Hungry Seagull
member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
I concede. Those Aha's get reduced to the lowest common denominator very quickly when death is nigh.
Castle Doctrine
- Thread starter nachosgrande
- Start date
- Status
DHJenkins
Member
Under Texas castle doctrine laws, I have the right to use deadly force to protect my life and my property while in my home, car or any place 'under my control'.
In fact, I believe we're one of the only states that allows the use of deadly force to stop someone from running off with our property.
As far as the OP's quote "MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY", I'm fine with it; know why? Because all you have to do is not break the law.
Could be stealing a pencil, could want to slit my throat in my sleep; I won't be sitting down with the person to discuss their motives.
In fact, I believe we're one of the only states that allows the use of deadly force to stop someone from running off with our property.
As far as the OP's quote "MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY", I'm fine with it; know why? Because all you have to do is not break the law.
Could be stealing a pencil, could want to slit my throat in my sleep; I won't be sitting down with the person to discuss their motives.
Blackbeard
Member
Wish I'd found this thread earlier.
Nachos - the problem you're having is confusing self-defense with punishment. When we shoot in self-defense, we are not meting out punishment, we are protecting ourselves, and in this case, our property. Death may be the result of our defensive actions, but that is the risk that a burglar takes.
Now, if I come across some idiot in my house with my pencil in his hand and running for the door, I'm probably not going to shoot him. But, I catch him on the way in, I don't know what his motives are, and I have to assume the worst. If you want to take the time and ask him if he only wants a pencil and then direct him to the pencil drawer, that's your option. I wouldn't take the risk.
P.S. You could just keep a jar of free pencils on your front porch, so you know that any intruders are after something more.
Nachos - the problem you're having is confusing self-defense with punishment. When we shoot in self-defense, we are not meting out punishment, we are protecting ourselves, and in this case, our property. Death may be the result of our defensive actions, but that is the risk that a burglar takes.
Now, if I come across some idiot in my house with my pencil in his hand and running for the door, I'm probably not going to shoot him. But, I catch him on the way in, I don't know what his motives are, and I have to assume the worst. If you want to take the time and ask him if he only wants a pencil and then direct him to the pencil drawer, that's your option. I wouldn't take the risk.
P.S. You could just keep a jar of free pencils on your front porch, so you know that any intruders are after something more.
bigione
Member
Nachos, I have had two home invasions and one prowler attemping to breakin. I never felt the need to pull the trigger. Each situation is different. For me one was an individual on drugs but controlable. One a drunk neighbor looking for help after driving into ditch. The third a mental case. I was armed and ready and believe I could have shot, but the feeling against taking a life was surely there. As I've said on another thread, you must prepare your mind set as much or more than your weapon. If you can't shot to defend self or family, than prepare sone other way. Don't be a willing victim.
Route2
Member
I though that this was interesting:
A law that God gave to ancient Israel is eerily similar to this Castle Law.—Exodus 22:2, 3 “2 If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder. 3 But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty of murder.” New Living Translation
If a thief was caught in the daytime and was killed, the assailant would be charged with murder. This was evidently because thievery did not carry the death penalty and the thief could have been identified and brought to justice. However, if an intruder was fatally struck at night, the householder could be exonerated because it would be difficult for him to see what the intruder was doing and to ascertain the intentions of the intruder. The householder could reasonably conclude that his family was under threat of harm and take defensive action.
I dunno, I thought it was interesting and was still on point.
A law that God gave to ancient Israel is eerily similar to this Castle Law.—Exodus 22:2, 3 “2 If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder. 3 But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty of murder.” New Living Translation
If a thief was caught in the daytime and was killed, the assailant would be charged with murder. This was evidently because thievery did not carry the death penalty and the thief could have been identified and brought to justice. However, if an intruder was fatally struck at night, the householder could be exonerated because it would be difficult for him to see what the intruder was doing and to ascertain the intentions of the intruder. The householder could reasonably conclude that his family was under threat of harm and take defensive action.
I dunno, I thought it was interesting and was still on point.
If someone is risking getting killed to break into your house, they obviously dont care about your safety or their own, this tells me they would harm or kill you without a second thought, so this is why you have the option to defend yourself.
be glad you have that option if you need it, protect that right. Its the best deterent to crime, nothing else bothers them or prevents it but the criminals fear.
be glad you have that option if you need it, protect that right. Its the best deterent to crime, nothing else bothers them or prevents it but the criminals fear.
