One of my readers mentioned the fact
that I often use law enforcement related articles in my News Letter.
His observation was followed by, "What about the majority of us, who
are not cops?"
Texas statutes relating to
defending one's self from an attack, believed by a reasonable
person, to be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury,
do not change just because the victim wears or does not wear a
1. Who was the victim?
The victim of the attack was the
law enforcement officer. It was not the juvenile attacker.
And, as I pointed out above, his LEO status did not alter the
officer's justification for defending himself.
2. Should the "unarmed"
condition of the attacker be considered?
The attacker was said to have
been unarmed, however, if you, a reasonable person, believe the
threat of serious bodily injury or death is both immediate and
imminent, the question best asked by you, the victim, should be,
"Can he kill me, and will he?", not "What will he kill me with."
3. Does it matter that
the attacker was a "kid"?
I'm an old guy. I'm neither
as fast nor as strong as I once was. But, my life has just
as much value, to me, as it ever did.
The degree of force I believe is
necessary to protect myself from serious bodily injury or death,
that might be caused by a "kid", is no less than than the force
I may deem necessary to protect myself from someone a year or
two older. My need to use force, as well as the degree to
which I must use that force, is determined by what an attacker
is trying to do to me, not by whom it is being done.
Only the manner in which I am
capable of delivering the force necessary to stop the aggressor
is pertinent. In some instances, the delivery method might