texas castle doctrine

[1shot3kills]

Texas Castle Doctrine or Texas Castle Bill or Texas Castle Law
Below is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine also known as Texas Castle Law or as Texas Castle Bill
______________________________________

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
___________________________________________________________________

 

[TexasRifleman]

So I assume this is posted since I responded to your post in the Florida thread where you said

I know in tarrant county there is a after dark law.if there is someone in your back yard or on your property and it is dark out,and you feel your or someone else is in danger for your life,you can shoot them.but you better not shoot them in the back,and be sure you kill them.

I said in that thread I'd go through these.

First, the nighttime thing has nothing to do with Tarrant County, it's state law. And, it has nothing to do with just being on one's property at night. The law is very specific on where the nighttime rule applies.

What it says is:

Sec. 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 the nighttime provisions only extend to criminal mischief and theft. The other crimes are things that deadly force can be used to stop at any time, day or night.

For theft and criminal mischief the statutes allow for deadly force during nighttime. NOT just simple trespassing.

Keep in mind this is a purely legal discussion for now, we'll leave the moral and strategic stuff out.
Shooting to protect property is a can of worms moral debate, and an almost guaranteed legal nightmare.

Keep in mind also that in Texas if you kill someone it WILL go to a Grand Jury, regardless of whether the DA thinks the shooting was legally justified. Once in the hands of a Grand Jury all bets are off and an indictment could come no matter how close to the statutes one acted. So, as others have posted, just because the law covers it doesn't mean you will walk.

As for not shooting in the back, again from a legal standpoint, that isn't a problem either as far as statutes go. The Joe Horn shooting recently in Texas shows that. Mr Horn used deadly force and shot one of the guys in the back. A criminal/attacker who turns his back to you isn't necessarily fleeing, he could simply be moving for position. Again, this is a purely legal discussion, not tactical or moral. It certainly DOES create questions in the minds of law enforcement and the media when someone is shot in the back and again, a legal nightmare is almost guaranteed to follow.

Lastly, for the "be sure you kill them" thing, this too has been in the Texas news recently where a pharmacist made sure he followed that rule and shot someone who was clearly not a threat, just to make sure he was dead. He's been charged with murder and will likely be convicted and spend many years in prison.

With the Castle Doctrine that you posted above, if it's a good solid shoot you're protected from civil suits so the idea of "shoot to kill so no one can sue you" is just crazy, though sadly it's often repeated.

I know you mentioned a cop told you these things in passing, but they are very much out of line with the law in Texas so beware.

Using deadly force is very very serious business. It can put you in prison for the rest of your life if applied incorrectly. It's almost a guarantee to be a legal nightmare and cost thousands of dollars to defend against, even if 100% in the right. It's also something that a person has to come to grips with psychologically, and many people are never able to recover from it mentally.

It's best avoided if at all possible. As mentioned by others in the other thread, just because the law covers you doesn't mean it's the best move.

There are lots of great books on this subject. Start with Massad Ayoob's stuff. You will see that it's not nearly as cut and dried as it sounds when just reading the statutes. But, the statutes are the starting place for sure.

Not a lawyer, not legal advice blah blah, just for discussion purposes.

 

[dogtown tom]

I'm sure TexasRifleman remembers this tragic event: http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080302_mo_kaufmannurse.18c39e03.html

Nurse killed while driving shooting victim to hospital

12:12 AM CST on Monday, March 3, 2008

By SCOTT GOLDSTEIN / The Dallas Morning News

KAUFMAN – A teenage boy shot by the man next door frantically turned to June Nalls for help Saturday night.

And in her final moments, the longtime pediatric nurse did what came naturally: She rushed her son and his bleeding friend to her pickup and headed for the hospital a few miles away.

Minutes later, Ms. Nalls was dead. Police say a man who had been drinking drove his vehicle into her lane along State Highway 243, about a half-mile east of the Kaufman city limits, and hit the pickup head-on.

"I didn't even get to say 'I love you' or nothing," Mark Nalls said Sunday night, recalling the last time he saw his wife of 20 years.

The chaotic series of events that led to the 41-year-old's death began when Pete Frosch, 74, fired one shot from his handgun through the front window of his home about 10:40 p.m. Police said he apparently fired because he saw someone he didn't recognize walking a few feet away.

