Would you draw?

[mr.scott]

Geez, so much misinformation in this thread, even by a mod. I'm not trying to call out anyone, but in texas, castle doctrine is in effect. Tresspassers on your property are automatically assumed to be there to do you harm and you have the right to use deadly force. And have civil immunity.
There are no ifs ands our buts about it. The op had those 2 dead to rights.

 

[BikerRN]

OK, forgive me if my reading comprehension is lacking, but what crime did these two individuals commit?

They went up to the window and looked inside, right? They could easily say they were going to visit a friend and thought your house was their friend's house. They only looked inside to confirm that they were at the right residence.

As for drawing a weapon, for me it depends on more factors that can be put into your post.

BikerRN

 

[Uteridge]

Geez, so much misinformation in this thread, even by a mod. I'm not trying to call out anyone, but in texas, castle doctrine is in effect. Tresspassers on your property are automatically assumed to be there to do you harm and you have the right to use deadly force. And have civil immunity.
There are no ifs ands our buts about it. The op had those 2 dead to rights.

So far I am unaware of any test cases on this. Yes that is the law but some prosecutor in Texas will challenge it...don't be the test case.

 

[txhoghunter]

OK, forgive me if my reading comprehension is lacking, but what crime did these two individuals commit?

As far as breaking laws go, they were trespassing. But that is not what I am concerned about. They were sneaking through bushes, and peaking into the rooms of my little brother and my mother, both of whom were sleeping and defenseless should anything happen. And I don't know about y'all, but when I go to visit a friend, I do not go sneaking through their bushes, night or day.

I am not asking if you guys would kill these two because I know that even having a gun, I would not have fired unless they presented more of a threat. I am just asking if for those of you who carry, would their actions have caused you to draw your weapon in the situation (not necessarily point it at them, but have it at the ready should things escalate).

 

[gym]

Dial 911, and then approach and announce your intentions. This way the cops are already on the way in case things get ugly. Having your gun at the ready is an individual call. If you feel things going downhill having the hand on the gun or the gun at your side, may be fitting. This way if they should turn and you see a gun, you don't have to get shot first before responding if your still able to.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mr.Scott: I'm not trying to call out anyone, but in texas, castle doctrine is in effect.

Indeed it is, and Texas is not alone in that respect.

Tresspassers on your property are automatically assumed to be there to do you harm and you have the right to use deadly force.

I'm afraid that you have very badly misunderstood the meaning of the castle doctrine law in Texas. First, the law does not apply to trespass. Second, "on your property" is not the operative phrase; it is, as has been posted at least twice in this thread, "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".

The castle doctrine does not apply anywhere else. Of course, one can lawfully defend oneself or a third party (when immediately necessary) against an imminent threat of serious harm (death, serious injury, rape, or kidnapping) anywhere one has a legal right to be in Texas, but that is not what the so called castle doctrine provides for, nor was it the OP's issue.

And have civil immunity.

Do not overestimate the degree of protection in that. It's a good thing, but it is not bulletproof.

There are no ifs ands our buts about it. The op had those 2 dead to rights.

It's not at all clear what you are trying to say. Surely you do not believe that the OP would have been justified in using deadly force. Please re-read Cop Bob's Post #5 very carefully.

Nor is it clear that the OP would have been justified in using non-deadly force--he would have had to demonstrate that it had been immediately necessary for him to use force to terminate the trespass. It does not seem that things had yet gotten to that stage.

The first thing one does to terminate trespass is to request the trepassers to depart.

 

[txhoghunter]

If I had them "dead to rights".....the Texas legal system would have returned the favor to me. Even being in the situation, I know good and well that deadly force was not immediately necessary.

In all honesty, if I was armed, I would have fired as soon as one of them (or both) turned with a weapon, or if they tried to break into the house. (After I give a verbal warning to leave)

I am merely asking what steps I should have taken should I have had a gun, or should it happen again and I am armed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by txhoghunter: I am not asking if you guys would kill these two because I know that even having a gun, I would not have fired unless they presented more of a threat. I am just asking if for those of you who carry, would their actions have caused you to draw your weapon in the situation (not necessarily point it at them, but have it at the ready should things escalate).

That is what you asked, and it has been answered.

There are two parts to the answer; here they are in summary:

1. (From the legal standpoint): do you want to (a) risk everything on the basis of assumption that you would be able to demonstrate that it had been immediately necesary for you to use non deadly force to terminate the trespass, when you had as yet made no request of the trespassers to leave; and (b) should things actually escalate to the extent that you need your weapon, do you really think it prudent to have put your defense of justification at serious risk by your own actions?
2. (From the tactical standpoint): Do you think it prudent to (a) draw attention to yourself in the event that the trepassers were not alone and were in fact willing to harm you; and (b) to put yourself at risk of being targetted by arriving first repsonders who have already been summoned or who may even be in hot pursuit, or a armed citizen?

