Threat of Deadly Force - Update request from 2006 thread

[Hoi Polloi]

In response to the Road Rage Witnessed thread, user BTin linked this 2006 discussion entitled If you can't shoot it, don't show it! I'm curious: has there been any change in the laws regarding the narrow and broad interpretations or is it still just as convoluted as it was back in 2006?

It was a fascinating thread and I very much appreciate the discussion on when the threat of deadly force is justified. That thread had people as diverse as a law professor, assistant DAs, LEOs, DPS attorneys, a DPS instructor, and more all weighing in on when one is justified in threatening deadly force (ie displaying one's concealed firearm) and they fell into two camps. The broad view camp said it is sometimes justified even when the use of deadly force is not yet justified to the extent that it is a reasonable escalation to threaten that deadly force will be used while the narrow view camp said one may only threaten to use the level of force that one is already justified to use. There was no case law to make a decisive opinion, the one case being cited throwing out the issue of justification as a moot point, and that decision going unappealed. I think I got that all correct--I'm going from memory. So has anything changed since then?

[Charles L. Cotton]

The short version is McDermott was wrongly decided, but there is no new case law on point. I spend a good deal of time on Texas Penal Code §9.04 and the [/i]McDermott[/i] case in my CHL classes. It needs to be clarified legislatively, but it's always outweighed by the need to pass other things. One day it will get done, but I can't say when other than after the high profile (a/k/a high emotion) bills are passed.

Even now, with a properly presented case by a good attorney, the defendant should win, so long as they meet the requirements of Tex. Penal Code §9.04.

Chas.

[Hoi Polloi]

Thanks for the update, Charles!