The bullet struck 16-year-old Devin Nalls' 15-year-old friend under his left arm. The two boys ran to the Nalls home, in the 5000 block of State Highway 243, and woke Mark and June Nalls.

"Mr. Frosch shot me!" the boy said. "Your neighbor shot me!"

Mr. Frosch has not been arrested or charged with a crime. The case will be referred to a grand jury, said Sgt. Bryan Francis, a Kaufman County sheriff's spokesman.

The shooting victim was taken by helicopter to Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital, where he was in stable condition Sunday, Sgt. Francis said. The boy and his family could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Devin Nalls was treated at Presbyterian Hospital in Kaufman and released, the sergeant said.

No one answered the front door of the Frosch home Sunday evening. A small hole could be seen in the glass and blinds of a front window.

Across the field that separates the Frosch property from the Nalls home, Mr. Nalls was attempting to come to grips with the loss of a woman who raised dogs and devoted her life to caring for children. Almost everywhere the couple went around town, Mr. Nalls said, a young child recognized his wife.

"All she does is love kids and that's all she was trying to do – get that kid to the hospital," Mr. Nalls said. He said his wife thought that waiting for an ambulance would be riskier for the shooting victim.

Mr. Nalls said he considers Mr. Frosch a good Christian and doesn't think he would intentionally shoot a young boy. Police and Mr. Nalls said the boys were not committing a crime when the shot was fired.

"It's a sincere tragedy," Sgt. Francis said. "It'll haunt me for a while."

As of Sunday night, the only person arrested as a result of Saturday night's incidents was Agustin Renteria, 27, of Kaufman. Mr. Renteria was eastbound in a 1996 Ford vehicle that drifted into the westbound lanes, striking the car in front of Ms. Nalls' pickup before hitting her vehicle, police said.

Mr. Renteria was charged with failure to stop and render aid, Sgt. Francis said. He was being held at the Kaufman County jail in lieu of $75,000 bond, Sgt. Francis said.

Mr. Renteria had been drinking alcohol, though it is unclear whether he was intoxicated, according to the state Department of Public Safety.

Mr. Nalls said his father learned of the crash before he did and called to tell him the news.

The father's words: "She's gone, son. She's gone

 

[1shot3kills]

rifleman

you are putting words in my mouth,i never said just to protect property,thats why i cant stand internet aurguments,because everyone is the expert and assumes that they are right.
when someone is going to commit a crime on private property,whether it is a business or a home,they do have to cross land or property to do it,also whether it is a home or business there could be someone in the building,or like at my dads business he might be staying there for the evening,he does have a little bedroom there,.and when did i ever mention criminal mischief or simple tresspassing?
so quit putting words in my mouth and adding to the post just to make yourself right.

im not a idiot,i know what i can do i know what i cant do.and if i feel threatened or if my family or neighbors feel threatened by someone outside there home at 3 or 4 am in the morning.and someone who mentioned a drunk entering a house or trying to enter a house "supposedly confused" about being at the wrong house is not a threat and they are very strongly refusing to leave or aggressively trying to enter,you are fool and a idiot not to be under the assumption that the reason he is there trying to get in your house is because he is drunk or jacked up on drugs or both to rob your random family or house to get more crack or alcohol money.and if this was to happen at my house i would either ko his a s s with a the butt of my gun and if that didnt ko him,and he still approaches or gets up in a threatening or aggressive manor i would have to shoot his crackhead drunk a s s

so if you wanna assume things in a defense situation,then im sorry to say you are probably gonna loose.

people do most crimes under influence of a mind altering substance,they might seem like they are confused but they usually have a agenda.and will do anything to keep from getting caught and that might include shooting you at first site,then shooting anyone who might be a witness.

so quit assuming and quit putting words in my mouth

 

[545days]

1shot3kills,

Your writing style leaves the reader wondering what you are trying to say. As a result, I am not sure exactly what words are in your mouth.

Having read your posts in both this and the previous thread, it appears to me that you were advocating the use of lethal force against anyone that might walk up to your door at night. When you wrote in your last post "when someone is going to commit a crime on private property,whether it is a business or a home,they do have to cross land or property to do it", it reinforced the impression that you believe that the act of crossing land is grounds for deadly force. If so, I hope a crime victim doesn't knock on your door at night seeking help.

