Texas-Book-Gun Law Armed And Educated - Flipbook - Page 203
If, for some reason, Jose finds himself charged with any form of
crime for his shooting of the dog (this could be anything from cruelty
to animals to discharge of a firearm in city limits, etc.) Jose will not
be able to rely on a specific statute for self-defense because there
are none. Rather, Jose will have to rely on the general legal doctrine
of necessity as described above. This means that a jury would
ultimately decide whether Jose’s conduct met the requirements of
Section 9.22. First, did Jose “reasonably” believe his conduct (in
this case, drawing and firing his gun) was immediately necessary
to avoid imminent harm (being bitten, mauled, etc.)? Without legal
presumptions available under either of the Texas versions of “Castle
Doctrine” or “Stand Your Ground” types of laws, a prosecutor will
fully be able to argue that Jose should have retreated, that he used
too much force, or that the threat really was not imminent.
Second, if a defendant satisfies the first part, he or she must still
pass a desirability and urgency test according to the standards
of reasonableness. In the case of Jose, he would argue that the
desirability of a human (in this case, himself) not being bitten by a
dog when walking in his neighborhood outweighs the law against
either discharging a firearm in the city limits or a charge of cruelty
to animals, etc. However, a prosecutor would be free to question all
aspects of his conduct and second-guess him in court. In this case,
it will be for the jury to decide if Jose, or any person in a similar
situation, acted reasonably.
192 | CHAPTER NINE