Hungry Seagull
member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
We are glad to have that right that is protected and upheld by the state as a public benefit and safety to be absolute and good.
Break into someone's house is putting your life on the line.
I counted about ... 20+ home invasions during the last 14 months or so that I could see in the media and figure two were confused and obeyed commands to stay where they were at gunpoint (Drugs.. wrong house etc)
About 14 shot dead, they either died in the home or staggered back outside to die in the yard or street.
The rest were inconclusive shootouts that wounded one or both sides and sometimes police collects GSW after thier discharge from hospital.
On the CCW shoots, recently we had a dentist shoot a robber in a walmart hit him and the other two that were with him in getaway vehicle were all captured.
There were 4 felony police chases that I know of with bad guy fleeing. All ended in death by gunfire to the perp.
Looking at the county hospital, the ER fills with stabbings and domestics every night in small numbers. Not a great place to be.
I think there are about 65 thousand conceal carries now with about 500-1000 new permits issued each month, probably two times that number of gunowners with shotguns and rifles in our state.
Each morning brings news of yet another murder in Little Rock by criminals not bound by the laws. But the numbers are low compared to what I was used to in the larger NE cities back where I was raised.
The castle doctrine works in our state, tested, proven over and over again.
HOWEVER....
One or two cases of mistaken addresses by LEO's pulling NO knock raids lead to trouble when people inside those homes either resisted by gun fire or were total sheep caught completely unaware because they have absolutely NO connections to crime or drugs.
It is my belief that the Police made things right to those who were served by mistake but not always.
It is also my belief that most of my neighbors are all armed and shoot regularly and so far have had only two killings within ten miles of Searcy in the last... 30 years. One was a drugstore homicide in the 70's and another was a young teen who refused to drop his gun and was killed on the side of the road.
The rest are Marines or Soldiers brought back from current wars since 9-11 to be buried.
And of course there is the usual batch of drug houses, meth labs and rolling vehiculer traffic for commerce of illegal drugs and also vans that contain mobile labs. Most of which have firearms or dogs.
There are still many people who are not the kind to do crime, own weapons and live a peaceful life going to work, raising a family etc and never think for one day that they will be owners of guns.
Since the election, that has changed. I think one night I counted about 200 in a gander store, 150 in thompson and several smaller shops a few dozen total, half looking and the other half buying.
That activity has tapered off and has become steady.
Remington Arms in Lonoke Arkansas is flat out 24/7 working as hard as they can cranking out guns and ammo as the birdies tell me.
There are about a dozen conceal carry classes availible in my state each month. Each class probably holds 5 to 50 students at a time. Most of which will go on to apply for license to carry. Some will retain home defense only and not carry.
On the weekends it's almost impossible to get a slot at the range without some sort of wait time for a lane.
Finally but not last.
There are Military Installations in this state in addition to weapons production for Defense, those personel come and go with thier own weapons as they go about thier lives and work. It is safe to say that things are looking pretty durn good these days.
Break into someone's house is putting your life on the line.
I counted about ... 20+ home invasions during the last 14 months or so that I could see in the media and figure two were confused and obeyed commands to stay where they were at gunpoint (Drugs.. wrong house etc)
About 14 shot dead, they either died in the home or staggered back outside to die in the yard or street.
The rest were inconclusive shootouts that wounded one or both sides and sometimes police collects GSW after thier discharge from hospital.
On the CCW shoots, recently we had a dentist shoot a robber in a walmart hit him and the other two that were with him in getaway vehicle were all captured.
There were 4 felony police chases that I know of with bad guy fleeing. All ended in death by gunfire to the perp.
Looking at the county hospital, the ER fills with stabbings and domestics every night in small numbers. Not a great place to be.
I think there are about 65 thousand conceal carries now with about 500-1000 new permits issued each month, probably two times that number of gunowners with shotguns and rifles in our state.
Each morning brings news of yet another murder in Little Rock by criminals not bound by the laws. But the numbers are low compared to what I was used to in the larger NE cities back where I was raised.
The castle doctrine works in our state, tested, proven over and over again.
HOWEVER....