I don't believe that is what you mean, but your writing style prevents you from communicating your intended meaning.

 

[1shot3kills]

545 it pobably does

but i hate to type specially long stuff,so things might come out on worded quite right,the whole coming across land or property is a earlier reply from someone was taking what i said,adding stuff to it,then trying to aurgue it like it was something i said,but in fact they added the extra to it in their reply.

and what i was trying to say was in the when somebody is invading your home,like they do in the neighbor i live,and these even happen in the middle of the day,(a invasion was witnessed by a neighbor once and a man who was home when they tried to invade his,and they succeded only to find him with a gun)defending your home doesnt stop at the doorway.the invaders had one at the front door,another at a window somewhere else peeking in and 2 in the back yard up against wall each side of back door crounching and hiding in bushes.
the one at the front door was knocking and when noone answered the one knocking whisteled,and the guy peeking into the window ran around and joined the 2 in back and all 3 kicked and bashed back door in with feet and big crowbar and a mini sledge.
now remember i said this was witnessed happening by a neighbor of a guy who was home sleeping who lived in the house they were breaking into.he was slow waking up to all the noise ,he is a old man.the neighbor called the police as this was happening,it still took police 9 minutes to get there.
anyways he ran to get a gun because he just come out of bed room when he heard the noise at the back door and then he turned and looked down hallway to front door and could see someone there,and they started kicking front door and bashing in the colored glass center of it with a crow bar.he could only get to gun which was unloaded he said and in his desperate fear he goes back toward the invaders screaming he fixing shoot them and made all the noise he could with the slide on his pump shotgun,that about the sametime the back and front door camedown,the one at the front door came in about 5 feet he said seen him with the shotgun and yelled to others one in back came in with still 2 more behind him that were still outside.none of them had guns they had crowbars and hammers,so they ran,not knowing it was a unloaded gun.he coundnt shoot and he knew it,but dont you think he was scared and in fear for his life.?he said if it was loaded he would killed all of them inside and outside still.he did not know they only had crow bars neither.i could certainly say that he had a loaded gun,and he killed all of them then ,some in house and some inyard close to porch this would be justified,even in the middle of day.

now imagine how this could have been in the middle of the night,the homeoner having a family,having had a loaded shotgun,and the invaders at least having one gun between them,even if it had not even gotten to the point of the doors comng down,just them kicking at the backdoor.are you gonna wait for the police which might take 5 or 10 min to get there?are you going to wait for the door to breech and they come inside where your family is,not knowing whats going to happen ,?

what if the first one come in and he has a gun,your standing there with yours,he is not going to hesitate using it,are you?are you going to be thinking about a DA?or a trial by peers,or a gran jury?even if he dont have a gun,how do you know they going to turn and run?hell there is three of them they could tackle and take gun because he hesitated using.there are all kinds of things,all kinds of variables that could happen.

heres the other thing i was saying that someone else added there own little twist and assumption about and then aurgured it like i said it was a self defence deadly force use would be as simple as finding someone creeping around in the bushes around your house in the middle of the night,either by hearing noises that work you up,or you get up to use the bathroom,and you see or here someone making noise like walking because you have a window open or something,or even see someone ducking in hiding.,you have children in the house .so first thing you think about is grabbing your pistol and running out in the back yard,or the side of the house you seen them duck ito the bushes,so you go outside and you find them but its dark,then what do you do?tell them you have a gun,or say whos there,whatever you decide to do.the unknown is just as scared as you,but his fear is getting cought,your fear is you are outside with someone who all you know is crazy enough to go sneaking around your house at 4 am and hiding in your bushes.

if the unknown has a gun there is a greater chance of him using to avoid getting caught,and fear of being shot.if he thinks police are coming or a chance of he is going to want to get away,and he will shoot you to do it.if you dont see a gun or if you think you see one really is irrelevent because you you are in fear of your life now,no one knows what they will do in any situation like this so why even try to debate it and throw what ifs,and you better think about because you could get jail time.i made my reply short as i could with out telling a big story that boiled down to me having to make several long ones and aurguring with people making assumptions and judgements that are totally pointless to a individual situations.

