Quote:
|
but non-deadly force is ok to the extent it is reasonably believed to be necessary to prevent the other's use of force against you. Deadly force requires a reasonable believe that your life is in danger or that you will be severely injured.
|
Okay, let me quote the Texas laws regarding the justifiable use of deadly force (I am quoting Texas law because that is what applies to
me, and is what I have been talking about).
Quote:
Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY
Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
|
It does not say severe injury, it says "imminent harm". We do not have to prove that the aggressor was just going to push us once or twice. If he has shown that he will promote a physical attack, he has shown that he will do you harm.
Quote:
|
Being slapped around or punched would certainly justify retaliating in kind, and it might well justify spraying or shocking someone. I guess that's up to the jury. But shooting them? I don't think so.
|
Would being punched count as "imminent harm"? There aren't many definitions there, and being assaulted definitely qualifies...
And I will quote the statute that says verbal confrontation is not enough for any use of force:
Quote:
b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
|
I will also add that in Texas, when done properly and under the right circumstances, presenting a weapon does not constitute deadly force, it is still a non-lethal option to end a physical confrontation:
Quote:
|
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.
|