Texas expected to approve shooting first in self-defence

[Jcrowley]

Published: 20/02/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)

Texas expected to approve shooting first in self-defence
Los Angeles Times-Washington Post



Houston: In a shoot first, ask questions later approach to personal safety, state lawmakers are weighing a Bill that would give Texans the right to use deadly force as a first resort when they feel their safety is threatened. The measure, which is in committee, is an early hit at the statehouse: Twenty-seven of 31 state senators have signed on as co-sponsors. In the House, 100 of 150 members support the Bill.

"You've got to assume a criminal's not there to buy Girl Scout cookies, you could be harmed,'' said State Rep Joe Driver, one of two original sponsors. "You should be able to meet force with force without getting in trouble.''

The Bill allows a person to claim self-defence if he or she feels threatened at home, in a car or place of business. A person would be shielded from criminal or civil liability in those instances.

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/U.S.A/10105601.html

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Ahem, Iraq. Cough.

[jpgray]

3. The preemptive strike defense is justified!

Especially if the criminal holds a box of this.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. Haha! Took me a moment to get the Niger pun! Good one.

[lonestarnot]

40. Heh.

[youngdem]

5. Yup.

The Bush Doctrine of Self Defense.

I'm really glad he is disinterested in domestic issues most of the time, frankly.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. And the first time someone claims it after shooting/killing a cop

it will all go down the tubes.

[jody]

6. Links below to subject bills in the Texas legislature.

S.B. No. 378

H.B. No. 284

H.B. No. 103

[JDPriestly]

7. How about just opting out of all the traditions of English Common Law

and substituting the survival of the fittest. Is this the Republican response to global warming? Let everybody kill anyone who bothers them? That would cut the human population and the terrible damage that human overpopulation is causing to the environment in half very quickly. But, of course, this law is totally incompatible with those Judeo-Christian values that the Freepers keep pretending they believe in.

I think the case defining the limits of the defense of self-defense was A. Regina v. Dudley and Stevens (Queen’s Bench 1884, P135). I'm not sure of the name because I just looked it up on a free Criminal Law 101 outline on the internet -- not a very reliable source for legal research. Anyway, you can't kill someone in order to ensure your own survival and then plead self-defense. There is another later Iowa case regarding a gun set up in a vacant house that holds that you can't protect property by shooting someone. It's excessive force. Sorry I don't have time to get the citation of the case. This limitation on the doctrine of self-defense is basic to our concept of civilization.

Anyway, to prove self- defense a defendant must show that he or she truly believed at the time that he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

I wonder if this bill is going to exonerate people who kill undercover police officers. Allowing or encouraging people to think they can reach for a gun as soon as they feel that their person or their property is endangered or slightly threatened could cause a serious hazard for law enforcement personnel.

[Totallybushed]

15. i agree that

self -defense should be limited to instances of fear of imminent bodily harm, or death. However, in this case, it should be up to the prosecution to prove that such was not the case. IMO.

If an intruder is in your home, you have reasonable cause to fear. It should be up to the prosecution to show that said intruder was there for peaceful, helpful purposes. Then she can nail your murdering ass.

[michreject]

48. If someone is in my home

and they're not suppost to be there, they will get shot. I'm not going to ask if they're selling cookies.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. And all this time I thought that we were fighting global warming over in Iraq

So that we don't have to fight it here. Silly me...

[Solo_in_MD]

8. They are not the first state to support the castle doctrine

I am not sure I have a problem with it either

[AndreaCG]

9. So anyone who has a personal beef with anyone can justify shooting

them by getting them to come over to their home or automobile and shoot them with no provocation on the victim's part? Or what about if someone just hates black people, or Hispanics, or whatever group of people and feels "threatened" by them?

The possibility for abuse is staggering.

[Totallybushed]

16. That's where the

prosecutor gets to show in court that it was a planned murder.

