Leaderboard

Back to 1989NDN’s excellent question on the use of deadly force. Is it justified and if so, why? He is more opinion. This is long and tapped (not typed) out on an iPhone so please don’t be too harsh on tpyos or words it don’t seem to fit. In Texas self defense is in Chapter 9 of them Penal Code. The actual title of the chapter is Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility. That is exactly what self-defense is. It is an act that technically is a crime but the situation makes it lawful or a person is not criminally responsible. Immediately after the first section in chapter 9 which is definitions, we go to this very important part: “Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter”. So right out of the box we see that anything in Chapter 9 is considered a “defense to prosecution”. Okay but what the heck does “defense to prosecution” mean? There are defenses written into law that can be basically exemptions from prosecution. They are “exceptions” which mean that the law simply does not apply to that situation plus defenses and affirmative defenses. We need to look at a “defense to prosecution” since that appliance to this entire chapter. In Chapter 2 it says this about a defense to prosecution: “(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense. (c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense. (d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted”. We see in (b) that the DA is not even required to address a defense. In other words he does not have to bring up that there might be a defense to prosecution. It is up to the defendant to bring up the defense and evidence to support the defense. In (c) there has to be some evidence of the defense in order for the jury to hear it and deliberated it. A person can’t just say, this law doesn’t apply to me because I have a defense. The defendant has to produce some evidence (and testimony is evidence) to support the claim. If evidence is brought up and submitted to the jury, we go to what I think is the most important part. Under (d) it shows that any reasonable doubt for the defense and it “requires that the defendant be acquitted”. So if a person brings up a defense to prosecution as far as self-defense, he does not have to prove self-defense. The DA is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that lawful self-defense did not exist. So if you shoot someone and get prosecuted but you have a witness(es) and/or some other evidence showing there was a valid reason to shoot the person, you do not have to prove that is true. The DA has to prove it is not true beyond a reasonable doubt. There used to be a saying when I was a kid playing baseball, a tie goes to the runner. The ball has to beat the runner to the bag for there to be an out. In this case the tie goes to the defendant. Let’s say the DA has some evidence that it was not self-defense but the defendant has also brought up good evidence showing that it was self-defense. If the DA can’t clearly win the case beyond a reasonable doubt that no reasonable self-defense existed, the law says it requires the defendant be acquitted. Now what about deadly force? In Chapter 9, Section 9.32 deadly force is justified; “(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:”. The “actor” has the same meaning as suspect or the person accused. So whose reasonable opinion matters? As we can see in the law it is the (actor) person using the deadly force in claimed self defense. The law here is basically saying that you have to look at it through the eyes of the person using the force. Was it reasonable from the viewpoint of the person using the deadly force? What would a reasonable person believe faced with the same situation? You obviously can’t use deadly force for just any reason. There are two reasons listed. The first and only one we are concerned with in this discussion is: “(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;”. So this is clear, to stop the other person from using deadly force against you. But what is deadly force? In Section 9.01(3) it says: “.(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.” So deadly force is force that is capable of causing death OR… OR… OR… only Serious Bodily Injury. What is SBI? For that we have to go back to Chapter 1 under definitions. In 1.07 it says: “(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Most people assume deadly force means death or could cause death but it is just as much any serious permanent disfigurement or the protracted (extended) loss of any bodily member or organ. So if someone is trying to break the bones in your hand, could a jury reasonably believe that your arm might be in a cast for maybe six weeks? Would that be the protracted loss of a bodily member? I would say losing most of the use of an arm for a month and a half fits that definition but it is up to a jury based on the evidence given at the trial . Something like knocking someone’s eye out would obviously be the loss of a bodily organ. If someone hits you in the face so severely that your face swole up for about a month and you could not see out of one of your eyes that entire time, would that be the protracted loss of an organ? These are questions that injury must answer because it is their decision. After a trial a judge reads the “charge” and gives definitions such as I have and a lot more. It is up to a jury to apply those definitions and laws to the case. The important part of this is, you can use deadly force for protection even if someone is not trying to only kill you. If you have the reasonable belief that someone is trying to commit serious bodily injury against you, deadly force is possible as self defense. You don’t have to allow somebody to break your arm or your leg just because that does not usually cause death. Those injuries are deadly force and the law allows deadly force to defend against deadly force. So let’s put all of this together using the law. You’re justified in using deadly force against another if you reasonably believe the person is trying to use deadly force against you. Remember that deadly force does not necessarily have to cause death but could be a reasonable belief that it might cause serious bodily injury. An example is one time we were fighting a guy probably 25 years ago. The suspect bit an officer’s thumb and would not let go and basically seemed like he was trying to bite it off. The officer used his flashlight to hit the guy in the head which in itself can be considered deadly force. So there was an internal investigation on whether the officer had the justification to use deadly force against the suspect. If I remember correctly a sergeant was reading the report and called the force into question. The officer made a mistake….. by not documenting what happened. He came to me for advice wondering why he was being investigated. To him it seemed easily justified. I said exactly what happened, he. did not document why hec used force. I asked the officer, what did you think when the guy was biting down with all of his force on your thumb. He told me he thought that he was going lose his thumb or at least break it. Okay….. is biting your thumb off or breaking it considered serious bodily injury? Absolutely. The officer’s report (and he was a rookie of less than a year) said the guy bit my thumb so I hit him in the head. Okay, biting a person does not justify deadly force. Trying to bite your thumb off or break it does. He did a sworn statement explaining what happened and he was cleared, as he should have been. Remember that he does not have to prove that the guy might have broken his thumb. He had to have a reasonable belief from his viewpoint. So now we come this case where two officers who are chasing a stolen car who intentionally or unintentionally rammed a police car. The suspect is doing everything he can to escape from being charged with a felony. He then steps out of the car with gun in hand. Is there a reasonable belief at that point that the man in a stolen car who got out with a gun was attempting or going to attempt to use deadly force against the officers? If a reasonable person in the officers’ situation would say yes, then deadly force is lawful in my opinion. Also remember again that the officers or anyone else for that matter, does not have to prove that the other person was actually going to use deadly force. For the district attorney to prosecute the case successfully against the officers it would have to proven beyond a reasonable doubt that after a high-speed chase (a felony) in a stolen car (a felony), the guy jumping out of the car with a gun in hand was not a reasonable threat to the officers. If those are the facts of the case, it is my opinion that this is fairly clear cut. I believe if anyone of us was in that chase and given a duty to apprehend the suspect in the stolen car, when he rammed a police car and then jumped out with a gun, would any of you think you’re in danger at that point? Would you be willing to have a discussion with the guy to see what his intent was? Also note, you don’t see anywhere in the law where it says you were in fear of your life.

