Texas-Book-Gun Law Armed And Educated - Flipbook - Page 153
Continuing the issue, if our wandering Adam then returns fire
at Wanda, is Wanda then legally justified in using deadly force
to defend herself? Or, because Adam and Jane are accidental
trespassers, is Adam required to retreat first before he takes any
action? Keep in mind that Wanda knows nothing about Adam and
Jane’s courtship stroll. She is just confronted with two trespassers
who did not respond to her verbal requests, and now have responded
to her warning shot with muzzle flashes from a pistol. Ultimately,
you can see how messy this type of scenario can become, and it
started with a well-intentioned warning shot.
After the dust clears (assuming perfect knowledge), Wanda likely
used a higher degree of force than the law allows. But who decides
if a warning shot is just a warning and not a shot at someone
that simply missed? Who decides if a response to a situation is
reasonable? In the vast majority of cases in Texas, a jury ultimately
decides. There are no bright lines on warning shots, so be advised
that a warning shot can potentially be viewed as a use of deadly
force, whether you subjectively intended it to be or not. Therefore,
it should never be used without careful consideration.
V. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “REASONABLY BELIEVE FORCE IS
IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY”?
Under Texas law, the legal standard for a justified use of force is
generally expressed as: a person must “reasonably believe” that the
use of force is “immediately necessary” to protect against the unlawful
use of force. See Tex. Penal Code § 9.31.
But what does “reasonably believe” mean? Further, when is
something immediately necessary—and who decides whether it is
or not? The answers to these questions are how the legal process
142 | CHAPTER SEVEN