tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post116636913237110278..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Lawyers, Guns and Money: House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee releases interim reportGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1167842644284069582007-01-03T10:44:00.000-06:002007-01-03T10:44:00.000-06:00The question is, in the face of deadly force, why ...The question is, in the face of deadly force, why should a bunch of politicians or even jurors get to second guess what's a reasonable time to retreat? That's a split-second judgement call. The rest of the law requires it be used only to protect themselves or others against an "immediate" threat involving unlawful deadly force, or to stop the commission of very specific crimes. That's narrow enough, to me, to limit legal self-defense to situations where I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable judging when someone should "retreat."Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1166543096226206532006-12-19T09:44:00.000-06:002006-12-19T09:44:00.000-06:00The bill takes away the language requiring a perso...The bill takes away the language requiring a person to act "reasonably" when using deadly force. It strikes this:<BR/><BR/>[if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and] <BR/><BR/>That would no longer be in the law. <BR/><BR/>Isn't that kinda scary?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1166416040001381362006-12-17T22:27:00.000-06:002006-12-17T22:27:00.000-06:00that first line you mention was a joke. Obviously ...that first line you mention was a joke. Obviously not an entirely funny one. :)<BR/><BR/>And IANAL, but I think that's right about expanding the language you cite, including expanding it to personal vehicles. I'd encourage you to read the full text of that section of the report for more, including proposed bill language at the end of that section.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1166411524575573652006-12-17T21:12:00.000-06:002006-12-17T21:12:00.000-06:00You say: "I support this change [to eliminate the ...You say: "I support this change [to eliminate the duty to retreat before defending one's home or vehicle] mainly because once you're retreating, it's hard to fire a pistol over your shoulder."<BR/><BR/>First, the duty to retreat is not a duty to backup. It's a duty to avoid the use of deadly force where a reasonable person would do so. See Westbrook v. State, 846 S.W.2d 155, 157-58 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth,1993, pet. ref'd) ("the instruction and application given required the jury, in deciding the issue on self-defense, to determine whether the appellant, at the moment, could have avoided the use of deadly force by continuing to retreat"). <BR/>If you can't reasonably avoid the use of deadly force -- as in your car example -- then the duty to retreat will be satisfied. No one has any business using deadly force if they can reasonably avoid it.<BR/><BR/>Second, while I have no idea what the new legislation says, it would seem that this change has already been made with regard to one's home. Are they just expanding the "committing an offense of unlawful entry" language?<BR/>-----Tex. Penal Code sec. 9.32---<BR/><BR/> (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:<BR/><BR/>(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;<BR/>(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and<BR/>(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:<BR/>(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or<BR/>(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.<BR/><BR/>(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com