If none of the answers to the above is "yes", the answer to your question is no, do not draw

Just to clarify: If your assumption in 1(a) proves unsupportable, the drawing of your gun will be found to have been unlawful.

By the way, except in Texas, an actor would not even have that possible defense.

One other point, to further explain 1(b): the fact that someone may have been committing some kind of crime (other than initiating a conflict and not withdrawing, or committing a forcible felony against which the use of deadly force is in fact justified) does not deprive that person of the right to lawfully defend himself. It just could be, and at least one state supreme court has said. that if a person sets forth with a gun to confront a trespasser and ends up getting killed, the trespasser may well be found to have been justified.

I know good and well that deadly force was not immediately necessary.

Good. And by now, you should have learned that you cannot lawfully draw in Texas unless force is necessary. For most of us, the threshold is deadly force.

I am merely asking what steps I should have taken should I have had a gun, or should it happen again and I am armed.

Short answer: don't do anything stupid.

Since you do not have clear justification to draw, and since you have no way of knowing whether unseen accomplices, arriving first responders in hot pursuit, or an excited armed citizen will open up on you if you do draw, do not draw.

Get out of sight and behind concealment, shout if you can do so safely, call 911, and get around and into the house from behind as quickly as you can.

 

[txhoghunter]

Good. And by now, you should have learned that you cannot lawfully draw in Texas unless force is necessary. For most of us, the threshold is deadly force.

So legally speaking, on my own property, I would have been breaking the law in drawing my weapon, even if it was just held at my side and not aimed at the trespassers?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by txhoghunter: So legally speaking, on my own property, I would have been breaking the law in drawing my weapon, even if it was just held at my side and not aimed at the trespassers?

Not necessarily. That will remain to be seen, with the rest of your life at stake.

So, you will contend that your purpose was not to threaten force, and hopefully, you will not trip yourself up and contradict yourself.. The state, based on your own testimony, will probably argue, perhaps based on established precedent, that you did threaten force, by virtue of having displayed your weapon. The trespassers say that they felt threatened--something you cannot lawfully do.

You say that you held your gun at your side. They say that you pointed it. A witness who say it all in the darks sises with them/

How would it all unfold?

Who can say in advance what a jury will decide?

One thing is sure: people have in fact lost everything for doing similar things, with very similar disconnects in the testimony.

Why risk it?

If you really want to concentrate on the legal question, one thing that I have learned over the years is that the more tenuous the attempt to rationalize a particular course of action in advance, or the more that one's rationalization hinges on a few words in the code or the lack of same, the more unlikely the success of the defense, should one become necessary.

As I said in Post #12, it would be a very good idea to not try to rationalize drawing a gun or shooting under various circumstances, but to try to avoid doing so whenever humanly possible.

And, speaking of the "code", that may not be at all what becomes the determinant. As is so often the case, the findings in one or more appellate cases may become much more important.

So, as I also said in Post #12, For the answer to a legal question, one should really consult a practicing attorney in your jurisdiction rather than rely on people in electronic space. I will add that you do not want to ask one who is not familiar with self defense cases.

And, one more time, even if you had a 100% chance of getting though the legal proceedings and avoiding conviction and imprisonment, which you do not, why would you ever choose to make a target of yourself outdoors? We try to concentrate here on strategies, tactics, and training, and very frankly, walking around in your yard with gun in hand is just not a good tactic at all, and it goes against most good training.

 

[txhoghunter]

We try to concentrate here on strategies, tactics, and training, and very frankly, walking around in your yard with gun in hand is just not a good tactic at all, and it goes against most good training.

I understand this, and by no means would I want to be walking around outside with a gun in hand. But my position outside was to make sure that my girlfriend made it inside safely. Being a safe neighborhood, and city as a whole, I did not even slightly expect something like this to happen, but again, I am glad I was outside to scare them off before my girlfriend walked into something bad (even though at 12, I was less than a slight hurdle for anyone over 5 feet tall).

And I fully intend to continue to wait for her outdoors, or at least go to her car to meet her to walk to safety no matter where we are, and I feel that all of you do the same for your girlfriends or wives, and your families.

Making a target out of ourselves is not what we are trying to do, but I will make someone go through me before they get to my family and friends if I have to. And that is the mentality I have had since my parents divorced and I was left as the oldest boy in the house.

Some people try to make it seem as if most situations the only decisions you have are carried by 6 or judged by 12, but I always will consider running like Usain Bolt as my top option

 

[Sam1911]

This is (yet another) great thread that I hope I can remember to point to as illustrative of many very important elements of legal protection of life, home, and property, which seem to be misunderstood more often than not.

Let's close as the question is superbly answered.