A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:. A to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or. B to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and.
A the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or. B the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.
A the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;. B he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or. C the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
The justification afforded by Sections 9. Amended by Acts , 64th Leg. Acts , 73rd Leg. The use of force to prevent the escape of an arrested person from custody is justifiable when the force could have been employed to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard employed by a correctional facility or a peace officer is justified in using any force, including deadly force, that he reasonably believes to be immediately necessary to prevent the escape of a person from the correctional facility.
An officer or employee of a correctional facility is justified in using force against a person in custody when and to the degree the officer or employee reasonably believes the force is necessary to maintain the security of the correctional facility, the safety or security of other persons in custody or employed by the correctional facility, or his own safety or security.
Added by Acts , 70th Leg. Nguyen ran towards him wielding a chair as a weapon. Tran ran down Mr. Nguyen and shot him while Mr. Nguyen was unarmed. This distinction is very important because a threat of violence is key in a Texas self-defense case. Under Texas law, the use of deadly force to defend yourself is justified if: 1 the actor would be justified in using deadly force to defend against an attack because the actor reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to protect the actor from the unlawful use of force; or 2 when the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to defend against illegal use of unlawful deadly force.
In the Tran case, the Court possessed ample evidence that Mr. Tran said something to provoke Mr. Nguyen before the altercation. Under Texas law, a jury may take into account any event that might show that a defendant intended to provoke the person whom they attacked. In this case, the jury properly considered the fact that Mr.
Tran provoked Mr. Nguyen before Mr. Tran fatally shot Mr. The jury also took into account the fact that Mr. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:. Please help us improve our site! No thank you. CFR prev next.
0コメント