[krispos42]

23. You've been reading too much gunguys.com propaganda

The standard is usually something like 'reasonable belief of imminient serious bodily harm or rape', or words to that effect.

"Reasonable". "Imminient".

You are also fueling the mistaken belief that everybody that owns a gun is jes itchin' to kill somebody.

Sorry, not the case.

And I'd rather have this law than the 'duty to retreat' laws in some states, where you can't defend yourself with lethal force until you are backed into a corner.

In my opinion, the standard for using lethal force against an intruder in your home should be on the low end of the scale. This is your house, dammit, full of family and kids and stuff, and the intruder you're confronting didn't get there by accident.

And I don't think I should have reduce my choice of defensive tools to achieve parity with whatever weapon the intruder displays, either. Should I be in jail because I shot a guy coming at me with brass knuckles because it "wasn't fair"?

[Bronyraurus]

26. That's not true

The shooter still needs to prove that he was in imminent danger of deadly force used agains him.

This isn't all that big of a deal.

[piedmont]

10. I have no problem with Castle Doctrine, but this isn't a Castle Doctrine law

It applies in the public domain, not just your home or car.

[cgrindley]

21. If someone's robbing the corner grocery store at gunpoint

I think it's totally justifiable to shoot the criminal. If people don't want to get shot, then they shouldn't commit violent crimes.

[piedmont]

29. That action would already be legal...

You're acting in defense of others.

[michreject]

51. As it does in most states

with a "castle Doctrine". I don't recall reading about an OK Corral incident involving legal CCW gun owners.

[RB TexLa]

11. Still way too much possible legal trouble with using a gun, I'll stick to the can of oven cleaner

by the door.

[scrinmaster]

38. Your bio says you're from Texas.

If someone is an actual threat to you, and is within range of a can of oven cleaner, you'd probably be justified in shooting them.

You could try this, though. Fox Labs makes some of the best pepper spray on the market.
http://foxlabs.net/Products.html

[RB TexLa]

43. Oven cleaner is much more powerful than anything made out of peppers

[benEzra]

57. It's also legally and morally the same as using a gun...

unlike pepper spray, which is lower on the use-of-force continuum.

You do know that oven cleaner is likely to cause PERMANENT blindness, yes? That makes it force "liable to cause death or serious bodily harm," i.e. same level of force in the eyes of the law as shooting somebody. And no, you can't use it if you merely "feel threatened"...

Get a good pepper spray (law enforcement grade, like a Fox Labs medium fogger) and ditch the oven cleaner. Oven cleaner has a lousy spray pattern, anyway.

[mark414]

12. Is Bernard Goetz in the Texas legislature now?

[sakabatou]

13. Way to go, TX Legislature...

:puke:

[LiberalFighter]

14. I feel threaten by the stupidty of Republicans -- bang bang

[Totallybushed]

17. Viva la revolucion!! n/t

[mmonk]

19. That should make for some interesting court cases.

[gravity]

20. Terrible law

This just teaches people to shoot first, ask questions later. It is irresponsible to view deadly force like that, since even if your intentions aren't bad, you could take away an innocent life because you made a wrong assumption.

Deadly force should never be a first resort when dealing with a threat. It should only be used as a last resort, when they are no other reasonable means to get out of the situation. The law already accounts for self defense, so if you really NEED to use deadly force, you can.

If I just shoot someone down the street, I can say that I felt threatened by them and get off with this law.

[krispos42]

24. When deadly force is used, it happens very quickly

When there in an ivestigation, it happens very slowly. When there is a trial, it happens even slower. Lots of second-guessing, hyperbole, theorizing, alternate theories, etc.

This will help keep somebody who did use lethal self-defense in good faith from being tossed in the lockup because of some obscure law or condition, or over-zealous prosecuter.

If you think your average gun owner is a bloodthirsty maniac who can't wait to take a human life, well, then you are exactly the reason many gun owners aren't Democrats.

