TexasCHLforum.com

I bet the chief knew exactly what he was saying. This was directed to the media. Everybody understands 'fear for your life'. They probably did fear for their life, but that was not the justification for what transpired. In the interest of simplicity, I think he left off the rest of the story regarding imminent death, grievous bodily harm, etc.

That was a simple explanation that even the media would understand that gets a point across. The media is incapable (with few exceptions) of understanding and correctly reporting on the use of force and use of deadly force as it is defined in the law. It is simply too involved a discussion for the news headline mentality.

If the chief were to try and give the legal justification for the events that occurred, he'd still be there a week from now explaining and answering typical media not thought through questions.

seamusTX wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:No where in there will I imply that I was in fear for my life...I would certainly be concerned, but no one will coerce me into admitting that I was in an emotional state in the determination that deadly force was necessary to "stop" a threat...

That's a good point. I think it's better to justify your actions with facts ("He was trying to kill me so I shot to stop him") than with emotions. Emotions can be and often are unreasonable.

Something else occurred to me: Do y'all remember the case some years ago where a Japanese college student went to the wrong house for a Halloween party, and the homeowner shot him? That man was in fear of his life, but he ended up being charged with and pleading guilty to a crime.

- Jim

Wrong. The guy was charged, but was acquitted in criminal court. Where he lost was in the civil suit that followed for "wrongful death". Check the facts.

txinvestigator wrote: Its not good enough for me Frankie. Nowhere in the use of force laws does that phrase appear.

The words, no. But the concept is alive and well.

If you are in reasonable fear for your life, due to an IMMINENT threat, you have by nature of that met all the requirements set forth in Texas law and the laws of just about every other state as well.

TX law is more verbose, because deadly force is sometimes justified in cases where you are NOT in fear for your life, and the law takes pains to cover those situations.

The "Fred" example is not valid, because Fred has taken no ACTION putting your life in danger. So any fear you might feel would be UNREASONABLE because there was no imminent threat.

Even if Fred is standing there saying, "I'm gonna kill you.", it doesn't mean he CAN or WILL. He has to take some ACTION in that direction before his threat becomes credible to a reasonable person.

Show me someone who was in reasonable fear for their life (who was not a criminal themselves of course) who got convicted.

GrillKing wrote:I bet the chief knew exactly what he was saying. This was directed to the media. Everybody understands 'fear for your life'. They probably did fear for their life, but that was not the justification for what transpired. In the interest of simplicity, I think he left off the rest of the story regarding imminent death, grievous bodily harm, etc.

That was a simple explanation that even the media would understand that gets a point across. The media is incapable (with few exceptions) of understanding and correctly reporting on the use of force and use of deadly force as it is defined in the law. It is simply too involved a discussion for the news headline mentality.

If the chief were to try and give the legal justification for the events that occurred, he'd still be there a week from now explaining and answering typical media not thought through questions.

Bingo! It got the main point across in a few words.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: you have by nature of that met all the requirements set forth in Texas law

3 more days for Texas, unless in your home.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Wrong. The guy was charged, but was acquitted in criminal court. Where he lost was in the civil suit that followed for "wrongful death". Check the facts.

You're right. Lucky guy. It only cost him $650,000 plus attorneys' fees.

Anyone who's interested, search for the name Yoshihiro Hattori for the story.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Show me someone who was in reasonable fear for their life (who was not a criminal themselves of course) who got convicted.

Harold Fish. But of course no one can prove they were in fear of their life; they can only say it. They could be and often are lying.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
If you are in reasonable fear for your life, due to an IMMINENT threat, you have by nature of that met all the requirements set forth in Texas law and the laws of just about every other state as well.

This is *exactly* what makes the "Fred" example valuable. You can use deadly force when there is an immediate threat to your life. Tacking "I feared for my life" to the front doesn't add *anything* to the equation at all. Saying"He came at me with a knife and I feared for my life" is as meaningful as saying "He came at me with a knife and I was sucking on a lollipop." It's the "He came at me with a knife" bit that's grounded in law. Your feeling regarding the events are as worthless, legally, as the lollipop.