i thought everyone one this site was mature enough,and could use basic reasoning skills,to know that every self defense and situation where deadly force to protect is needed.the original poster would have probably had every right to shoot through the door to whoever was on other side if he was scared enough and if he felt that he was fixing to get killed or hurt or if he thought his family could be hurt once that door came down,.........but only after he let them know he was there and unless they stopped and left he was going to shoot.and if the dont stop trying to come thru door he very well could have fired then.and the incident discussed about in the yard in the bushes would be a justified shooting i certain sitians.so it doesnt have to be inside the house and can be outside.

as far as the shooting and make sure they are dead,(hence center mass aim) would be because ,what are you going to shoot with the intention to wing somebody who might have a gun?i dont think so,because now if they have a gun they going to shoot you,and if you shot them that means you were in fear of your life.so you shoot to kill,whether they had a gun or not is relevent to you,it might be relevent to the courts,but if you shoot and just wing them it may or not make it to court for one of 2 reasons,your dead,he shot you after you injured him and he gets away,or you shoot him dead and you go to court,but you do have the law on your side.if you know you where justified because of your fear of the unknown person who was creeping around your yard and hiding from you in your bushes at 4 am .


yes at anytime the courts could make you a example and give you jail time,but if you know you did the right thing and your family is safe,then isnt it worth the jail time?or do you wanna wanna wait and get yourself killed or have to live the rest of your life knowing you did the wrong thing and somehow someone in your family was hurt by the unknown person.


so i hope you get my point of you cant predict what you are going to do when the privicy of your domain is being invaded by unknowns and those unknowns are there to either rob,rape,and hurt you or your family in the process,i guarentee you wont be thinking about the correct laws when the s h i t is happening right then and you and your family is terrorized ,or you are alone and in fear.


it is pure idiocracy to assume i will shoot anybody who comes to my house or business,and to assume that if i shoot someone in self defense situation that i would shoot to injure,then what would be the defense.if you shoot to injure the you probably were not that scared and the whole shooting and defense would probably not be justifiable in court.and you would go to jail.or the other scenario of shooting them to injure,and then you getting shot by them.
in any self defense class they teach you to shoot to kill,and get you out of the danger of them shooting you,if you dont know that then you havnt been to class

 

[armslist]

The Castle Doctrine is meant to help protect law abiding citizens from being prosecuted for homicides and to deter criminals from breaking into homes/vehicles.


Everyone needs to stop arguing about specific circumstances like there is some sort of precise protocol as to how to comply with the statute. You're all guessing, and it's never as clear as you're trying to make it. Courts differ in their decisions all the time.

Just be glad that they passed it and gave you a greater right to defend yourself. Also, if would-be criminals know when these laws are on the books, it would normally normally help to deter them from breaking into a home or vehicle with people inside.

 

[armslist]

double post....

 

[Kleanbore]

when someone is going to commit a crime on private property,whether it is a business or a home,they do have to cross land or property to do it,also whether it is a home or business there could be someone in the building,or like at my dads business he might be staying there for the evening,he does have a little bedroom there,.and when did i ever mention criminal mischief or simple tresspassing?

If you are considering the use of deadly force, crossing land or property doesn't cut it. Under Section 9.42 cited by Texas Rifleman, the use of deadly force is justifiable in cases of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the night time--not because someone has crossed your property.

i know what i can do i know what i cant do.and if i feel threatened or if my family or neighbors feel threatened by someone outside there home at 3 or 4 am in the morning

Here's what you can do: prepare yourself, call the authorities, and remain in a position of safety. Code Section 9.32 permits the use of deadly force against an individual who has "unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;..." "Feeling threatened" by one who is outside your home does not justify the use of deadly force.

..even if it had not even gotten to the point of the doors comng down,just them kicking at the backdoor.are you gonna wait for the police which might take 5 or 10 min to get there?are you going to wait for the door to breech and they come inside where your family is,not knowing whats going to happen ,?

"Kicking at" the back door? Should you shoot at that point, the issue would immediately become whether the evidence that exists after the fact will persuade the grand jury and trial court jury that said kicking (1) not only actually occurred, but that it (2) also did in fact actually constitute an attempt to enter the structure with force. Probably better to wait until something actually cracks, until the police arrive, or until the people outside turn around and leave, whichever happens to occur first.

...you shoot him dead and you go to court,but you do have the law on your side.if you know you where justified because of your fear of the unknown person who was creeping around your yard and hiding from you in your bushes at 4 am .

