have to fire the weapon, and menacing is not a concern because with an openly carried weapon, you are not displaying with the intent to intimidate until you actually draw the weapon out of it's holster. see ORS 166.250(3)
 
hermannr:

I'm not against OC but honestly it isn't an option for me legal or not. The only time it works for me is on the hottest of days hiking or backpacking outside of city limits and beyond.

I understand your point about OC being a deterrent, it makes sense against an unarmed aggressor... most of the time. What if it does not take the thug buy surprise and he's close enough...?

So many scenarios, so little time. I'm thinking of maybe a hothead sociopath that maybe thinks you cut him off in traffic, or stole his parking spot at the mall... maybe you did, maybe you didn't either way a fight is not justifiable. Next thing you know he's in your face.
 
Revolver1 said:
Bottom Line Civilian or Police, lethal force can ONLY be used AGAINST lethal force!
NOT true.

As has already been stated, lethal (deadly) force may be used in self-defense when you fear death or serious bodily injury from an attack. Such attack does not necessarily have to be by an assailant armed with an overtly lethal weapon.
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
Isn't deadly force in defense of property still a go in Texas?
Only under narrow and defined circumstances when specific conditions have been satisfied (Texas Penal Code Section 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.
Note that a reasonable person standard applies.
 
Originally Posted by terzmo
life threatening situation is a good rule to follow...taking a life for an arse kicking is not justified

Yes, it is.

If I have not requested that my posterior be kicked, then someone attempting to do so is assaulting me. I am a senior citizen. ANY physical assault on my person carries with it the absolute probability that I will suffer serious bodily harm, and also carries with it a reasonable possibility that I may suffer death. Any physical assault on my person IS a life threatening situation, and I am therefore legally entitled to protect myself by whatever means I choose.

Why should I have to submit to an arse kicking because somebody else is having a bad day?

You had be very convincing that you thoroughly believed you were going to die and with your last act, pulled the trigger. I also am a "senior citizen" and just because someone punches Me, I cannot lawfully draw and fire unless I want a jail sentence. You can think of it anyway You care, you have more responsibilty carrying that firearm than you think or believe
 
terzmo said:
You had be very convincing that you thoroughly believed you were going to die and with your last act, pulled the trigger.
No, I don't. All I have to do is be convincing that I had a reasonable fear that I might be killed OR SERIOUSLY INJURED.

The issue is not whether or not I would actually have been killed or seriously injured, the issue under the law of (I believe) every state is whether or not I feared death or serious bodily harm, and then whether or not that fear was reasonable. Part and parcel of the reasonableness of that fear is what I know. If I keep a stash of old magazines with articles by writers like Mas Ayood describing how people have been killed by a single punch, and I can recall news incidents like the soccer referee who just died as a result of a single punch from a 17-year old player, I think I have a pretty good chance of showing that my fear was (for me) reasonable.

For someone who lives in a vacuum and never pays attention to stories such as that and who is blissfully unaware that a single punch or kick can kill you, maybe then the situation would be different.

Many MANY years ago I was in Army Basic Training from November through January. They closed the post for Christmas and sent us all home. For me that was a 14-hour bus trip, followed by a 2-hour train ride, followed by a cab to home. The cabby at the train station asked me if I would mind sharing the fare with another passenger whose destination was between the train station and my parents' home. I agreed -- why would a poor Private E-1 object to saving a couple of bucks? But when we got to the neighborhood where the other fare was going, all of a sudden he couldn't remember the exact address or what the house looked like. We drove around for about fifteen minutes (at 02:30 a.m.) while this doofus played games. Then, at a stop sign, he opened the door and bolted -- without paying.

Cabbie called dispatch, dispatch called the cops, black-and-white rolled up. The first thing the cop said when he saw the cabbie was "Jesus, Bob, you didn't hit him, did you?"

Turns out the cabbie was a Marine Reserve hand-to-hand combat instructor at the nearby reserve training center, and because of his training and experience a punch from him would be considered assault with a deadly weapon. (At least, that's what the cop said.) They never found the deadbeat. The cabbie, recognizing that I was a trainee on the way home, took pity on me and turned off the meter. I got my ride right to the door, for free. But that's all part of my personal history that enters into how my belief structure was formulated.
 
Back
Top