[gravity]

28. I'm not concerned about the average gun owner

I just don't want the law treat deadly force lightly, and see the risk from this legislation outweigh the benefits.

I would rather have someone be histitant upon using deadly force than not, since the use of deadly force requires great responsibility. If you truely believe that you will die, the fear of death should overcome the fear of investigation. Being on trial, while it sucks, is a reasonable costs when compared to losing your life.

If someone gets wrongly accuse, that the justice systems fault and not the laws. That could happen with any crime though so it is a different issue.

The only gun owners I'm worried about are the extreme NRA wingnuts

[krispos42]

32. It is not about the law treating it lightly

And a person acting in self-defense will hesitate. The taking of human life is not something that a person can do lightly, unless that person is a pycho. Even in the military, I imagine that the first time a soldier or Marine has to kill it is not done with the reflexive ease of a battle-hardened warrior, despite the training.

What we are talking about is after the event, when a traumatized intended victim or homeowner is coming to grips with the fact that he/she just killed a person in an intimate, bloody fashion. Close enough to see, close enough to smell, close enough to hear, possibly close enough to touch. The smell of blood, and of bowels loosened in death. The distictive aroma of gunpower and whisps of smoke hanging in the air. Quite possibly the screaming of loved ones in the background.

In all of this, the investigation starts. The duty of the prosecutor is to, if there is evidence that a crime was committed, to bring the person to trial. The duty of the police is to investigate the crime thoroughly.

What I do not want to see happen is the police investigation revealing some technical requirement of self-defense was (maybe) not met and the accused being dragged through court. It is expensive, it is time-consuming, and it does not help the accused in working past the actions he/she had to go through in a life-threatening moment. And I hate thought of a person being raked over the coals because the state's attorney thinks he can get a conviction.

Especially since so much of a person's guilt or innocence is dependent upon the quality of his defense attorney. Questioning of a witness is an art, and a skillful attorney (for either side) can tilt testimony one way or the other and lead juries to conclusions. Because of this, I don't think people who do kill in self-defense should be brought up before a judge unless there is good reason to, unless there is cause to doubt the motives of the shooting.

There is also a political aspect as well. Most murders occur in urban areas. Most urban areas are Democrats, and by extension anti-gun. Therefore the government officials elected in those areas are also anti-gun. The public, which demands a lessening of violence and murder, incorrectly blames guns, and that attitude is carried into the courts and district/state's attorney's offices. So, simply by living in a city instead of a rural area, even in the same state, affects how a self-defense killing will be prosecuted. In one, you're tried, in another, you're cleared without trial.

Not really fair, is it?

[gravity]

33. The laws before worked

There was never a crisis where people where being thrown into jail for self defense.

While over 99% of gun owners are sane responsible citizens, there could be someone who recklessly used violent force, but was able to get off from a technicality from the new law. A drunk can shoot someone since he thought his safety was threatened and be let off by the new law.

Having automatic immunity for the shooter could let someone go free who should otherwise be in jail, which isn't fair either. The laws are set up now so the courts decide if self defense is warranted, so innocent people who used self defense to get off. They aren't set up to punish people who ligitimently use self defense.

[krispos42]

49. Oh, of course there are

There are less than 400 civilian justifiable homicides a year, compared to come 15,000 homicides. But if you act in self-defense and a jury decides it was a homicide instead, that counts towards the 15,000, not the 400.

And the standard is "reasonably believe". There is no automatic immunity, despite the ranting of the idiots over at gunguys.com or the Brady campaign. Who, incidently, predicted mass slaughter, blood in the streets, and 'Wild West'-style shootouts in Florida when this law went into effect and even when so far as to hand out flyers to arrivals at the airport warning people they could be legally shot on sight for blinking funny.