One or two cases of mistaken addresses by LEO's pulling NO knock raids lead to trouble when people inside those homes either resisted by gun fire or were total sheep caught completely unaware because they have absolutely NO connections to crime or drugs.
It is my belief that the Police made things right to those who were served by mistake but not always.
It is also my belief that most of my neighbors are all armed and shoot regularly and so far have had only two killings within ten miles of Searcy in the last... 30 years. One was a drugstore homicide in the 70's and another was a young teen who refused to drop his gun and was killed on the side of the road.
The rest are Marines or Soldiers brought back from current wars since 9-11 to be buried.
And of course there is the usual batch of drug houses, meth labs and rolling vehiculer traffic for commerce of illegal drugs and also vans that contain mobile labs. Most of which have firearms or dogs.
There are still many people who are not the kind to do crime, own weapons and live a peaceful life going to work, raising a family etc and never think for one day that they will be owners of guns.
Since the election, that has changed. I think one night I counted about 200 in a gander store, 150 in thompson and several smaller shops a few dozen total, half looking and the other half buying.
That activity has tapered off and has become steady.
Remington Arms in Lonoke Arkansas is flat out 24/7 working as hard as they can cranking out guns and ammo as the birdies tell me.
There are about a dozen conceal carry classes availible in my state each month. Each class probably holds 5 to 50 students at a time. Most of which will go on to apply for license to carry. Some will retain home defense only and not carry.
On the weekends it's almost impossible to get a slot at the range without some sort of wait time for a lane.
Finally but not last.
There are Military Installations in this state in addition to weapons production for Defense, those personel come and go with thier own weapons as they go about thier lives and work. It is safe to say that things are looking pretty durn good these days.
When I lived in CO, the law said that it was legal to use lethal force if someone was illegally in your house and you had reason to believe they intended to commit another crime. Thus, if they are breaking in and robbing you, or breaking in to rape your wife, or anything else, lethal force is acceptable. However, if a drunk wanders into the wrong house and passes out on your couch, and you wake up and find him there passed out, you can't simply kill him for the heck of it. (sounds kind of like the decisions where you decided not to kill someone.)
Route2
Member
(I am not a lawyer but I pretend to be one on the internet)
I am not sure if this law is writen just for self-defense. I lifted this from another post in another string.
§ 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.
This law appears to open the door beyond just a defensive effort to neutralize an attack and protect the homeowner if the assailant is killed. The homeowner needs only to be able to show that he REASONABLY BELIEVES whatever it is that he is believing. After that, it becomes kind of scary. Scenario: Your car breaks down in the rurals (cell phone gets no bars), you see a farm house and walk to it for help. You walk up the driveway, dogs barking and wagging their tails, you knock on the well lit porch door and an old fart throws open the door and screams, “You came to kill me!” And blasts you to pieces. I think he could successfully argue this law in court.
I am not sure if this law is writen just for self-defense. I lifted this from another post in another string.
§ 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.
This law appears to open the door beyond just a defensive effort to neutralize an attack and protect the homeowner if the assailant is killed. The homeowner needs only to be able to show that he REASONABLY BELIEVES whatever it is that he is believing. After that, it becomes kind of scary. Scenario: Your car breaks down in the rurals (cell phone gets no bars), you see a farm house and walk to it for help. You walk up the driveway, dogs barking and wagging their tails, you knock on the well lit porch door and an old fart throws open the door and screams, “You came to kill me!” And blasts you to pieces. I think he could successfully argue this law in court.
Husaberg Man
Member
You've posted the Texas Law. I'm not a lawyer either, but have talked about this subject with a family member who is an ass't DA in Texas.
Regarding your scenario, that would NOT (imo) pass the "reasonable person" argument. In other words, no reasonable person would consider it a threat for a guy to knock on the door. Even if it were reasonable to consider that a threat, it would then be unreasonable to literally open the door to the threat. Merely being on your property does not make someone a threat, and knocking on the door is not an indication that he is there to harm people or steal property.
If a person tried to argue that a threat existed, and assuming there were no arguments on the underllying facts, then that person is either lying (and guilty) or mentally defective. Either way, that homeowner would not walk out of court a free man.
