Is this Texas law???


PDA






tegemu
October 11, 2006, 12:41 PM
The November issue of "Guns and Ammo" magazine has a letter in the Readers Forum that makes the following statement:

"...I learned that the interpretation of laws in Texas has changed in the last four years; a citizen firing in self defense must fire once at an attacker, then wait to determine the effectiveness of the shot and fire again only if the attacker is not incapacitated. The traditional "Double Tap," would now invite prosecution."....

Is this true???

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this Texas law???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PaulTX
October 11, 2006, 12:51 PM
No, it's not true. If you are justified in using lethal force - then be lethal. Of course it's bad form to shoot them in the back when they crawling or running away.

Paul

TX1911fan
October 11, 2006, 12:55 PM
Yeah, I read that as well this month. It's not Texas law, but the instructor probably said that in reality that's what you'll have to do in today's world. If witnesses say you kept shooting even though the guy was trying to get away, you're screwed, even if your initial use of deadly force was adequate. However, there is no law that says you have to wait between each shot.

M2 Carbine
October 11, 2006, 01:14 PM
That's totally wrong.
Even in the shooting qualification you fire 1, 2, 3 and 5 consecutive shots.

And as far as Texas law, you DO NOT have to be under the threat of personal harm to shoot a (escaping) criminal.
You are within your rights to use whatever force necessary to protect or RECOVER your property.
Running away with a wallet can get you a (legal) bullet in the back.
But if you see the criminal DROP the wallet, you can no longer shoot because you are no longer "recovering" your property.



Subch. D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

PC 9.41.
Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

PC 9.42.
Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

PC 9.43.
Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

TIMC
October 11, 2006, 02:15 PM
No specific number of rounds or how rounds are fired are mentioned. Aside from property protection If you believe Deadly force is necessary to prevent bodily harm you are allowed by law to use the force deemed necessary to stop the threat which means basically as many rounds as it takes. With that thought I would also say it would be considered someone crawling away from you would no longer be considered a threat.

wally
October 11, 2006, 02:21 PM
Too much room for "interpretation" by an anti prosecutor. That's why we need the "castle doctrine" law like Florida just passed. If you are not already a TSRA member, join and help make it happen!

--wally.

wdlsguy
October 11, 2006, 02:37 PM
Texas already has "castle doctrine". It doesn't have "stand your ground" outside your castle.

R.Edd
October 11, 2006, 02:39 PM
If this is true, I wonder who will interpret the necessary "wait" time. 1 second? 30 seconds?

Sam Adams
October 11, 2006, 03:33 PM
Texas already has "castle doctrine". It doesn't have "stand your ground" outside your castle.

Agreed. That "stand your ground" law must include not only protection for average Janes and Joes from criminal prosecution, but also from civil lawsuits from the goblin or his heirs (assuming a legit. case of self-defense, of course). Without the lawsuit protection you'll stay out of jail, but the guys inside will probably have better food and cable than you'll have for a while.

MechAg94
October 11, 2006, 03:54 PM
Civil protection would be great.

As above, you shoot to stop the threat. If they are running away, they are not a threat.

Also, Texas allows deadly force for threat to life or threat of serious bodily injury which can include getting pummeled by bare fists.

Also, in some cases you can shoot over property, but you need to be careful with that. It is always healthy to keep in mind that you might have to explain yourself to a jury.

MechAg94
October 11, 2006, 03:56 PM
On the specifics about shooting, there is no such law. I just renewed a couple months back with no mention of anything like that.

Remember the legislature has not been in session since the beginning of 2005. No new law like that was passed or we would have heard it from TSRA or other sources. The legislature will be in session again next year.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this Texas law???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!