In some states the laws are set up to put a heavy burden on the defender. Like I mentioned before, in some states, if I were to go investigate a thump in the night and wind up with an intruder at gunpoint, I could not shoot him if he moved towards me until I was backed up into a corner. But by moving backwards, I am at risk of tripping and giving the criminal the chance to attack me, my son, and my roommate. And if I shoot, I'm at risk of going to jail, surrounded by criminals and separated from my son. I mean, the hypothetical intruder here is staring down the wrong end of a 12-gauge shotgun being wielded by the home's occupant and HE'S NOT SCARED, which means either he's drugged out, crazy, suicidal, or thinks I won't shoot, all of which threaten my personal health and safety.

When the case goes to trial, it is the job of both prosecuting and defending atttornys to present their cases vigorously. And you and I both know that trial verdicts are only loosely based on truth and actual events. People like me would have the choice of going with an overworked public defender, which gives the advantage to the prosecution, or an expensive private attorney, which means that, innnocent or guilty, I'm paying $400+ an hour that I can't afford and am going into debt for years. So even if I'm right and just, I'm still being punished, either with jail time or crushing debt.

My point, and the point of this law, is that there should be a higher bar before it gets to the point of a vigorous prosecution. "I think I can prove is wasn't justified" is not enough, in my opinion, for the prosecuter to act. A good lawyer can argue both sides of a case with equal passion, conviction and skill. Yes, there should be an investigation, a thorough one, and if there is a question that the killing was actually a murder in disguise, then, yes, throw the bastard in jail.

But there was a recent case where the police raided a house. The wrong house. Either they got the address wrong or the tip was false. Anyway, when the cops kicked in the door (it was a no-knock warrant, IIRC) the homeowner grabbed a gun and shot and killed an officer, not realizing they were police. He was arrested, tried, and convicted of murder. The judge overruled the jury and ordered a new trial.

The man did nothing wrong except defend himself, his family, and his home, but now he has to go through a multi-year legal process and morgage god-knows-what to vindicate himself.

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. Sheesh! Welcome to the wild wild West!

:hide:

[krispos42]

25. Yeah, they said that when Florida did that, too

And Florida's homicide rate is slightly more than half of California's. And California is a gun-controller's wet dream of laws.

You may not like the law. You may deride gun-owners as bloodthirsty knuckle-dragging neocons. But you are safer because of this law, whether or not you ever have to use it.

[aikoaiko]

27. Looks like a good law. GA has a similar one.

After reading the proposed TX bills (see post # ), I have to say they make sense to me. Its not about "feeling threatened" or "asking questions later", its about protecting law abiding people who defend themselves with force from wrong-headed or politically-biased prosecution and civil suits.

[ComerPerro]

30. Who are these fantasy criminals that gun nuts fantasize about, the ones who

are here to hurt you and kill you and rape your family? The ones who you must shoot, on sight, without stopping for a minute to think?

And why don't these stone-cold killer thugs also carry guns? Becasue apparently flashing a gun at a criminal intent on killing you will never get your or someone you love shot...

[krispos42]

50. Oh, you mean the tens of millions of current or ex felons in this country?

Or the 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year?

Look at the FBI's uniform crime report. You can see, broken down into nice little numbers, the per-capita rate of robbery and homicide and rape and assault and carjacking and auto theft.

[spanone]

31. Sounds eerily like the bush* doctrine. Shoot first ask questions later.

[Madspirit]

34. If someone is in my home...

Ahhh...another bash my state thread. Just gotta love those.

So, let me get this straight. As a liberal woman, if someone is in my home who doesn't belong there, I should first ask, "Are you intending to rape and/or kill me?" before I take action?

Just want to get this straight.

I would hope I would have the presence of mind to do something alternative but if someone is threatened in their own home, I would not want to bring charges against them for being too scared to have presence of mind. That's ludicrous.

If someone is stealing my car, oh well. A car is not worth a life. If someone is robbing my business, (my imaginary business) and I am not threatened, oh well again. My business is not worth a life.

...but my life is worth a life and all they have to do to not be shot by me, is NOT be...in MY home.
Lee

[Madspirit]

35. Oh yeah and...

This is all with my imaginary gun.

