Question regarding Texas state law

[AmbulanceDriver]

In the midst of a discussion with my family tonight, the topic of self defense in Texas came up. My understanding is that someone in Texas is authorized to use deadly force during the course of someone trespassing onto their property after dark (dusk to dawn).

If this is correct, can someone please post a link or a copy of the relative section of Texas law? Appreciate it. If this is incorrect, I also appreciate being educated. Thanks all....

 

[Jimmie]

§ 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.

 

[Javelin]

Didnt some guy shoot two perps dead in his neighbors lawn for stealing from their house. All the while the 911 operator told him not to do it? I dont think he was ever taken in for questioning. They didnt even detain him, just showed up and sat at his kitchen table to take the statements. CNN was there of course. haha.

Texas seems pretty serious about their civilian criminal protection legislation.

 

[nalioth]

Please note the OP is asking about the laws concerning "after dark".

 

[TexasRifleman]

The "darkness" thing only applies to certain things, mainly in the use of deadly force to protect property. Here is that part of the penal code in full.

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.

So you can see that the darkness restriction only applies to theft and criminal mischief. Arson, burglary, robbery and aggravated robber do not have the darkness clause. Some folks read this as the entire list requiring darkness but that would make no sense at all since darkness is used twice. Since it is used twice it is clearly intended only for the crimes that it's used in conjunction with; theft and criminal mischief.

It's iffy of course because it includes the "reasonable person" clause, which is always hard to guess.

 

[ashtxsniper]

It doesnt have to be dark. Look into the Texas Castle Doctrine.

 

[Jimmie]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3880630

 

[BAT1]

With the new law, it extended the hours to 24/7. 9.42 or 03 states that you can defend your neighbors home upon request. I have exchanged written permission with my neighbors to comply with that portion. The wife of one of the Illegals shot is crying to reverse that. I hope they honor the law.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

First off, Sec. 9.41 of the Texas Penal Code covers only use of force, not use of lethal force. However, you must meet 9.41 before you use deadly force under Sec. 9.42. Here is the relevant code in its entirety:

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.

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.

Please pay attention to the phrase "reasonably believes", "immediately necessary" and the caveat in 9.42(3)(A) because those caveats are important. If you can't convince a grand jury that your action was reasonable based on your belief at the time AND that it was immediately necessary to use deadly force AND that the property could not be recovered or protected by any other means, then you could be looking at serious criminal charges.

 

[target1911]

§ 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.

My question is this......It only says FORCE not DEADLY FORCE. Does that mean I can pysicaly force them off of my land but I cant shoot them or use other means of deadly force?

 

[Jimmie]

Texas laws aren't the best in the country (although they are at least decent), but their grand juries and juries are hard to beat. I've never seen less sympathy for criminals.

 

[Jimmie]

target1911: Right... 9.41 allows the use of "force." 9.42 says you can use "deadly force" if you meet the requirements of 9.41 plus a few things.

 

[target1911]

BART.....
you answered my question before I posted.. Thank You

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My question is this......It only says FORCE not DEADLY FORCE. Does that mean I can pysicaly force them off of my land but I cant shoot them or use other means of deadly force?

With respect to Section 9.41, that is correct. Use of deadly force is covered in Section 9.42, and the hurdles are slightly higher.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Javelin
Didnt some guy shoot two perps dead in his neighbors lawn for stealing from their house. All the while the 911 operator told him not to do it? I dont think he was ever taken in for questioning. They didnt even detain him, just showed up and sat at his kitchen table to take the statements. CNN was there of course. haha.

Texas seems pretty serious about their civilian criminal protection legislation.

The case hasn't gone to the Grand Jury yet. Should be within a couple weeks. So far there's no charges.
The criminals were shot on the shooter's ground after breaking into the neighbor's place.

From what I've seen so far the shooting was well within Texas law.

It's come out that the criminals were illegal aliens that have drug dealing records and had been deported before.
I've read that it's possible that the criminals might be part of a large international drug ring.

It seems that Mr. Horn may have done us a great service.

There's a Malcom X want-a-be that's trying to make it into a race issue. It's also come out that this jerk has a long history of drug dealings.