Self Defense?

[Dale Moser]

There are those in this world so blinded by the laws that they swallow, that they forget what is RIGHT.

[Quackerbox]

There are those in this world so blinded by the laws that they swallow, that they forget what is RIGHT.

Werd

That has to be Roosevelt or something

[jdavidson]

There are those in this world so blinded by the laws that they swallow, that they forget what is RIGHT.

My dilemma is…
I believe everyone has a disagreement with this law or that law

[Artos]

I though pipe guy was reaching for his own gun after the first shot when he hunched over...just say'n.

[okrattler]

It's funny how people, even in a 100% legit, lawful self defense case will argue excessive force. As if it's like the movies where a bad guy gets shot and blows backwards 15 feet and stops fighting. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but that's not how that works. Pistols suck and that's what everyone is packing around for self defense. An alarming amount of people shot with a pistol survive.

This wasn't any different as far as when the pipe swinger wasn't a threat anymore. Anyone that carries a little poopy pistol around thinking if crap hits the fan they're just gonna shoot once or twice and the bad guy is gonna quit is mistaken. In reality you're just gonna be pointing and unloading your pistol and hopefully hit the person shooting back or trying to bash your head in. That's a more realistic view of how that goes.

In this scenario you're almost better off throwing your car in reverse and gunning it backwards. If anyone chases me down and tries to block me in we ain't gonna fight. We're gonna play bumper cars. Pulling a gun should be a very last resort.

[Terry]

Getting to watch the video (at our leisure) in the comfort of our home, maybe even with a cool libation, we are experts on what happened.

[bullets13]

Aren’t multiple variables being ignored which are critical in all the scenarios to include the one that sparked this thread?? Nobody knows what a DA is going to deem as self defense or murder/homicide. While the law in Texas is fairly clear, DAs can charge someone if they “feel like it” with zero regard to seeking true justice and applying laws as they are written/intended. See Sgt. Perry’s case for an example. Second, what will a jury decide? Again, none of us know and again you can reference the Perry case for what appears to be a simple, clear cut case of self defense.

Perry’s problem was he liked to fantasize about killing protestors and talk about those fantasies to his buddies online and through text. When you like to talk about how you want to kill some protestors, and then you go out and kill one, it’s not hard to turn the blame around on you, whether it was warranted or not. Knowing the circumstances of the Perry case, it seemed like self-defense to me. But I also understand how a prosecutor was able to get a conviction based on Perry’s own words and actions before it happened, especially in Austin.

[tvc184]

Getting to watch the video (at our leisure) in the comfort of our home, maybe even with a cool libation, we are experts on what happened.

Yep,

It isn’t the same or perhaps it is exactly the same….

In the US Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor, the police roughed up and injured a completely innocent person. The man was having a diabetic crisis and in his confused state, quickly ran in and out of the store (trying to find a sugary drink) and his friend who was driving, sped away, making it look like an armed robbery had just occurred. The police clearly made a mistake but did not know that until later when everything calmed down. So the man sued for civil rights violations and managed to get it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Why might it be the same? It is based on a reasonable belief in a rapidly changing situation.

In the written decision the Supreme Court wrote;
”Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers,"….. The calculus of reasonableness must embody
allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.“

It is easy to sit in the peace of a judge’s chambers months later and carefully analyze what an officer had to determine in a “split second”, when he might face a “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving” situation.

The decision was unanimous. The Supreme Court ruled that, even though the police injured, an innocent person, the officers’ actions were reasonable under the situation that they faced.

The Texas law on self-defense is worded similar and in my opinion, a use of force for should be looked at under the same circumstances. Just like the officers in Graham, what would a reasonable person who is forced to make a split second decision believe? it is easy with video to go slow motion forward and backward, view the situation several times, etc. but the person in the situation had no such time to reflect.

In Graham the Supreme Court said, what would a reasonable officer do when faced with the same circumstances?

Under Texas self-defense law it says what would a person using the force reasonably believe? To quote the Penal Code,
“when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary”

People have drawn out debates for days over what a person had to decide in seconds…. or less.

[rolylane6]

Yep,

It isn’t the same or perhaps it is exactly the same….

In the US Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor, the police roughed up and injured a completely innocent person. The man was having a diabetic crisis and in his confused state, quickly ran in and out of the store (trying to find a sugary drink) and his friend who was driving, sped away, making it look like an armed robbery had just occurred. The police clearly made a mistake but did not know that until later when everything calmed down. So the man sued for civil rights violations and managed to get it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Why might it be the same? It is based on a reasonable belief in a rapidly changing situation.

In the written decision the Supreme Court wrote;
”Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers,"….. The calculus of reasonableness must embody
allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.“

It is easy to sit in the peace of a judge’s chambers months later and carefully analyze what an officer had to determine in a “split second”, when he might face a “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving” situation.

The decision was unanimous. The Supreme Court ruled that, even though the police injured, an innocent person, the officers’ actions were reasonable under the situation that they faced.

The Texas law on self-defense is worded similar and in my opinion, a use of force for should be looked at under the same circumstances. Just like the officers in Graham, what would a reasonable person who is forced to make a split second decision believe? it is easy with video to go slow motion forward and backward, view the situation several times, etc. but the person in the situation had no such time to reflect.

In Graham the Supreme Court said, what would a reasonable officer do when faced with the same circumstances?

Under Texas self-defense law it says what would a person using the force reasonably believe? To quote the Penal Code,
“when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary”

People have drawn out debates for days over what a person had to decide in seconds…. or less.

^^^This has been my stance since the very beginning.

I know if I was in a situation where some crazy lunatic started swinging a pipe at me, I would probably go into automatic mode and shoot them just like the shooter in the video did. So I seldom carry when I'm alone for that very reason because quite frankly I would rather not take anothers life to save my own. I would rather be forced to try and diffuse a situation before it came to that and if I fail and lose my life so be it. It's one of the benefits of knowing my destination is better on the other side of this life. I generally do carry when out with my wife or family. I will not blink to end the life of someone who threaten their lives. My biggest dilemma not carrying when alone is the inability to be able to defend another innocent life, but I'll deal with.

[tvc184]

As we have seen, unfortunately there is the law and then there are juries.

Sometimes I think that they believe the law says, you have to prove that you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and not the other way around.

[Pedernal]

As we have seen, unfortunately there is the law and then there are juries.

Sometimes I think that they believe the law says, you have to prove that you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and not the other way around.

I agree that in self defense cases where deadly force was used part of the issue becomes the jury. But what about the DAs? In my opinion this is where the justice system has failed in many ways. Aren't they supposed to consult with the police officers/detectives and review police reports/investigation reports to determine if a crime was committed and file charges when deemed appropriate? They are lawyers and should clearly understand laws.

[Quackerbox]

I agree that in self defense cases where deadly force was used part of the issue becomes the jury. But what about the DAs? In my opinion this is where the justice system has failed in many ways. Aren't they supposed to consult with the police officers/detectives and review police reports/investigation reports to determine if a crime was committed and file charges when deemed appropriate? They are lawyers and should clearly understand laws.

They do. And it's a huge PIA for us getting ready for reasons discussed in another thread.

Before you even worry with a jury you have plea agreements, judges, discovery etc. Its as if you have a trial for whats easier to prove. Not what actually happened. Then you have the jury to contend with

I'd bet everyone I work with directly has had to read the law, from the book to a DA to get a charge at least once

[tps7742]

I finally watched the video and read all of this thread. I seen where multiple professionals of our law enforcement members weighed in on the situation, Thanks!

One thing that stands out “one person” is much smarter than the rest of us. 😁