Law on your side when you shoot someone creeping around your yard and hiding in the bushes? On what do you base that conclusion? One more time....if he's not attempting to enter your occupied home unlawflly and with force, you do not have Code Section 9.32 on your side. And if he's not attempting arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, or if it is not immediately necessary to use deadly force prevent him fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with property, you don't have Code Section 9.42 on your side.

The fact that a person is on your property does not give you the right to take the law into your own hands. If you are actually accosted and face imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm on your property, next door, or on the courthouse lawn, you may be permitted to use deadly force if it is immediately necessary to defend yourself. "Fear" of some "unknown person ... creeping around ... and hiding from you" is unlikely to be judged as a legitimate justification for the use of deadly force.

in any self defense class they teach you to shoot to kill,and get you out of the danger of them shooting you,if you dont know that then you havnt been to class

If you paid for such a class, demand your money back. You are justified in shooting to stop, and I have never heard of any class in any state in which anything else has been taught. The invader may die, and he may not. As the Oklahoma pharmacist recently found out to his dismay, additional shots fired at someone who has been stopped are unlawful.

 

[1shot3kills]

kleanbore

he we go again,some one putting there twist on what i said,you really should pay attention to the fact of self defense at the time of fear and there is someone creeping around your house in the middle of the night,every situation is different and you can feel threatened in your own yard by someone hiding in your bushes in your back yard andim not going to aurgue this point anymore.you dont what you want and i will do what it feel i need to do.and for me to shoot someone or pull a gun on someone will take a great deal of fear.therefore at that point in my opinion will be justified self defense.
if the courts want to see it different,than se be it,but i will deal with it when it happens.or if it happens.

to any other replys im going to tell the same thing,so say what you want,feel what you want,put whatever twist you want on it but the same beleif applies.

quote
:If you paid for such a class, demand your money back. You are justified in shooting to stop, and I have never heard of any class in any state in which anything else has been taught. The invader may die, and he may not. As the Oklahoma pharmacist recently found out to his dismay, additional shots fired at someone who has been stopped are unlawful.

who ever mentioned additional shots after the assailent is down,if i have to use deadly force it will only be one shot,so again stop adding words to replys and aurguing them like i said it.you really do need to look into that problem,and they do teach to shot to kill which is shooting to stop,center mass ,no heashot you dont shoot to injure ,you really need to work on memory skills


and thanks armslist,im glad that someone else can see that every situation is different and you cant predict the specifics of having to use deadly force,the courts will look at every aspect of what made you feel like you had to use,from events in neighborhood,the unknowns criminal record,and so on.

 

[TexasRifleman]

rifleman, you are putting words in my mouth,

I cut and pasted word for word what you typed. I had no intent to make those words yours, since you said up front it's what a cop told you.

so quit putting words in my mouth and adding to the post just to make yourself right.

You said, and I'll quote you again "I know in tarrant county there is a after dark law." I simply explained in detail the law in Texas that mentions darkness specifically. As I said, it has nothing to do with Tarrant County. Not sure why you are offended. Again, you said a cop told you these things and I was simply explaining how the cop was wrong about it. None of it was directed at you.

And as for this one:

in any self defense class they teach you to shoot to kill

There is not a self defense class anywhere that teaches a "shoot to kill" doctrine and on the off chance there is, they are idiots.

Have you ever taken a self defense class? If you did, are you saying they teach a "one shot only, shoot to kill" doctrine?

I'm sure TexasRifleman remembers this tragic event: http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw....18c39e03.html

Yes, that was tragic all the way around. Very bad deal.

 

[Kleanbore]

he we go again,some one putting there twist on what i said,you really should pay attention to the fact of self defense at the time of fear and there is someone creeping around your house in the middle of the night,every situation is different and you can feel threatened in your own yard by someone hiding in your bushes in your back yard andim not going to aurgue this point anymore.

You can feel threatened, but do you have a reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger, and will the evidence convince others after the fact?

Now, it you are inside your home in Texas, and if the threat is outside, the "castle doctrine" will not help you one bit. If you have gone outside to investigate, there is the matter of legal risk, but as you posted earlier, you will have unwisely put yourself in a position of extreme risk of being ambushed.

you dont what you want and i will do what it feel i need to do.and for me to shoot someone or pull a gun on someone will take a great deal of fear.therefore at that point in my opinion will be justified self defense.

