TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:Does pepper spray in the eyes make it hard to see? I wonder what would happen if you killed a bystander by mistake?

PUCKER wrote:So, for those who've been sprayed by pepper spray, has anyone *not* been affected/adversely affected by it? I've heard/read about some folks not being affected by it. I wonder if one's immunity/love of all things spicy/hot has any bearing on this?

PUCKER wrote:So, for those who've been sprayed by pepper spray, has anyone *not* been affected/adversely affected by it? I've heard/read about some folks not being affected by it. I wonder if one's immunity/love of all things spicy/hot has any bearing on this?

Reason I ask, I'm a pepperhead kind of guy, habaneros are one of my favorite things - one day while sauteeing a nice side dish of habaneros and onions my wife was quite overcome by the fumes, as in she had to immediately get out of the house! The aroma/fumes were perfume to me however. Took a full day to air out the house. Whenever I handle habaneros I don't wear gloves, I prefer to "suffer" for my art, so-to-speak. Usually my hands have a slight burn for several days, it's pretty interesting, to say the least.

I've had fresh jalapeno juice in the eye before, it wasn't too pleasant, but that was before my adventure into "pepperdom."

BTW - I'm not at ALL volunteering to be pepper-sprayed, just wondered if there were folks who have been sprayed and then got the urge to eat spicy food!

Beiruty wrote:Say someone jumped me punched me for no reason, or reason known only to the assailant. Or, Used/Wanted to use an incapacitating force but not deadly force like a tazer or Peperspray. Say, I had I had quick reaction and I was able to draw and shoot the assailant in the legs or the arm. i.e. non fatal shot?

Is my reaction justified under the law ?

Section 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 [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] 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.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [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 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 [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].

(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.

...was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

dewayneward wrote:SeamusTx and Keith,

the way I am reading this, if someone gets in "your space" and tells you he is gonna pound you, it looks like you aren't justified in shooting from the way I am reading everything.

...was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

I know there are the other things like unlawful entry, breaking into cars, etc. but it is 2pm and I am on the street and some nutjob says that he is gonna smoke me in the face and starts rearing back to do it, It looks like I would be legal trouble if I were to pull my gun. I remember reading somewhere (and this may be from the MO laws as I visit there from time to time), but if it 2 on 1 or something like that then you have a chance in the court room.

I get the whole judge by 12 then carried by 6, but if some dude comes up telling me that I was the guy that slept with his wife or some other kookie thing, it looks like I am not allowed to defend myself with a gun (thankfully I have a background in martial arts). I also get that if some old lady wants to hit me with her cane or something, that wold be "dumb" to do something. I am talking about where you would be equally matched or less than equally matched against a person or persons.

dewayneward wrote:snip............

I get the whole judge by 12 then carried by 6, but if some dude comes up telling me that I was the guy that slept with his wife or some other kookie thing, it looks like I am not allowed to defend myself with a gun (thankfully I have a background in martial arts). I also get that if some old lady wants to hit me with her cane or something, that wold be "dumb" to do something. I am talking about where you would be equally matched or less than equally matched against a person or persons.