Glad you like it--we're making some changes for 2022--things will look different soon!

Let’s play devils’s advocate or my favorite game, “what if”. Let’s forget the felony car chase, let’s forget the ramming of a police car…. An officer on patrol sees a very minor violation like maybe a pedestrian walking on the edge of the roadway when there’s a sidewalk. The officer gets out of his car and tells the guy, can you come over here for a minute. The guy starts walking toward the officer without saying anything and pulls out a knife as he continues to approach the officer or he looks at the officer and reaches in his pocket and pulls out a pistol. In either situation, the officer might be dead within the next two seconds. Should officer before he responds, ask the guy if he really intends to do anything? In a similar “what if”, it is 2 AM and someone is kicking on your front door and you’re afraid the door is about to be broken and allow entry. A guy is screaming let me in. In self defense you fire through the door as the door is almost but not quite open. The guy is now dead. Clearly this is a case of self defense under Texas law. BUT…… what if? You find out after he is dead that it is your drunk neighbor who came home late, had the wrong house and simply thinks his wife locked him out of the house? Should you now go to jail for murder?

Dead cops let them shoot first.

Andy and Barney going to have to hire Gomer or Floyd.

What a rambling bunch of gibberish by the sheriff.

[Hidden Content] why am I not surprised

I was/am worried about the trenches too. Somebody pointed out to me the other day though that we bring back something like 60 career starts on the o-line between the three returners. Was also told that 4 of the 5 current starters squatted over 500lbs during Spring workouts. I think the problem to us is that they don't look as imposing on the hoof as some of our other o-lines have in past. I think our three primary ball carriers are going to help with that though. I've been worried about the d-line every single year except like maybe '14, '15 and '21 but we always seem to sufficiently reload there. It's going to be virtually impossible to replace the Coop and Casey combination but we're so good at linebacker this year that we don't really need the kids to do that. They just need to keep our linebackers clean so they can make plays. That Summer Creek transfer is a game changer at the 2nd level. Keep in mind that we didn't see LaRive much this Spring either because of how well the baseball team was playing. We may not have Coop and Casey but I think we'll have a more talented defense overall. Definitely think they'll be faster which I think Coach Poth prefers over size anyway.