Unfortunately for you, at that point your opinion will not matter at all. Everything will depend on the evidence, and whether said evidence indicates (1) that you believed that you were in imminent danger and (2) you belief was reasonable. That will be decided by others, based on the evidence hat you and the state produce.

if the courts want to see it different,than se be it,but i will deal with it when it happens.or if it happens.

OK, and the state will deal with you.

who ever mentioned additional shots after the assailent is down,if i have to use deadly force it will only be one shot...

I'm not sure where you got the idea that one shot will necessarily stop an assailant...

they do teach to shot to kill which is shooting to stop,center mass ,no heashot you dont shoot to injure ,you really need to work on memory skills

Shooting to stop and shooting to kill are two entirely different things. And no, no one responsibly teaches "shoot to kill."

 

[stevehps]

ok im new here

what is the difference in shoot to stop and shoot to kill

 

[TexasRifleman]

what is the difference in shoot to stop and shoot to kill

One shows a "prosecutorial" attitude, that I need to end the life of my attacker, that I am judge and jury and have decided he needs to die for his crime. This could be seen by a jury as, potentially, criminal behavior. "He came at me and when I fired my gun I intended for him to die".

Shooting to stop shows no judgment, just a desire to stop an attacker, a completely "innocent" decision motivated only by self preservation.
"I was in fear for my life so I fired my defensive gun until he stopped attacking me."

It also goes to the immediacy. A lawyer might argue that you had plenty of time to take careful aim and fire specifically at a certain area to make sure you killed the attacker. Then the argument comes behind that, "if he had time to carefully aim his gun to make sure he killed his attacker, was his life really in danger?"

In front of a jury that difference is enough to send you to prison, or keep you out.

Even if cleared of criminal responsibility, admitting to "wanting to kill" helps the victims family potentially with the civil suit, and it just generally makes you sound like a nutcase in the media, and everywhere else.

So, a school that teaches defense and teaches a tactic of "shoot to kill" is likely going to be named in the lawsuit too. No instructor in his right mind would ever teach "when you shoot, shoot to kill". If you do happen across a psychopath like that, run away.

 

[rbernie]

The Castle Doctrine is meant to help protect law abiding citizens from being prosecuted for homicides and to deter criminals from breaking into homes/vehicles.

Everyone needs to stop arguing about specific circumstances like there is some sort of precise protocol as to how to comply with the statute. You're all guessing, and it's never as clear as you're trying to make it. Courts differ in their decisions all the time.

Just be glad that they passed it and gave you a greater right to defend yourself. Also, if would-be criminals know when these laws are on the books, it would normally normally help to deter them from breaking into a home or vehicle with people inside.

Some folk seem to feel (or at least post) that 'Castle Doctrine' gives them a green light to STOP using judgment when dealing with potential intruders. That is flatly incorrect.

The intent of the debate is, IMO, not to make a 'precise protocol' as much as to make the point that while the presumption of appropriateness is granted to you via the Castle Doctrine, you are still expected to be able to articulate a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury should you undertake to drop the hammer on someone.

Failing to be able to articulate that reasonable fear may allow the removal of the presumption granted to you by the Castle Doctrine.

 

[Bruno2]

What became of the case in TX shortly after the new castle law was put in effect . A man called 911 about his neighbors house being robbed while his neighbor was away . He told the 911 operator that he was going to shoot the perps and the operator told that he shouldnt . He then informed the operator of the new castle law and then shot and killed two illegal immigrants ( I want to say they were Haitians or something ) . There was a huge deal about it everybody (the anti's and the pro's)went to the courthouse to protest . I never got to hear the outcome if the man was charged or aquitted of any wrong doing .

He did say on the 911 recording that he knew the neighbor that was being robbed , but , not close friends .

 

[Deavis]

people do most crimes under influence of a mind altering substance,they might seem like they are confused but they usually have a agenda.and will do anything to keep from getting caught and that might include shooting you at first site,then shooting anyone who might be a witness.

Evidence please. Post a link to a conclusive data-driven study proving your claim. Pure hyperbole and chest thumping with no relation to the actual legal issues at play.

Shoot-to-kill taught in a self-defense course, yeah. Not at a legitimate course taught by professionals.

