IN conclusion... I've posted a few real situations including the Michael Brown story because Michael brown was unarmed ( no gun or Knife ) but presented the physical size and personality to do extreme physical harm. ) because some of the rhetoric from this forum would suggest an unarmed man no mater how big he was or how juiced up he would be would still mean he was unarmed.[/QUOTENo one has said that--not even close. We have spoken at length about the issue of disparity of force.
But that's only one important issue. Brown's comparative strength was important. At least as important is the fact that
he had attacked a police officer,
who not only had to defend himself against the much larger man, but also had to
prevent Brown from getting the gun. Brown had done
much more than offer verbal threats.
The necessary conditions are
Ability,
Opportunity, and
Jeopardy, and there is the critical matter of
Preclusion. This applies not only in justifying shooting, but also in justifying the display of a concealed weapon.
Here's what Texas law says about displaying a weapon in self defense:
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
(emphasis added)
What that means is that
in Texas, one may exhibit or even draw or point a firearm in some limited circumstances in which the use of deadly force might not be justified. That is
not the law in most places. In most places, the
use of
deadly force would have to be justified.
Here's what Texas law says about the
use of force:
...a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force....
...The use of force against another is not justified:....in response to verbal provocation alone;
I have removed some castle law provisions.
That's pretty much the law everywhere.
In the case of the Florida restaurant, there is no question whatsoever about the
legality of shooting.
There may have been questions about whether it was the better choice, but one really has to know a lot about the situation.
A prudent person would never shoot simply because it is lawful to do so in an armed robbery. Rather, one would have to decide...
- whether not shooting would likely result in death or serious injury to oneself or others;
- the likelihood that one could try to shoot and do so effectively without getting shot; and
- the safety of shooting under the circumstances
One would have to be there. The question is not the legal justification, it is what would be the best thing to do.
That ski mask would complicate things. One can better judge whether shooting would be the better choice if one can see the robber's expression and where he is looking.