I actually only have a big mean dog, a temper straight from the depths of hell and pepper spray. My girlfriend and I wouldn't have a gun.

My previous post was all just theory. I wouldn't prosecute someone who shot a home intruder.
Lee

[Katherine Brengle]

45. Amen.

[krispos42]

52. I agree.. but...

The hypothetical criminal has decided that, yes, robbing the business or jacking a car IS worth the risk of losing his life. So, frankly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for robbers and carjackers getting killed in the commission of their felonies, either.

[Madspirit]

53. No Material Object

Is as important as a life, even a thieves life. After all, most thieves are males between the ages of 15 and 30 and I am just not willing to stop that life, that young, over a tv set.

I would have to feel my life was threatened before I would take someone else's life.
Lee

[krispos42]

55. We are not the ones that need to realize that

The criminals need to. Many criminals, at least the ones you are likely to face in a violent confrontation, have little respect for human life, especially for people outside of their social circle. They have no problem risking their life for a car or TV or carton of cigarettes or Nike sneakers, nor do they have a problem taking your life in pursuit of that goal.

I'm not saying I would. I'm not saying it should be done. But I don't feel a lot of sympathy for people who get shot committing crimes.

I'd rather have 15,000 criminals killed while committing crimes and 360 people murdered a year than the opposite. Which it what we have now, sadly.

Ideally, we would have no crime at all, but that is a goal we will never achieve. And until we address the root causes of crime, mostly poverty and family upbringing, we as individuals have to do the best that we are against the individuals that seek to harm us.

[benEzra]

36. "Feeling threatened" is not sufficient...

the criterion in Florida and every other state I am aware of is reasonable fear, i.e. the average person of ordinary mental competency would agree that the situation presented imminent danger of death/serious bodily harm/forcible felony.

The ONLY places that Florida's presumption of justifiable use of force apply are if you are the victim of a home invasion or a carjacking. All other cases fall under the old reasonable fear of death, serious bodily harm, or forcible felony standard, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that the proposed Texas law is any different.

The gun-control lobby has IMHO intentionally blurred the legal concept of "reasonable fear," and tried to make it synonymous with merely "feeling threatened," which is the root of most of the confusion here, I think.

[Madspirit]

46. In Texas

You can already shoot someone in your home. Look it up and that's as it should be. I am not going to stand around asking if they are intending to rape and/or kill me.
Lee

[dysfunctional press]

37. so...carrying two guns is probably your best bet-

just in case the guy you pre-empted on wasn't actually carrying his.

[lonestarnot]

39. And who here is surprised? Raise your hand.

[Jonathan50]

41. It's been my experience that people carrying a gun will get themselves into situations

Into situations that they would normally avoid.

My brother's wife is very afraid of criminals, since she was assaulted by two men one time.

Within the last five years or so she started carrying a pistol in her car. One day she was driving down the long, fairly deserted road going to her home when she saw several men around a car on the side of the road. If she hadn't had the pistol, she would have just driven on by and possibly called the police when she got home.

Instead, because she had the pistol in her car she felt much less fearful so she stopped by the men and rolled her window down and started giving them a hard time, telling them that they had no business there. My sister in law has a very big mouth and an agressive attitude and upsets people very quickly sometimes (I know because she does it to me). Luckily in this case nothing happened but if it had, sis in law wouldn't have had a chance to get to her gun.

Unless you have the gun in your hand when something happens, you normally are not going to have time to get it out, chamber a round, aim and fire.

Robert Heinlein, the same man who said "an armed society is a polite society" also said that having a gun can be a liability some times because it will make you more likely to stand your ground and fight when you really ought to be running away.

I'm not going to take the trouble to look it up but I'm fairly sure that statistically you are more likely to shoot a family member or be shot yourself by a family member than you are to repel or shoot an intruder with a gun.

