Para.9.41 states you have the right to use force to recover. In the instance in the article he did not use deadly force but he did use the threat of it to recover.The guy in the article was arrested for assault with intent to kill, I say it was threat to use deadly force to recover.
>>Para.9.41 states you have the right to use force to recover.
>>In the instance in the article he did not use deadly force >>but
>>he did use the threat of it to recover.The guy in the article
>>was arrested for assault with intent to kill, I say it was
>>threat to use deadly force to recover.
Perhaps it was, perhaps not. 9.41 is not the finest piece of legalistic prose ever written and what constitutes "threat to use deadly force" versus "deadly force" is open to interpretation. If this were in Texas you can bet that the prosecution would take one interpretation and defense the other leaving the jury to decide.
But not deadly force.
Para 9.42 deals with deadly force.
The short version:
A person is justified in using deadly force in protection of property to the degree you reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing or fleeing after committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during nighttime, and you reasonable believe it can’t be protected by any other means or not using deadly force would put you at risk of death or serious bodily injury.
I say it was threat to use deadly force to recover.
Waving a firearm in the air is a possible threat.
Pointing a firearm at someone is a threat.
Firing a firearm is use with intent to do something.
Firing a firearm more than once sure looks and smells like intent to kill somebody somehow.
And, as I hinted above, there are conditions by which even should 9.42 apply, the right is lost when its exercise is reckless or endangers an innocent third party