Texas law

[Route2]

I am still trying to get the sense of the Texas law that follows. Some feel that this law may come into play as a defense for Gayle and Sheila Muhs who have been charged with shooting four people, killing a 7-year-old boy near Dayton, Texas. The law, as posted, reads:

§ 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.

As many on this site are conversant with the law, I want to ask. What would Texas law say if those Off-Roaders had returned fire on the Muhs?

 

[Art Eatman]

I don't know the details at all. However, Texas law holds that if you shoot somebody who's not contributing to the threat, shame on your happy butt. The seven-year-old, IMO, could not have been a contributor.

Somewhat separately: If you as a CHL holder try for a good shoot on a Bad Guy but miss and kill a Good Guy, you're most likely going to trial, and possibly with a murder charge. "Oops!" is no defense.

 

[DHJenkins]

The victims, in this case, were on a public road, not the Muhs' property, so they had no legal right to fire upon them.

To answer your question, had they returned fire they would have been justified in doing so as they obviously would have been in fear for their lives and were not in the act of committing a crime; and TX self-defense laws are very clear when it comes to the use of lethal force to defend oneself.

 

[rbernie]

What would Texas law say if those Off-Roaders had returned fire on the Muhs?

The quoted law would have no impact upon the right of the off-roaders to have defended themselves.

As far as I can tell, the law favoring the right of the off-roaders who were attacked to defend themselves would be the law enacted as SB378.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I am still trying to get the sense of the Texas law that follows. Some feel that this law may come into play as a defense for Gayle and Sheila Muhs who have been charged with shooting four people, killing a 7-year-old boy near Dayton, Texas. The law, as posted, reads:

The property that the people were on did not belong to the Muhs, negating any claims under this statute even if valid.

It was public property.

Seems to me in that case the off roaders would have been well within their rights to return fire in self defense, though running like hell to a hospital probably makes more sense.

 

[noskilz]

Some feel that this law may come into play as a defense for Gayle and Sheila Muhs . . .

Some feel the moon is made of cheese . . .:banghead:

 

[Guillermo]

they are going to spend a lot of time in prison

 

[Frank Ettin]

they are going to spend a lot of time in prison

And based on what I've read, they'd deserve it. (I'll change my opinion if I read anything giving me a good reason to.)

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Those 2 are morons and should rot in the pen!

 

[FlaChef]

what was the original case?
Article?

 

[HKUSP45C]

what was the original case?
Article?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977685156

Two mildly "eccentric" citizens "allegedly" opened fire on a SUV full of people who had stopped to allow their 7 year old son to pee on the side of the road. Their defense appears to be that the SUV's occupants were "vandalizing" the levee behind their property (which was on property that belonged to the state or the public but, not them) so they availed themselves of Texas' laws requiring the murder of any one who might possibly step foot on property which even lloks like some you might have owned at any point in your whole life ..... which, of course, doesn't exist.

If I were benevolent dictator, I'd give them a fair trial, then burn them at the stake.

 

[Flintknapper]

Huh???

HKUSP45C wrote:

Two mildly "eccentric" citizens "allegedly" opened fire on a SUV full of people who had stopped to allow their 7 year old son to pee on the side of the road. Their defense appears to be that the SUV's occupants were "vandalizing" the levee behind their property (which was on property that belonged to the state or the public but, not them) so they availed themselves of Texas' laws requiring the murder of any one who might possibly step foot on property which even lloks like some you might have owned at any point in your whole life ..... which, of course, doesn't exist.

What in the world are you talking about? If you wish to have an intelligent discussion/debate about Texas law PLEASE study it first.

I can assure you....these folks do not have "a legal leg to stand on" and Texas has no laws "requiring" the "murder" of anyone.

Perhaps your post was meant to be facetious?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Perhaps your post was meant to be facetious?

I certainly read HKUSP45C's statement about Texas law as facetious.

 

[HKUSP45C]

If you wish to have an intelligent discussion/debate about Texas law PLEASE study it first.

I live in and love Texas. Further, I'm pretty well versed in Texas law, as it pertains to weapons, self defense, traffic and the second amendment. My post was a parody of the state of mind of these two citizens, not a dig at my beloved state's liberal self defense laws.

I'm sorry if:

so they availed themselves of Texas' laws requiring the murder of any one who might possibly step foot on property which even lloks like some you might have owned at any point in your whole life ..... which, of course, doesn't exist.

wasn't enough evidence of my thoughts on the matter.

Nor apparently was:

If I were benevolent dictator, I'd give them a fair trial, then burn them at the stake.

a statement strong enough to convey my disgust at what these people "allegedly" did.

Yes, it was sarcasm.

 

[Flintknapper]

Thank you for the clarification.