The phrase "fear for your life" is used so frequently that many people believe fear alone is the standard for determining whether deadly force is justified under Texas law. Even police officers use the phrase. However, as txinvestigator first pointed out over a year ago, merely being in fear for your life does not justify the use of deadly force. The fear must be coupled with a reasonable belief that deadly force is “immediately necessary to prevent the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force� against you. (In fact, you can be stone cold fearless, but still be justified in using deadly force, if you “reasonably believe . . .�)

However, it is important to note that there is nothing wrong with making a statement that you were in fear for your life. If you didn’t say that, or something to that effect, I think many people might question whether you really believed deadly force was necessary. Further, it is not necessary to state that, “I reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the other from using unlawful deadly force against me." In fact, if you do say precisely that, a lot of folks are going to give you a quizzical look, to say the least. What is critically important is that you are able to articulate facts that make it clear that you reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary to protect yourself, or someone else.

Fear alone is not enough to use deadly force, but it is almost always present if one believes their life is in immediate jeopardy.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Fear alone is not enough to use deadly force, but it is almost always present if one believes their life is in immediate jeopardy.

Chas.

Thanks Charles, that is exactly my point. I can think of lots of times I would be in fear of my life, but not justified to use deadly force.

It is plain and simple not a valid justification, and we need to stop spreading that myth.

txinvestigator wrote: It is plain and simple not a valid justification, and we need to stop spreading that myth.

Getting in a car around here is reason for most folks to fear for their life.

Liberty wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: It is plain and simple not a valid justification, and we need to stop spreading that myth.

Getting in a car around here is reason for most folks to fear for their life.

I am using my husband's log on.

As a woman, my fear is greater, but I always think I need to jump into car to escape. Cannot imagine shooting a person unless he has been told several times to drop weapons. Police are paid to protect us. A police officer friend of mine (Barry) was killed 7 years in Houston. I knew his wife and 2 daughters. He cannot ever be my friend any more. Still miss him.

Reasonable force, post Katrina Houston...I need to really carry a gun..sad state of affairs for Galveston and Harris counties.

DIANN

Diann,

As a police officer, let me correct one incorrect statement you made. Police are not paid to protect YOU. They are paid to protect society in general and are not obligated legally to protect you. In reality, most officers will feel a personal sense of duty to attempt to protect you IF they are present, but it is highly unlikely they will be there when you need them. As the saying goes, there is never a cop around when you want one, right?

I strongly recommend you study the law. I cannot argue with your desire to escape if possible, and recommend it over shooting when feasible, but it is not legally required in many cases. It is not required at all after Sep. 1.

My other question is why have to ask him to drop his weapon several times? If you are pointing a weapon at him, and he has one pointed at you, and you tell him to drop it, are you going to drop yours when he says, "No, you drop yours"? If not, why expect him to drop his on the second or third request? If he does not comply the first time, and you still reasonably believe him to be an imminent threat (and I certainly would), why wait longer?

pakmcs wife

I can understand your desire to give a warning. I personally fear losing my advantage of surprise in order to save an aggressors life or give him/her another chance. If we are justified then we are justified. If the aggressor has decided to use threat great enough to justify our shooting then they are to the point no chance can be taken. I won't risk my life for a socially learned definition of what is fair. It took me some time to except that. If the situation has devolved to that point then it is past time to be concerned with what is fair or will make us feel justified. As was suggested, emotions have nothing to do with when to shoot. It is a mathematical equation and logical. Action and reaction. That is the way I see it anyway. The aggressor goes so far so I react and go so far. They go beyond what I think will allow me or an innocent to remain safe then I do what I must to stop them. And then the responding officers can watch me cry like a child and/or lose my last meal or whatever. I would never shoot because of a fear of anything. I would shoot to stop that person that has gone to far and I was certain, in my mind, he/she was going to harm me or an innocent. That is just how I thought it thru and I thought maybe you could think about how I worked it out. It is just my opinion.

pakmc wrote:
Cannot imagine shooting a person unless he has been told several times to drop weapons.

I've never been involved in a deadly force encounter, thank God.

But I would urge you to re-think your statement above.

From what I have read, in real world situations, things tend to happen fast. Very fast. I would seriously doubt if there would be opportunity to issue a warning in most cases, let alone multiple warnings.

Your intent to warn a perp that you may shoot could well get you killed. Their reaction to your warning might well be to simply shoot you as quickly as they can.

If someone is threatening me with a weapon, especially a gun, I will most likely shoot them at the earliest opportunity, provided I even GET an opportunity. I feel no obligation to warn them. Protecting my life is paramount at that point.

They are the ones who made the choice to threaten me with a weapon. If they end up getting shot for their trouble, better them than me.