Is Texas considering a "Castle Doctrine" law?

[oops!]

I went after a guy that broke into my neighbor's apartment at 6 a.m. on a Sunday morning. I knew she was a single woman. The noise got my attention. I finished dressing, grabbed my .45 and checked my peep hole. I saw the guy exit the apartment. I opened my door, and keeping my body shielded by my doorframe, ordered him to lie down on the walkway. He did and I called 911. 4 minutes later I had 3 units in front of my door.

The 1st officer asked if I was the caller and did I witness the B&E. I replied yes and he cuffed the guy, before asking me to safety my pistol. I flicked the safety and told him I was going to place it on the ground. He said don't do that, just put it away. BIG SURPRISE!

I have only been in Texas a few years, so I didn't know how the police felt about armed citizens. Due to the drugs found in the apartment the city prosecuter was called and I got to talk to both he and the police chief for quite a while, while waiting on a crime scene crew. Both seemed genuinely happy that I was able to catch the guy in the act and to detain him. The fact that I was armed around the police officers didn't seem to bother them at all. I asked the prosecuter what would have been my liability if I had been forced to shoot and he said, "none, if you where careful of other tenants/bystanders".

Turns out the guy was on parole (out less than 2 months) had a Berretta and 90 hits of meth in his car.

Thats when I got the whole," you're in Texas, you can shoot the bad guys", line. From the prosecuter himself.

This is in Harris County by the way, Friendswood.

 

[Baron Holbach4]

Thats when I got the whole," you're in Texas, you can shoot the bad guys", line. From the prosecuter himself.

 

[Deavis]

Double Naught Spy and Hawkmoon,

My statement was this: If the use of deadly force is permitted by law then there is no duty to retreat in Texas.

If you are justified in using deadly force then you have already satisfied the reasonable person clause and therefore there is no duty to retreat before employing deadly force. I didn’t say that you could use deadly force in every situation, but that the law specifically mentioned no need to consider retreat in a home invasion scenario.

My point with the person running away from you was simple. Would a grand jury made up of reasonable people believe that an individual fleeing from you was a threat under the law? Absent any other circumstances that allow you to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing (this is covered in the case of property, kidnapping, etc by the law, read it) the question is will the GJ find your action reasonable? I should have specified the example more fully, that is my mistake, but I was simply tossing out a quick example of the reasonability clause being in effect. Someone tossing a gun and turning tail may not qualify under the justification of deadly force and therefore it would be unreasonable to use deadly force. I did not mean to indicate that shooting someone in the back, despite an attorney’s posturing, would always be unreasonable.

Keep in mind that the GJ will consider the totality of the situation before making a decision on your shoot. Once again, as it was explained in my CHL course, if you are justified in using deadly force, according to the specifications in the law, then a reasonable person would not retreat, they would use deadly force. Do you see the fine distinction there or am I not clear enough? Your example provides great support for exactly what I said.

Because under Texas law, he had the right to stop a crime at night regarding the reasonable belief that if he didn't shoot, he might not get his property back from the bandit. The shooter had no reason to retreat but wasn't in fear for his life.

This case falls exactly under the justification of deadly force and a reasonable person would use it in that situation. Case closed.

The second example just drives home exactly what I said. The man was justified under section 9.43 to use deadly force and therefore it was reasonable to use it. Case closed. If however, the man has simply exchanged words with someone near his car, not specifically burglarizing it, he would not be justified in using deadly force. Even if the guy said, “I’m going to kill you” it isn’t necessarily grounds for deadly force, see the above section 9.04.

As far as castle doctrine goes, it would not have applied here as the burglars stealing the cocks didn't break into the guy's house. I don't care whether or not YOU think shooting a person in the back is reasonable. What YOU think doesn't matter per se as the law does not preclude the use of lethal force in said circumstances of using lethal force against a nonthreat taking property. It is part of the reason it is quite dangerous to be a repo man in Texas as the person from whom a vehicle is being repo'd can claim he thought the repo person was stealing the vehicle.

As I said above, you did not see the distinction in what I said. This is completely covered by my statement, If the use of deadly force is permitted by law then there is no duty to retreat in Texas. Your last statement is questionable because it could very well be that the GJ will find you did not fulfill the requirements to use deadly force because you are not defending your property per se. That is the bank’s property not yours, you probably knew that you were behind and were subject to repossession, and therefore could be held liable for the shooting depending on the circumstances (say the repo man claims he announced himself). I’m not saying that it could not be deemed a legit shoot, I’m just saying that it open to interpretation by a GJ.

McKown had carried a gun for years, apparently, but was clueless on relevant laws. Out of fear of being arrested for brandishing, he stood up and addressed the gunman verbally with no gun drawn and was shot 5 times.

That man should not have been carrying a gun if he didn’t know the law and understand it. It is a shame what happened, but it is his fault.