 

[TexasRifleman]

There was a huge deal about it everybody (the anti's and the pro's)went to the courthouse to protest . I never got to hear the outcome if the man was charged or aquitted of any wrong doing .

Yes, that's the Joe Horn case. He was no-billed by the Grand Jury. Turns out that the Castle Doctrine had nothing to do with helping his case. The law he was justified under had been around for a very long time.

What the "Castle Doctrine" did was stop any civil proceedings later.

He did say on the 911 recording that he knew the neighbor that was being robbed , but , not close friends .

Once he stepped outside the guys started towards him, and came onto his property. He shot under the traditional self defense laws, not a shooting to protect property law or anything like that, though the confrontation may have started out that way.

Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.

 

[rbernie]

What became of the case in TX shortly after the new castle law was put in effect .

That was Joe Horn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

 

[Kleanbore]

Posts #14 and #15

Both very well said.

 

[DHJenkins]

In order for someone to be arrested for criminal tresspass down here, the offender must be given a criminal trespass warning first. It doesn't matter what kind of signs you have up, fencing, etc... unless they damage property while trespassing, then it's an add-on charge.

This means the property owner/caretaker must inform the offender that they are trespassing in the presense of a police officer, so that a police report can be filed. If they come back after that, it's off to jail with no questions asked.

I manage several buildings and I have to deal with kids, bums, etc... weekly.

 

[Kleanbore]

In order for someone to be arrested for criminal tresspass down here, the offender must be given a criminal trespass warning first. It doesn't matter what kind of signs you have up, fencing, etc... unless they damage property while trespassing, then it's an add-on charge.

This means the property owner/caretaker must inform the offender that they are trespassing in the presense of a police officer, so that a police report can be filed. If they come back after that, it's off to jail with no questions asked.

I manage several buildings and I have to deal with kids, bums, etc... weekly.

Very valuable input, D. H. Jenkins. This shows the importance of having an understanding of how all of the relevant code sections and case law fit into the overall context of the law. One might reach a different conclusion from a lay reading of the last part of Code Section 9.42 alone. That could prove devastating and costly.

Your post is consistent with an opinion rendered not long ago by the Texas Attorney General on the subject of property owners' recourse regarding concealed carry on posted property. The opinion covered the fact that in many cases, law enforcement officers require a warrant to arrest a trespasser. I cannot lay my hands on it right now.

There seems to be a rather commonly held belief that people possess the right to employ deadly force, or to command someone at gunpoint to do something, simply because someone is on their property. I'm not sure what has led people to have that belief.

The Texas self defense law (Code Sections 9.31 and 9.32 as written) does not explicitly distinguish between acts committed in one's yard, on a power company easement, on someone else's private property, or on the courthouse lawn. The issue is simply one of immediate necessity in the face of imminent danger. The "castle doctrine" sections of the amended code address unlawful forcible entry of a habitation, place of business or employment, or automobile, in the context of defense of persons. If anyone is aware of any relevant case law, it would be helpful to have it posted here.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The issue is simply one of immediate necessity in the face of imminent danger. The "castle doctrine" sections of the amended code address unlawful forcible entry of a habitation, place of business or employment, or automobile, in the context of defense of persons. If anyone is aware of any relevant case law, it would be helpful to have it posted here.

I have been told that part of the reason for Texas's rather (in some peoples minds) draconian laws regarding deadly force in defense of property was for this reason to a large extent.

Trespassing itself isn't something allowing for deadly force to prevent, but criminal mischief at night or theft at night both have statutes covering the use of force and deadly force to stop.

Criminal mischief covers so much. It doesn't take much at all for a trespasser to commit criminal mischief. Cutting a lock off of a gate is criminal mischief, so if someone does that they are no longer simply trespassing.

That way an accidental breach of someone else's property isn't something you can get worked up over, but once any damage at all is done other crimes appear beyond trespassing.

The whole thing is here. http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/28.03.00.html

 

[Kindrox]

If I had $1 for every person I ran into that believed in gun laws they had zero basis to believe in, I'd be rich. And you can't reason with them either. They overheard it in a west texas truck stop bathroom stall and that makes it gospal.

 

[mljdeckard]

I already said everything I have to say to the guy, he didn't listen, the thread got locked. I don't need to say it again.