dihappy wrote:Well, as of Sept 1, you dont have to retreat when in your home, car, or business. Not just walking in public.
That is wrong. You do not have to retreat from
any place you have a right to be.
Here is a little lesson I wrote up;
Under the new law, if the person unlawfully and with force attempted to enter your home, business or vehicle or attempted to remove you from those places unlawfully and with force, then the belief that your need to immediately use force is presumed. The retreat issue is changed to state that IF you are in a place you have a right to be, there is no requirement to retreat prior to using deadly force if the other conditions of using deadly force are met.
9.31 (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
…………SAME AS BEFORE
9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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 actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used
As you can see, the majority of the castle doctrine has to do with the presumption for reasonable belief. Below is the only part of 9.32 that has anything to do with retreat, the continuation of 9.32
c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
dihappy wrote:I still dont think they law will protect you just cuz you "thought" someone was going to hurt you and you have some medical problems which keep you from defending yourself properly.
Who knows, that is something that would be very intersting to see in a trial.
I mean, i dont imagine a jury charging you if you were on a walker, crutches, or a wheelchair. But if you can walk and dont look like a 90lb weakling then you may have a hard time getting the jury to take your side.
The law is written so as to consider the situation from the POV of the person using Deadly force. A person with a degenerative muscle disease will have a "reasonable belief" that DF was immediately necessary much sooner than a healthy martial arts expert.
