Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 10/31/2001 7:36:02 AM EDT
The other thread got locked just when it was getting interesting.... :(

Here is the State of Texas' thoughts on the subject....

https://www.texaspolicecentral.com/chapter_9.html

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

<snip>

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
§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 he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(2) to resist an arrest or search the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawfulunless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

<snip>

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

my thoughts...

--->Looks like the State of Texas realizes that SOME LEO's might try to make unlawful arrests or searches

However, you can only resist if they are using more force than is necessary to make this unlawful arrest or search and if the force they are using is threatening your life, or the life of another.

Force however is NOT deadly force. So the State of Texas has this part covered as well.....<--- end of my thoughts

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

( more...)
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 7:37:35 AM EDT
( continued...)

§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.3 1;

--->(I love Texas! If you are justified in using Force, then why not 'Kick it UP a notch!?!?')

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(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

--->Another thing I love about Texas! You come into a person's home unlawfully, or if the actor reasonably thinks you are doing so unlawfully, (LEO or not), and you are toast!

TheRedGoat

PS, the code is VERY long, I recommend you READ it if you live in Texas.

PPS, did you notice the link was from texaspolicecentral?

PPPS, biggest part of the argument is this, if the law is on the books, then you are NOT acting unlawfully to enter my home, right? What IF I THINK it is unlawful?

Catch 22, imho.


PPPPS, I am not going to resist, I am going to had over my 10/22 and .38 and my Imbrog|io doll saying "That's All, Officer." hehehe

Link Posted: 10/31/2001 7:39:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/31/2001 7:34:37 AM EDT by TheRedGoat]
My Concealed instructor gave me this advice years ago...

"Don't resist arrest, not matter how unjustly you feel you are being treated. They are like ants with Radios! You may be completely justified in the end for resisting, but you are going to lose your teeth at least, and maybe even your life. Not to mention years of legal bills." loosely paraphrased, of course


BTW, all the italics, bold in the code above is MY emphasis, not part of the original. CAPS are in the original.
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 8:58:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/31/2001 8:53:18 AM EDT by Dave_G]
Hi Goat!

The problem that occurs is that whether or not the "actor" realizes that he has resisted. It is routine procedure to place an arrestee in a control hold prior to handcuffing or search. Many times I have had an arrestee, or person being lawfully patted down or searched, attempt to pull away. That is resistance to a reasonable amount of force, a control hold prior to search or handcuffing being the reasonable level of force.

By the way, this belongs in General Discussion, not General Firearms Discussion.

Since the reasonableness of the amount of force, or the lawfulness of the search will not be decided until the case reaches the courts much later, it is always better to offer no resistance, even to an unlawful search or arrest. Remember, many patrol cars have video systems that record the incident for later review. It could hurt or help either side.
Top Top