[Madspirit]

47. In Texas

Regardless of your sister inlaw's story, in Texas we already have a right to carry a concealed firearm and there has been very LITTLE problem with it. None of the problems people expected, no accidents or idiots just shooting for no reason. There have been almost no cases of this. Of course most of us learn how to shoot and use guns at a very young age. My daddy taught me how to shoot when I was 9. I don't have a gun but if I lived somewhere I felt threatened I would get one. The best way to prevent being shot by a homeowner is to not break into their home.
Lee

[Bridget Burke]

54. "most of us learn to shoot".....

Sorry, I missed that part of Being A Texan.

Home invasion is already an excuse to shoot. And a convenience store owner killed an armed robber here in Houston quite recently--he will not be prosecuted.

Now, just "feeling" you're threatened will be reason enough to shoot.

[Madspirit]

56. I'm Sorry

I'm not willing to wait to be raped and/or killed before I shoot someone in my HOME...MY home. If you read all my posts you would see that I already said I would NEVER kill someone over a material object, over my business, if I had one or over my car. ....but if they are in my home I am not about to wait and see why, before I kill their asses. All they have to do to prevent that is NOT be in my home.

Sorry I included all Texans. I should have said "all rural Texans". I have lived in Austin since I was 15 but before that lived on a farm.

I would never kill someone over an object. As I said, if you had read all my posts you would know that. ...but if my life or my family are threatened...kiss your ass goodbye. In theory. I don't even own a gun but if I lived somewhere I felt I needed to, you bet I would. Read all of someone's posts before you judge them. Please.
Lee

[Bridget Burke]

60. Well, you already have the right to shoot someone in your HOME.

And business owners can defend themselves. Not just to save the contents of the cash register--but because robbers have been known to kill even clerks who comply with their requests.

But the new proposal will allow shooters to go on their "feelings"--outside the home. And some Texans are a bit too eager to "kill their asses."

(I think that's pretty much what I said in my previous message. Are you implying that I'm "willing to wait to be raped and/or killed"? Well, I'm only a renter. I don't actually have a HOME.)

[Madspirit]

62. Of course not

Of course I am not implying you are willing to be raped and/or killed. I thought you were implying I am trigger happy and I don't even own a gun.
I just see a lot of knee-jerk responses and I am not accusing you of that, I am saying that is what I had my own knee-jerk response to, about Texans. I hate it. Bush didn't come from our state and we are not the only state with Right to Carry laws and handguns and cowboys and bubbas and...etc. Our Repugnant governor, Perry the Puke got 39% of the vote. That means a lot of people did not vote for him.
I just get so sick I want to spit every time I see an anti-Texas thread. Jeez...we're no different than anyone else and I get tired of it. Some of the best progressives I know of, called and call, Texas home, like you and me...<g>...and Ann and Molly. There are a lot of good people in our state and I'm tired of being shit on at DU.
Lee

[misternormal]

42. Just another reason to steer clear... n/t

[Katherine Brengle]

44. And?

[conscious evolution]

58. This is what that law is for.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/02/21/0221metburglary.html
"Clayton County police said a 16-year-old boy was "in fear for his life" Tuesday morning when he shot and killed a masked, unarmed intruder who broke into his Riverdale home.

Interim Chief Jeff Turner said the alleged shooter, identified by neighbors as Wes Stephens, has not been charged in the shooting on Camp Road, off Flat Shoals Road near the Fulton County line.

Stephens told police he heard a window break about 11:30 a.m. in the garage of the house he shares with his parents.

"He got his father's pistol, a semiautomatic, and fired multiple times," Turner said. "The intruder went to some lengths to disguise himself, wearing black clothes and a black bandanna across his face."

After shooting the intruder in the garage, Stephens recognized the man as Marques Karun McGhee, 19, of Riverdale, a former North Clayton High School acquaintance, Turner said.

Wes Stephens' father, Wesley Howard Stephens, had withdrawn his son from North Clayton High School because of danger caused by gangs, Turner said."

