Texas-Book-Gun Law Armed And Educated - Flipbook - Page 168
necessary to defend himself. Here, David skipped mere force and
immediately used deadly force. Was this reasonable? Should David
have first used non-deadly force? Should he have used a method of
dispute resolution? If he could have retreated out of a back door, was
his use of deadly force really immediately necessary? If there were
no legal presumptions under Sections 9.31 and 9.32, these are the
types of questions and issues that would be presented for the jury to
determine.
However, in this example, because David is about to be a victim of
murder at his business, the law will deem “reasonable” his belief
that deadly force was immediately necessary! This is a powerful
legal presumption and limits prosecutorial arguments regarding the
reasonableness of when the force was used or the degree of force
used, because it is legally deemed reasonable. How do we know
David acted in self-defense? In this example, the attacker makes it
easy, because he cleared up any ambiguity of his intentions when
he declared, “I am gonna kill everyone in here!” while wielding an
axe. Thus, under Texas law, David, as a would-be victim of murder,
is entitled to a legal presumption that he had a reasonable belief that
it was immediately necessary to use force or deadly force against
the attacker to prevent his own murder. Therefore, David is legally
justified in using deadly force.
If, for some reason, David was ever charged with a crime for killing
the would-be murderer, and David puts forth “some evidence” in trial
that he was about to be the victim of murder, the jury would then get
to decide whether David acted in self-defense under Sections 9.31
and 9.32. For a discussion of the legal concept of “some evidence,”
see Section D. The jury will be told that if David reasonably believed
he was about to be murdered, the law will presume reasonable that
When Can I Legally Use My Gun: Part II | 157