But thejury doesn't have to believe the homeowner's claim. In your hypothetical, it's highly likely that the jury wouldn't buy it, and your homeowner will be going to prison.Route2 said:
Route2
Member
Actually, that is reassuring. So, just so I am clear. I know that hypothetical’s are not cool, so this will be my last. Scenario: Your car runs out of gas at night in the rurals (cell phone gets no bars), you see a farm house and walk to it for help. No lights are on in the house and there doesn’t appear to be anyone home. You see a tractor parked out near the barn. You find a length of rubber hose and a plastic milk jug and siphon a gallon of gas (unlawful act) while the dogs are barking and wagging their tails. The lights come on in the house, old fart throws open the door and yells, “come back with the gas, thief” and opens fire. Does this pass the "reasonable person" argument? Just would like to know about where the line is drawn.
DHJenkins
Member
I'm sure there's hundreds, if not thousands of hypothetical scenarios where something bad could happen to someone innocent.
The bottom line is, however, we're not going to give up our rights to protect ourselves and our property because someone, somewhere might make a mistake one day.
The bottom line is, however, we're not going to give up our rights to protect ourselves and our property because someone, somewhere might make a mistake one day.
DHJenkins
Member
IMO, yes. The person is a thief and the use of deadly force would be justified under the criminal mischief at nighttime sections and the recovery of property sections.
Besides, tractors usually run on diesel.
Here's the line - don't steal in TX.
EDIT - besides, you as the homeowner have no idea if he's stealing fuel for his car or to set your property on fire.
Route2
Member
It was an old “M” model International Farmall. Seriously, thanks for the insight. And you are right, tons of hypothetical situations.
It seems so simple, if they don’t break into my house, then no problem. If they do, then they are dead, straightforward, Black and White.
But things are never simple. There is the law and then the interpretation of the law.
My 2 cents: At best, I consider this law a safety net, a legal argument that could be successfully argued in a court of law. Like all nets, there are holes in it. Anytime you go to court it is a crap shoot. Unsympathetic jury; indifferent defense; aggressive, politically motivated prosecution; unfavorable judge; harmful eyewitness who says that it didn’t happen at all like you said; neighbors who don’t like you and take this as an opportunity to get you out of their neighborhood (oh yeah, their out there).
And what about the person that was killed, will their friends and family be happy about it? When we get off, might they be the ones screaming about the injustice of it all? Being freed on criminal charges does not mean we will not lose in a civil trial.
And maybe those friends and family will be looking for payback? In their eyes, WE are the criminal? We may be looking over our shoulder for the rest of our lives, and so may our family.
Then there is the court of public opinion. Co-workers or clients who don’t trust us because they “don’t know when we will go off or something.” Employers who don’t want the notoriety of a “Killer” working for them or whose daughter tells him that we “scare her.”
This is just me, no judgment of others intended here. I want to keep all my options open. I don’t want someone else to paint me in a corner by their rash actions. If it comes to it, I want to look the jurors in the eyes and say that my actions were defensive only. That I did not intent to kill (or punish) my attacker but only tried to neutralize the attack. I am sorry life was lost, but it was not intentional.
It seems so simple, if they don’t break into my house, then no problem. If they do, then they are dead, straightforward, Black and White.
But things are never simple. There is the law and then the interpretation of the law.
My 2 cents: At best, I consider this law a safety net, a legal argument that could be successfully argued in a court of law. Like all nets, there are holes in it. Anytime you go to court it is a crap shoot. Unsympathetic jury; indifferent defense; aggressive, politically motivated prosecution; unfavorable judge; harmful eyewitness who says that it didn’t happen at all like you said; neighbors who don’t like you and take this as an opportunity to get you out of their neighborhood (oh yeah, their out there).
And what about the person that was killed, will their friends and family be happy about it? When we get off, might they be the ones screaming about the injustice of it all? Being freed on criminal charges does not mean we will not lose in a civil trial.
And maybe those friends and family will be looking for payback? In their eyes, WE are the criminal? We may be looking over our shoulder for the rest of our lives, and so may our family.
Then there is the court of public opinion. Co-workers or clients who don’t trust us because they “don’t know when we will go off or something.” Employers who don’t want the notoriety of a “Killer” working for them or whose daughter tells him that we “scare her.”
This is just me, no judgment of others intended here. I want to keep all my options open. I don’t want someone else to paint me in a corner by their rash actions. If it comes to it, I want to look the jurors in the eyes and say that my actions were defensive only. That I did not intent to kill (or punish) my attacker but only tried to neutralize the attack. I am sorry life was lost, but it was not intentional.
