You’d end up in prison.
“Having fears” is not a “reasonable fear of imminent or immediate grave bodily harm or death”.
Reginald Denny’s attack began with bricks and rocks being hurdled at his truck.
His mistake was exiting the truck.
Of course it is. If you reasonably fear for your life… that’s the litmus test… all about convincing the jury.
1 Like
He was DRUG from the truck. His mistake was stopping.
He stopped at the light, and allowed them to open his door.
He would have been perfectly justified in driving on as soon as the first rock/brick struck his windshield.
And you’d end up in prison if all they’ve done is block in your vehicle.
Well, we can disagree. Masked people surrounding your car and impeding your movement is a threat and if you don’t see it as such you’re putting your family at risk.
It is an inconvenience, not “threat”, it is not by any stretch an “imminent or immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death”.
I’ve never called a use of force case in the last 25 years, I know the law, I know the case law, and I know what will land you in jail.
Accelerating through a crowd of protesters who are simply blocking your path at a minimum is aggravated assault.
Precisely. There is difference between a group of protestors and masked men surrounding your vehicle.
There is a reason why they’re masked.
And we are a nation of too many laws and regulation/rules.
If you don’t want to get shot…don’t surround a mans vehicles with his family. It’s really is simple at that.
And that should be the law/rule.
1 Like
I would like to know when it became lawful in this country to roam the streets in groups or large crowds with masks on! Since 9/11 you can’t go anywhere like a bank or the airport or even your place of work with sunglasses or a hat that can hide your identity and ANTIFA is allowed to do this with impunity!
I don’t care if it was nuns and priests getting away with this stuff, even before 9/11 this type of activity was not lawful so the fact that this is happening primarily in Dem controlled areas is a blatant example of far left liberal lawlessness and a double low enforcement standard!
2 Likes
Like I said, we can disagree. A masked group around my car is a threat and Antifa’s History proves my point. They are violent. Fear for one’s life in Texas isn’t that hard to establish. A reasonable person would be afraid because they never just stand there, they have hands on your vehicle. I’ll fight the case rather than risk the lives of my family.
1 Like
“Afraid” is not the standard. Unless they take some aggressive action, threaten you with harm etc and demonstrate the ability to carry out that threat there is no “imminent or immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death”.
You can’t use deadly force lawfully just on the premise “I’m scared”. If you do, you’ll end up in prison.
“Should be” and “Is” are two completely different things.
Well tha’ts not true, you can wear a hat and sunglasses to any airport in the country and just about any place of public access.
Depending on where you work there may be limitations.
It’s never been illegal to wear masks in public although I think there’s a strong argument for making it illegal to wear them during a protest.
I doubt such a law/ordinance would survive a court challenge however.
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), 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 actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
© was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder,
sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
Reasonably believes… in other words… if I fear for my life and I believe driving over a thug with a mask is necessary to save my life. Obviously if you have a masked crowd stopping you and touching your car, it’s reasonable to believe that they will harm you. Force is permissible.
Every lawyer with his salt will tell you that fear for your life is the litmus test. This goes back to you reasonably believed you were in harms way… I’ll fight the case despite your opinion. . . And I’ll win. Common sense applies though… driving through a crowd just because isn’t what’s I’m talking about. Thugs in masks stopping me from moving and surrounding my car is sufficient reason for me to use deadly force to prevent violence to myself or my family.
1 Like
I think you’re right that the SC would shoot it down… but we should be merciless in mocking these cowards as a society.
No, “reasonably believes” and to use deadly force the bar is “imminent or immediate” grave bodily harm or death, not “I was afraid”.
You can beat this horse till the hide falls off and the meat rots off the bone but you can’t spin it into a justification for running over people who are simply blocking your path and not demonstrating an actual imminent/immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death.
You run over a bunch of protesters who are not directly and obviously threatening that grave bodily harm or death immediately and you end up in prison.
All I know is every time I go to my credit union there is a sign no hats and sunglasses and after 9/11 my place of employment same thing no hats or sunglasses even though we had an electronic entry system you couldn’t get past the security guard if you wearing either one of those items.
The thought that groups like ANTIFA and BLM would have a chance of successfully arguing their case in court is disturbing, IMO.
You may be correct about how the law sees it.
However, each person reacts differently to situations and their perception of threat levels.
If I have my children in my car with me and am surrounded by masked people beating on my car my first thought is going to be to get the hell out of there to protect my children. I might panic because I’ve never experienced such a thing before. So the threat level in my mind is a 10 out of 10. Which means I might floor it and run through some people.
For you? Maybe the threat level is a 3 out of 10 because you’ve had different experiences in life.
And where are the police when you need them to disburse the threat so you don’t have to take the risk of losing your children by being put in jail? Reigned in by the local liberal mayor who wants to be the next democrat poster boy?
Where the hell is the culpability for the situation in that scenario?
1 Like