I personally hope that this law is changed, but as of my posting this, that is the status of the law in the State of Texas.
When I said 'changed', I meant that I would prefer that someone I /wound/ when I'm defending myself will no longer be able to sue me for injury either.
I don't enjoy the thought that Texas law is effectively encouraging me and other gun owners to finish people off just to avoid attorney fees.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offe...rtable_09.html
In 2006 there were 14990 total homicide victims.
123 husbands were killed by their wives.
567 wives were killed by their husbands.
115 mothers were killed by their son or daughter.
114 fathers were killed by their son or daughter.
283 sons were killed by a parent.
179 daughters were killed by a parent.
80 brothers were killed by a brother or sister.
22 sisters were killed by a brother or sister.
298 other family members were killed by a family member.
3465 were killed by an acquaintance.
339 were killed by a friend.
150 boyfriends were killed by girlfriends.
450 girlfriends were killed by boyfriends.
127 were killed by their neighbor.
13 were killed by an employee.
10 were killed by their employer.
1095 were killed by strangers.
6750 victims didn't have the relationship with their killer reported.
Reported reasons for killings also are interesting:
103 killed in romantic triangles
27 children killed by their babysitter.
107 killed in a brawl due to influence of alcohol.
51 killed in a brawl due to influence of narcotics.
198 killed in an argument over money or property.
3607 killed in other arguments.
118 killed in gangland killings.
865 in juvenile gang killings.
22 killed in institutional killings.
2 killed in sniper attacks.
2173 killed in other, not specified.
5223 killed under unknown (unreported) circumstances.
There were 241 persons killed by a private citizen during the commission of a felony.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offe...rtable_14.html
If you look at the numbers and carry the trends out through the numbers of killings that have no data reported on the circumstances, you'll find that you have a much greater chance of having to use deadly force in an argument or other dispute with someone you know then of having to use it to stop the commission of a felony. Unfortunately the 'clean shoot" that everyone on the gun forums talks about is pretty rare. Expect that it will be a confusing mess. Expect to have every aspect of any relationship you have with your attacker to be scrutinized in great detail.
Note that where "castle doctrine" laws were in the works, the Brady bunch yowled about "blood in the streets" and "license to kill". Note next that there have been some people at firearms websites who have done the Keyboard Kommando thing about, "Anybody shows up inside my house is dead, dead, dead, and that's my right!" Some of those live in Texas, or claim to.
In Texas (I'm not conversant with other states but other states are irrelevant to this thread) it has rarely been a problem for a resident in his home to be concerned about any duty to retreat. And that's based on some knowledge of actual events. The castle doctrine is "merely" a clarification, and could be seen as protection against an over-zealous prosecutor or a Grand Jury with people of an anti-gun bias.
Courtesy Owens, you can read the still-included "reasonably believes" in several places. Basically, the thrust of what Jeff was saying is that Torres needed to show the Grand Jury that the long-held "reasonable and prudent person" doctrine held in his actions.
The fact that there was a trial at all shows that Torres could not so persuade the Grand Jury.
Note next that there have been some people at firearms websites who have done the Keyboard Kommando thing about, "Anybody shows up inside my house is dead, dead, dead, and that's my right!" Some of those live in Texas, or claim to.
It always troubles me to see or hear anyone talk lightly about ending another person's life and looking for legal cover to do it.
One important thing to keep in mind also is that running your mouth on an Internet forum and actually pulling the trigger are 2 different things.Note next that there have been some people at firearms websites who have done the Keyboard Kommando thing about, "Anybody shows up inside my house is dead, dead, dead, and that's my right!" Some of those live in Texas, or claim to.
The Castle Doctrine does not create a free fire zone within your home. Even though the case in this thread is a poor example, the point is valid. Simply forcing your way into someone's home is not a death sentence.
Those statistics cited by Jeff White must be taken in context. Most of the text is spent covering the least likely scenarios, and as such makes them appear more likely.Hmmm...
This is somewhat off-topic, but what I have gathered from this is:
If you have to have some relationship to a maniac, be their sister or hire them.
Texas is also the only state that allows the use of deadly force in defense of property, and not just property owned by the person or household, but the property of others such as neighbors etc.
Hmmm...
This is somewhat off-topic, but what I have gathered from this is:
If you have to have some relationship to a maniac, be their sister or hire them.
Only? I don't know for sure and am not even going to guess, but, I know from what I have been told that it may be permissible, but it may not be JUSTIFIED.