Let me get this straight.....
So as I understand it, NachosLibre was trolling about Castle Doctrine. (The truth is it varies from state to state within the states that have that particular political ideology. A nice broad question that has no definitive answer). He (or possibly she you never know) attempts to illustrate the insanity of the law by castigating it as punishment rather than response, and uses someone holding a pencil when shot as a way to illustrate the disproportionate punishment to crime, ignoring the fact that the erstwhile example has already bypassed (most likely forceably) locks and other security measures. (hey they didn't say they forgot to lock the door). And then finally equates the momentary decisions of the robbery victim to a judge and jury, ignoring the fact that 'ignorance of the law' cuts both ways, and that the perp's actions carry consequences sometimes beyond his/her control also. Just because the dumb@$$ who broke into my house doesn't know I have the right to shoot him is not a legal safeguard to keep me from shooting him any more than my not knowing a particular state has death penalties is a legal safeguard from my own execution should I commit a capital crime in that state.
Do I have this correctly?
So as I understand it, NachosLibre was trolling about Castle Doctrine. (The truth is it varies from state to state within the states that have that particular political ideology. A nice broad question that has no definitive answer). He (or possibly she you never know) attempts to illustrate the insanity of the law by castigating it as punishment rather than response, and uses someone holding a pencil when shot as a way to illustrate the disproportionate punishment to crime, ignoring the fact that the erstwhile example has already bypassed (most likely forceably) locks and other security measures. (hey they didn't say they forgot to lock the door). And then finally equates the momentary decisions of the robbery victim to a judge and jury, ignoring the fact that 'ignorance of the law' cuts both ways, and that the perp's actions carry consequences sometimes beyond his/her control also. Just because the dumb@$$ who broke into my house doesn't know I have the right to shoot him is not a legal safeguard to keep me from shooting him any more than my not knowing a particular state has death penalties is a legal safeguard from my own execution should I commit a capital crime in that state.
Do I have this correctly?
DHJenkins
Member
TX CD laws include shielding from civil litigation as well.
Like everything else, it's a matter of where you live. Where you're from, you might be seen as a pariah if you shot someone in self defense. Down here you darn near get a parade.
There's always the chance of payback, but there's also a chance you could have a heart attack while reading this.
When in a 'situation' there is ONLY the 'here and now'. Consideration in the place of action could cost you your life.
Besides, you can always just move afterwards.
Last edited:
Route2
Member
Agreed. And talk all we want, we will not know what we will REALLY do until the situations arises.
Husaberg Man
Member
Speaking only for Texas, we can use force to stop a threat. In your hypothetical, there's no pause between the homeowner's order to "come back with the gas" and opening fire.
If I order you to stop and you comply, that the imminent threat is gone and my right to use deadly force is OVER. That's not to say that I'm lowering my weapon, because the cessation of the threat could be temporary.
DawgsFan_07
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2009
- Messages
- 40
I was driving to the grocery and was goinging through the bad part of town one time. I had the window part way rolled down, and a guy came up and asked for a ride to his apartment. I asked where it was and it was not at all on the way I was going so I told him I couldn't help him. He said ok, then went to the passenger side and started to open it (I know, I should've locked the doors.) I put my hand on my gun (in the console between the seats) and said very firmly and loudly: Get out of my car! It seemed to me that he was either not all there or on something, but not aggressive or hostile. Also, I didn't think he was trying to carjack me, at least at that time as he was going to the passenger side. He started arguing "Come on man, give me a hand here" and I just repeated - Get off my car, go away! After that he left.
One time, I had a feeling that something wasn't right, got my gun from the drawer and looked around the house. I heard a scratching noise from the front and could see the front door knob wiggling. I called the police, and went to a corner of the living room in the dark where I had a good shot at the door. I planned to shoot if the guy got through the lock and came in. The police arrived, but the guy ran off and they didn't catch him.
One time, I had a feeling that something wasn't right, got my gun from the drawer and looked around the house. I heard a scratching noise from the front and could see the front door knob wiggling. I called the police, and went to a corner of the living room in the dark where I had a good shot at the door. I planned to shoot if the guy got through the lock and came in. The police arrived, but the guy ran off and they didn't catch him.
- Status
