Never hurts to have a recognized gun guy learn something, but even better with an experienced prosecutor.
The standard for justification is immediate necessity to defend against an imminent threat of serious injury or death. I do not have a problem paraphrasing that as a "deadly threat". His point is that if the threat does not involve the use or threat oo deadly force, then deadly force may not be used to defend against it.With respect to the second scenario, the prosecutor misspoke. "Deadly threat" is not the standard for the use of deadly force.
Ys--if codes do not cover that directly, the definitions of those crimes provide the justification, and so does case law in most jurisdictions.I think that the prosecutor understands that kidnapping, hostage-taking, and rape are justifications for a response with deadly force.
His point is that if the threat does not involve the use or threat oo deadly force, then deadly force may not be used to defend against it.
It is the case in every US jurisdiction that if the defender lacks reason to believe that he is defending against a threat of deadly force, he may not lawfully employ deadly force in self defense. Fact.Which is incorrect, untrue and wrong, and that's why I pointed it out.
The listed offenses pretty much all involve the implicit or explicit threat of deadly force.We just read that in Texas, which is certainly a US jurisdiction, a person can use deadly force against someone committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. There is no requirement for there to be a threat of deadly force.
As mentioned, TX property defense laws are a bit unusual. Also, staying on the legal side of TX law for defense of property is more complicated than most people assume from a simple read of the code.Furthermore, we read that a person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property...
The listed offenses pretty much all involve the implicit or explicit threat of deadly force.
You misunderstood. The offenses listed as justification for use of deadly force are, in fact, offenses that involve the perpetrator being a deadly threat to the victim. That is true whether the threat is explicit: "I'm going to kill you with this gun if you don't give me the money!" or whether it is implicit: "This is a robbery--give me all the money in the register." The fact that the threat is left unstated is irrelevant--the fact that it is a robbery means that a deadly threat exists. People don't simply empty the register and hand over the contents because of words--they do it to preserve their wellbeing. Out of fear of what will happen if they do not comply.An implicit threat of deadly force is legally pretty vague.
You need to read the definition of robbery. You linked to it in an earlier post. If someone is committing robbery, then, by per the legal definition, they pose a deadly threat.In the first scenario, the person committing aggravated robbery has his firearm holstered. Does that constitute an implicit threat of deadly force?
This is a meaningless statement. BY DEFINITION, the victim of an aggravated robbery is being threatened with deadly force.They did not seem to be aware that aggravated robbery itself, absent explicit or implicit threat of deadly force, is still justification for the use of deadly force under Texas law.
Well, it is, with the exception of some tenuous aspects of Texas Code Secion 9.42, which are peculiar to Texas, complicated, and irrelevant to the training scenarios at hand.It's evident from this thread that some respondents here are also under the false impression that the threat of deadly force is a requirement for the use of deadly force.
Yep.Does a person demanding from a cashier all the cash in the register or your wallet while they have a holstered firearm on their belt imply the threat of deadly force?
Is that right? How can we imply the threat is a deadly threat?"This is a robbery--give me all the money in the register." The fact that the threat is left unstated is irrelevant--the fact that it is a robbery means that a deadly threat exists.
You need to read the definition of robbery. You linked to it in an earlier post. If someone is committing robbery, then, by per the legal definition, they pose a deadly threat.
If you want to learn that from authoritative sources, take Andrew Branca's law of Swelf Defense course or Massad Ayoob's MAG 20. I recommend both.
Does a person demanding from a cashier all the cash in the register or your wallet while they have a holstered firearm on their belt imply the threat of deadly force?
Yep.
Both. plus much more.Which have you taken yourself?
Self defense law is much more complicated than that. Avail yourself of some pertinent education.Two of them implied that engaging the robber before he drew his gun from the holster was unjustified.
Did somebody already post the difference between "robbery" and "aggravated robbery"? If not could we please have definitions?An implicit threat of deadly force is legally pretty vague. Fortunately, the video scenarios presented in this thread gave us a good example. In the first scenario, the person committing aggravated robbery has his firearm holstered. Does that constitute an implicit threat of deadly force? The commentators do not think so. Coloin is emphatic that "Seeing people carry guns, open carry, doesn't bother me." (4:48) What he means is that just because the guy is displaying a holstered firearm, Coloin isn't going to engage him with deadly force on that fact alone. He pinned his justification for engaging the robber not on beginning the act of robbery, but on the robber pulling his gun (4:56). The robbery had begun much earlier than the moment that Coloin believed justified deadly force. So did the beginning of the robbery "imply" deadly force? Or only when the robber drew his gun?
The video editing cuts the scene and changes points of view several times at the critical moment, but the video does show the guy on the couch grabbing his gun first (1:36). Coloin mentions the guy on the couch engaging first (5:07). The prosecutor commenting on the scenario also seems to think there are questions about, "who provoked who, when it comes to the guy on the couch?" (5:45). It's apparent he believes the guy on the couch provoked the engagement of deadly force. He says at 5:51: "But there's going to be questions there that some lawyer is going to raise as far as 'look, he might be robbing the place, but that doesn't mean that he may not be privileged to use self-defense, and if that's the guy who is the legal person who is defending themselves, Coloin might be looking at, we got homicide charges now." The prosecutor here is supposing that the robber could be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against the guy on the couch and Coloin because they drew guns on him. He's claiming that the robber could be privileged to self-defense. This supposition is based on the idea that engaging the robber with deadly force was not justified because the robber's gun was holstered and his act of robbery did not imply deadly force and therefore did not justify deadly force in response. In fact, Texas law does not require the robbery to imply deadly force or to explicitly employ deadly force. In Texas, robbery itself is sufficient justification for the use of deadly force under 9.32(2)B.
In this scenario, the actor purposefully avoided the explicit use of deadly force, until it might have been supposed by some to be justified as self-defense. Both legal commentators were aware that his open carry by itself did not constitute an implicit threat of deadly force. They did not seem to be aware that aggravated robbery itself, absent explicit or implicit threat of deadly force, is still justification for the use of deadly force under Texas law. It's evident from this thread that some respondents here are also under the false impression that the threat of deadly force is a requirement for the use of deadly force.
Varies according to jurisdiction. Not relevant to self defense law.Did somebody already post the difference between "robbery" and "aggravated robbery"? If not could we please have definitions?
1. It's a mistake to interchange common terminology with legal terms. That can lead to confusion and mistaken interpretations of the law.It looks like a threat or placement of fear of death is only one of three ways to commit a robbery. There are two other ways to comprise robbery without the threat of death.
Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
It looks like a threat or placement of fear of death is only one of three ways to commit a robbery. There are two other ways to comprise robbery without the threat of death.