Now only if someone in Crawford.....

[benEzra]

59. Looks like it's time for a primer on self-defense law again...

I think that to understand stand-your-ground and Castle Doctrine laws in context (and to cut through the BS), a primer on self-defense law is in order.

The general criteria that must be met for a homicide to be ruled justifiable are very similar in every state. The best phrasing I have found so far is in Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4, but these criteria would apply in every state, and definitely apply in Florida and Texas. (Note that like Florida, North Carolina is a Castle Doctrine state.)

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must generally be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable (there is an exception for someone kicking your door in, but we'll get to that in a minute). Some states add a FIFTH criterion to the list above, that of running away from the imminent lethal threat before turning to defend yourself (and hoping the attacker doesn't kill you while your back is turned). Florida used to have such a provision, and eliminated it with the new law; most states have never had such a provision to start with, and AFAIK Texas does not.

OK, the really important part. Where the reporter in the OP, and a number of posters on this thread, got spun is the misunderstanding of the term "reasonably believes" in self-defense statutes. Reasonable belief does *NOT* mean merely "feeling threatened"; the phrase is a legal term, and its definition in the context of self-defense law is paragraph (b) above--that "the facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault." Merely "feeling threatened" isn't reasonable belief; the belief has to be objectively rational, i.e. there is in fact a guy standing in front of you holding what appears to be a knife in a threatening posture.

Also, it is important to understand that a claim of self-defense is not an automatic exemption to the laws against homicide. Rather, it is what is known as an "affirmative defense"; unlike the regular innocent-until-proven-guilty standard applied to a criminal act, the onus in a self-defense shooting is on the shooter to demonstrate that the shooting WAS indeed justifiable self-defense. In other words, in a self-defense case, the standard is "guilty unless shown innocent," and if the shooting is questionable, it is much more likely to swing against the person claiming self-defense than it is to swing in their favor.

There are a few other conditions that may constitute justifiable self-defense; for example, there is a provision in U.S. legal tradition called the Castle Doctrine that says that if someone is making an illegal forced entry into your home (whether by door or window, whatever), you are authorized to use whatever force is necessary to stop them and it would ordinarily be ruled justified; the presumption is that if the guy is kicking your door down, he's not there to sell magazine subscriptions. A majority of states explicitly spell out the Castle Doctrine in their laws, I believe, but the principle is there in every state, even Massachusetts. Florida, and most other states, also allow the use of lethal force to stop a "forcible felony," i.e. rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc. Texas used to also allow lethal force in defense of property in some circumstances, which probably dates back to frontier days when stealing your horse or your food would cause you to die of exposure or starvation); they may still, but it is my understanding that in general, shooting in defense of property in Texas can get you in big trouble.

OK, back to the new Florida law. The Florida law's primary effect was to eliminate the "duty to run away" provision, which was very subjective and had been abused by overzealous prosecutors; as I mentioned, most states don't have them, and a truly questionable scenario (you could have walked away in complete safety, but didn't) would fail points (a) and (c) anyway. The new also law reaffirmed the Castle Doctrine as it applies to your home, and also extended it to your car, so that if somebody actually tries to carjack you, you can use force to stop them as if they were breaking into your home (a response to South Florida carjackings which I think is reasonable). Finally, the new law states that if somebody attacks you and you use force in self-defense, and your use of force is ruled justifiable, the attacker cannot turn around and sue you for the injuries you caused him (yes, that happens).

Now, Texas doesn't have a duty to retreat provision, so the major changes here would seem to be the extension of the Castle Doctrine to include one's vehicle in cases of carjacking; I'm fairly sure Texas already has a Castle Doctrine provision as it applies to your home. Other than that, it would seem to be pretty much a restatement of existing Texas self-defense law, insofar as it still requires reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm as the criterion.

[Blue_Roses]

61. Well, good.

Now I can go out and buy that gun I've been wanting:eyes:


:sarcasm: