I can't imagine...

[thetexan]

PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other’s life in an emergency.

Can anyone think of a scenario where you would need to use deadly force against someone in an emergency for the purpose of preserving his life? It seems counter intuitive. You would think that the last thing you would do in trying to preserve someone's life is to use deadly force against him.

tex

[TVGuy]

To cut off someone's arm to get them from a pinned car, train, gate, etc.

[mojo84]

Shoot'em in the toe to keep them from jumping off a bridge.

There's another fairly recent thread on this. Should be able to find it via the search. It may provide some good info. My battery is about dead.

[mcscanner]

Withdrawn comment...

I would never make it as a lawyer. Read to fast, think to slow. New personal rule. No responding on my part until after at least 10 others have posted.

Mike

[joe817]

We had a long discussion about this back in February & March:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=76159" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems like it left a lot of people scratching their heads.

[thetexan]

The first paragraph specifically prohibits use of deadly force to prevent a suicide attempt. And remember deadly force is force capable of inflicting grave bodily harm or death. Even if you accept the idea of shooting him in the toe to stop him from jumping, the act of using a deadly weapon capable of inflicting deadly force would be, in fact, using deadly force even if you shoot him in the toe, wouldn't it? Thus violating the first paragraph.

tex

[TVGuy]

Preventing suicide is NOT a justification for the use of deadly force, please read the statue again. It is specifically addressed:

PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

[Middle Age Russ]

I am probably missing some sublety here, but it seems to me that there might be times when preventing "the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury" and "preserving the other's life in an emergency" are one and the same. Maybe it all revolves around the word emergency and the immediately necessary part...

[The Annoyed Man]

PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other’s life in an emergency.

Can anyone think of a scenario where you would need to use deadly force against someone in an emergency for the purpose of preserving his life? It seems counter intuitive. You would think that the last thing you would do in trying to preserve someone's life is to use deadly force against him.

tex

I don't know about y'all, but I read that section of code entirely differently. I will add my paraphrases to illustrate:

PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against a 2nd party when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve a 3rd party's life in an emergency.

I am NOT claiming that this is correct.....that's just how I read it at the time.

Assuming the first interpretation—that use of force or deadly force against a 2nd party in order to save that 2nd party's life—is correct, that actually makes perfect sense to me too. There are many recorded instances of doctors/medics having to complete an amputation of a trapped limb in the field to free someone from the wreckage of a building or vehicle......... or (as in the case of the Loma Prieta Earthquake) from a vehicle crushed by a falling structure like a parking garage or freeway overpass. It would seem to me to be the same kind of protection for first responders as is contained in Good Samaritan laws when it comes to rendering CPR in the field to someone who has a DNR in effect. There being no way for a passing CPR-certified civilian to know that the person who just collapsed in front of them has a standing "Do Not Resuscitate" order, good samaritans need legal protection from the liability of having violated the victim's DNR request. Otherwise, nobody would be willing to step forward and render aid to a dying person. Perhaps the intent of PC §9.34(b) is to provide such "good samaritan" protections.

[thetexan]

Preventing suicide is NOT a justification for the use of deadly force, please read the statue again. It is specifically addressed:

PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

That's what I just said....

tex

[TVGuy]

Preventing suicide is NOT a justification for the use of deadly force, please read the statue again. It is specifically addressed:

PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

That's what I just said....

tex

We were typing at the same time.

[thetexan]

I don't know about y'all, but I read that section of code entirely differently. I will add my paraphrases to illustrate:

PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against a 2nd party when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve a 3rd party's life in an emergency.

I am NOT claiming that this is correct.....that's just how I read it at the time.

Assuming the first interpretation—that use of force or deadly force against a 2nd party in order to save that 2nd party's life—is correct, that actually makes perfect sense to me too. There are many recorded instances of doctors/medics having to complete an amputation of a trapped limb in the field to free someone from the wreckage of a building or vehicle......... or (as in the case of the Loma Prieta Earthquake) from a vehicle crushed by a falling structure like a parking garage or freeway overpass. It would seem to me to be the same kind of protection for first responders as is contained in Good Samaritan laws when it comes to rendering CPR in the field to someone who has a DNR in effect. There being no way for a passing CPR-certified civilian to know that the person who just collapsed in front of them has a standing "Do Not Resuscitate" order, good samaritans need legal protection from the liability of having violated the victim's DNR request. Otherwise, nobody would be willing to step forward and render aid to a dying person. Perhaps the intent of PC §9.34(b) is to provide such "good samaritan" protections.

The interpretation of that phrase seems clear to me. "...deadly force against another...to preserve the other's life...". To me they are one in the same.

It may be that we are trying to apply handguns to this. This paragraph can apply to the use of deadly force by any instrument of force, not just handguns. So sawing a guy's arm off to extricate him from a trapped situation would indeed be using deadly force (by definition, causing grave bodily harm against his will) to save his life.

Ahhhhhh, it's all clear to me now!

tex

[TVGuy]

This paragraph can apply to the use of deadly force by any instrument of force, not just handguns.

tex

I guess if you didn't have a sharp instrument you could shoot his arm off.

[Javier730]

I would say getting someone in a chokehold to prevent them from commiting suicide. A blood choke could be considered deadly force, but if you used it to render him unconscious, you could prevent a suicide.

[sugar land dave]

Someone is holding a deadly weapon on me and using me as a shield. Mojo84 shoots me in the leg to get a clean shot at the bad guy. After a tough day, that's all I've got.