They have been leaving Kackling Kamala for months. Must be due to the intelligence of the conversations around her. lol

Your about as right about this post as you were about the vaccine. We know how that has turned out but you certainly are entitled to your opinion. I’ll keep saying it. Majority of level headed people vote their pocket book not there feelings. Imo I truly believe our elections have been compromised and corrupted for the last 20 to 30 years. We’ve had selections not elections. It’s been said before that the only way to destroy America is from within. We’ll if you haven’t been paying attention that’s exactly what’s happening. The decisions that’s been made for this country make no sense because the majority of the American people didn’t vote for this 💩.

I agree, me personally I don't know 1 individual who voted biden that'll switch to a Conald vote... ppl thinking a Conald landslide 2024 will be sad again With the way the economy is at the moment I've seen polls of Biden ahead of Conald even with bidens ratings low.. that says all I need to know anything better than Biden will be another D win... If I was part of the right platform I'd push for a DeSantis ticket, I know folks who lean left that like him.. I wouldn't be too excited about a DeSantis win but I believe he has the best odds on how to run the country and pull in the moderate and swing votes..

Biden won the last election by not being Donald Trump. With the disaster that is currently our economy, the only way the dems will have a shot in the next election is if they again get to run a campaign under the “Not Donald” mantra. Apathetic dems and swing vote moderates are not going to be motivated to vote for a mediocre Democratic nominee, but many will still get out to vote against Trump.

I’m decent with a pistol, and I can fire a full magazine (15 rounds) in 7-8 seconds, maybe even a little quicker. At a fairly close range (let’s say the distance between the car doors of two vehicles that are touching nose to nose, such as in this instance), even when shooting for speed rather than accuracy, the majority of those 15 rounds will land in a grouping not much larger than a saucer plate. A human torso is probably 12-15x the size of a saucer. A human head is 1.5x the size of a saucer. Even with a moving a target, some, if not many of those 15 rounds are going to hit what I’m aiming at. I’m not telling you these things to brag. I know many people who shoot better than me. I’m telling you this to explain why a police officer is absolutely not going to wait for someone to shoot at him before he starts to shoot. Even if the criminal is a bad shot it only takes one lucky round to end an officer’s life. if he’s even marginally skilled with a pistol, especially inside 30 ft, the odds of an officer getting hit is much too high for him to wait and see if a criminal is planning on using the weapon or not. Far too often people expect police officers to do things that create unnecessary added risk to an already incredibly dangerous job in order to avoid hurting or killing dumb criminals making stupid choices. A few examples: 1. Police should wait for someone to shoot at them before they pull the trigger. 2. police should aim for people’s legs so they can “stop the threat without killing anyone.” 3. police should shoot one or two times and then stop and see if the criminal is giving up. If the criminal is still shooting at them, then police can shoot again. 4. police should always try to use a tazer first when faced with a deadly weapon. what it all boils down to is that police officers don’t have to put the safety and well-being of criminals who are in a position to hurt or kill them ahead of their own.

You did try to convince us that a whole crowd of people holding up cell phones were giving the Nazi salute. I'm still laughing at that one. I don't know (and don't care) the truth of his political affiliation, but given that your credibility on Trump topics is less than zero, I would almost be willing to bet you are disseminating false information.

He was photographed wearing a Trump flag like one tacked up on your bedroom wall.

Of course! Just because the shooter has photos on his social media of himself draped in a Trump flag and also photos of himself at a Trump rally doesn’t mean he’s a Trump supporter. Y’all a buncha Judases around here.

🙄

I like it better when we're disrespected. For whatever reason when those kids show up with a chip on their shoulders it produces great results. As far as rankings I think we have talent at the skill positions to compete with anyone in 5A. Its the trenches that I have questions about. Definitely gonna know by week 2

I would rather see Desantis.....but if Trump gets the nomination.....I'm not voting for the Democrat..... I don't think Trump's ego will let him not run......

Kountze will be hosting a summer league tournament July 15-16th. looking for teams...... Msg if interested