The Knockout Game

[hellishhorses]

While I absolutely feel the same way, how would one go about doing this without going to jail?

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(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.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.


Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

That's why I say if they don't immediately leave. If they stick around, there's still a threat to the injured and other people in the area.

 

[atticus finch]

Honestly, I have no idea why these ignorant shits aren't shot on sight.

Because of what it would do to the average individuals life in terms of the legal horrors it would bring. It is why a lot people are afraid to use force or otherwise stand up to the trash in our society, even if they survive the legal system they know the legal repercussions are horrific.

I suspect it is also why these animated porta-potties do what they do, at some level they know the odds against encountering any real resistance is very long given the fear people have of the legal system.

Remove that impediment, the horror of our legal system and this problem, as with many others, would solve themselves immediately.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

If it already happened, would be pretty difficult to prove it was necessary....


Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against it.

 

[London]

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(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.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.


Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

And if the perpetrator immediately runs away all that goes out the window. We need a law change in response to this.

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

I wonder if you can chase them to prevent any other innocents from being hurt?

 

[txinvestigator]

These are surprise attacks, guys. Completely. Nothing in chapter 9 justifies shooting someone who just approaches you.

No amount of bad assery or even being in condition orange will prevent one of these attacks.

Think OODA loop, action vs reaction, et .

 

[txinvestigator]

While I absolutely feel the same way, how would one go about doing this without going to jail?

He is talking about a citizens arrest, I believe. Perfectly justified in such a situation.

 

[shooterfpga]

These are surprise attacks, guys. Completely. Nothing in chapter 9 justifies shooting someone who just approaches you.

No amount of bad assery or even being in condition orange will prevent one of these attacks.

Think OODA loop, action vs reaction, et .

What if you are witness to this. Can you shoot them in the act?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

 

[Sapper740]

Something is going to happen someday. The money to pay for all the leeches will run out and it will be chaos.

^This is what I prepare for.^

 

[txinvestigator]

What if you are witness to this. Can you shoot them in the act?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Have you seen how quickly these happen? It is DONE before you would have time to even recognize what was happening.

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

What about the cases where friends stick around to get in some sucker kicks while the guys down? I've seen that in a few videos. All it takes is one good kick to the temple and you're done.

 

[Sapper740]

He is talking about a citizens arrest, I believe. Perfectly justified in such a situation.

The bad actor's friends would probably jump to his "rescue" at which point I would fervently argue that my life was in danger, retrieve my weapon and start shooting. I'm sure once the precedent has been set, many defenses using the same argument will follow.

 

[London]

What about the cases where friends stick around to get in some sucker kicks while the guys down? I've seen that in a few videos. All it takes is one good kick to the temple and you're done.

Justified if his life is in reasonable danger.

The best way to prevent this stuff is to arm yourself and walk with an armed friend. It would not be hard to justify shooting a man who just knocked out your friend for no reason at all on self-defense grounds. At that point most people will find it reasonable that you were in fear of death or grave bodily injury. If you take it first, well, that's what your buddy is for.

It would be nice if the law were changed so that perpetrators of these crimes could be legally shot while fleeing. They are extreme dangers to the public as long as they are breathing.

Once enough thugs get shot the game will lose its popularity.

 

[London]

The bad actor's friends would probably jump to his "rescue" at which point I would fervently argue that my life was in danger, retrieve my weapon and start shooting. I'm sure once the precedent has been set, many defenses using the same argument will follow.

Hope you don't mind being the next George Zimmerman. I can see the weeping mothers now, "He a good boy who just got caught up with the wrong crowd. He dint deserve to dah fuh hittin' nobody! What kinda sense that make?"

 

[M. Sage]

The come to my "neighborhood" doing that and they won't leave. Period. (not an Obama period either)

Not tough talk from me, it's the way things were out here before I arrived and will be after I'm gone.

Pig farmers in the neighborhood?

 

[txinvestigator]

What about the cases where friends stick around to get in some sucker kicks while the guys down? I've seen that in a few videos. All it takes is one good kick to the temple and you're done.

Absolutely a justified case, IMO.

 

[txinvestigator]

The bad actor's friends would probably jump to his "rescue" at which point I would fervently argue that my life was in danger, retrieve my weapon and start shooting. I'm sure once the precedent has been set, many defenses using the same argument will follow.

If you and I are imagining the scenario similarly, then I agree.

 

[benenglish]

Juggalo type punched local guy...

There are Juggalos in Austin? Didn't know that.

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

I know up by Ft Hood we have some. I saw one in the Copperas Cove walmart. I went to school with him, so that put him at about 27-30 years old. I almost died laughing. I was trying to hold it until he left. Then, when he left, I had remorse that I didn't just let out a good belly laugh while he was there so he could be reminded of how ridiculous he looked.