Posted: 4/4/2010 1:21:48 PM EDT
|
Hi Texas!
I've been reading the news about how dangerous your southern border has become, and have a question for discussion's sake. I've always read around Arfcom that you can shoot people on sight for trespass on private property in TX. Is that the case? Does that hold up in court? If that is the case, is there any reason a group of people can't set up on one of the more active immigration zones on private property and put and end to this crap? Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! Darcy in Nevada. |
|
Only inside your home...Castle Doctrine.....
Though I'd suppose you could argue that it's YOUR property and not duty bound to retreat from it.... I'd say your scenario would be construed as an ambush and you'd probably be prosecuted for not being in immediate danger... Just my 2 cents...might be wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Hi Texas! I've been reading the news about how dangerous your southern border has become, and have a question for discussion's sake. I've always read around Arfcom that you can shoot people on sight for trespass on private property in TX. Is that the case? Does that hold up in court? If that is the case, is there any reason a group of people can't set up on one of the more active immigration zones on private property and put and end to this crap? Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! Darcy in Nevada. Trespass is not a crime for which deadly force is justified. Google Texas Penal Code chapter 9. There is not an automatic justification for inside your house either. The Castle Doctrine did not do that. |
|
There is not an automatic justification for inside your house either. The Castle Doctrine did not do that.
I beg to differ. If I confront a person entering my house without permission at 3 AM, I think I would reasonably be in fear of my life and fully prepared to shoot without warning or attempting to retreat. My lawyer can deal with the cops and I will be ready for the grand jury. I don't need to understand anything about any Castle Doctrine to do this. |
|
Quoted:
There is not an automatic justification for inside your house either. The Castle Doctrine did not do that.
I beg to differ. If I confront a person entering my house without permission at 3 AM, I think I would reasonably be in fear of my life and fully prepared to shoot without warning or attmepting to retreat. My lawyer can deal with the cops and I will be ready for the grand jury. I don't need to understand anything about any Castle Doctrine to do this. There is no justification in the penal code for being in fear of your life. You most likely will FEEL in fear of your life when deadly force is justified; however, that is not a justification. But, in the scenario you gave, it would be reasonable for you to believe that the person was committing a burglary, which is a property crime and has nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine. You may be justified in using deadly force to prevent the immenint commission of a burglary. Below are the elements that need to be in place for the Castle Doctrine's changes to the use of force laws to apply; (A) to protect the actor 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. You must reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the immenint commission of one of those crimes. The Castle Doctrine made it that IF the person unlawfully and with force entered your occupied habitation, vehicle or place or work, or unlawfully and with force attempted to remove you from your occupied habitation, vehicle or place of work, the it is presumed that your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary IS reasonable. You still must reasonabley believe that the person was doing A or B above. Trespass is never a justification by itself. You must have proper context, and a blanket statement that deadly force is justified anytime someone trespasses in your house is just not true. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hi Texas! I've been reading the news about how dangerous your southern border has become, and have a question for discussion's sake. I've always read around Arfcom that you can shoot people on sight for trespass on private property in TX. Is that the case? Does that hold up in court? If that is the case, is there any reason a group of people can't set up on one of the more active immigration zones on private property and put and end to this crap? Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! Darcy in Nevada. Trespass is not a crime for which deadly force is justified. Google Texas Penal Code chapter 9. There is not an automatic justification for inside your house either. The Castle Doctrine did not do that.[/quote] I usually don't disagree with your replies txinvestigator, but I have too on this one, you know as well as I that the castle doctrine took away the duty to retreat or civil suits by families. Someone breaks into your house you are justified to shoot them. will you be charged? Possibly. No billed? most likely. I think that would fall under it is a defence to prosecution would it not? That's not saying I would automatically shoot someone in my house, but you can be sure that if I thought my life was in danger I wouldn't hesitate for one second. OP, if it is at night and they are stealing items, and the only way to stop them is with deadly force, it is a defence to prosecution to use deadly force. That doesn't mean you won't be charged, as for me shooting someone just for tresspassing, I don't think so. It isn't worth the legal troubles, or taking someones life just for that. Life in danger, different story. ETA. I guess I should have scrolled down to your second reply before posting. N M. 
|
|
so if someone breaks into my home and i get the drop on him while he is pilfering through my playboy collection, i can't shoot him until he tries to attack me? am i reading this correctly? can i hold him at gunpoint legally until the police show up?
then there is the option of blasting away and digging for one of those extra knives i have in a drawer somewhere........justified! i joking!!! |
|
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 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. (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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. 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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. ever been burglarized or robbed? what did the cops do? take down some notes and write a report. do you think as a reasonable person you could expect the cops to comb the neighborhood looking for your junk? if you asked them to do that would they consider it? |
|
Quoted:
There is no justification in the penal code for being in fear of your life. You most likely will FEEL in fear of your life when deadly force is justified; however, that is not a justification. But, in the scenario you gave, it would be reasonable for you to believe that the person was committing a burglary, which is a property crime and has nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine. You may be justified in using deadly force to prevent the immenint commission of a burglary. Below are the elements that need to be in place for the Castle Doctrine's changes to the use of force laws to apply; (A) to protect the actor 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. You must reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the immenint commission of one of those crimes. The Castle Doctrine made it that IF the person unlawfully and with force entered your occupied habitation, vehicle or place or work, or unlawfully and with force attempted to remove you from your occupied habitation, vehicle or place of work, the it is presumed that your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary IS reasonable. You still must reasonabley believe that the person was doing A or B above. Trespass is never a justification by itself. You must have proper context, and a blanket statement that deadly force is justified anytime someone trespasses in your house is just not true. I agree with all that is mentioned above. It breaks down some of the finer points and nuances of the law and explains them very well. That being said, and keeping in mind the limitations of printed media, I would like to offer 3 observations: 1. Since I last saw this discussion in this forum regarding "fear for your life," there were 2 separate self-defense shootings in 2 counties other than Travis that occurred within the next 30 days. The sheriff in each of those counties was quoted in the Statesman as saying that no charges would be filed against the victims because they were in "fear for their life." In and of itself, these quotes don't prove anything. 2. In my last CHL renewal class, the instructor brought up some Texas law that was "over 100 years old" that the "fear for your life" is sometimes derived from. Can't remember exactly what section it was, but again, that doesn't necessarily prove deadly force is justifiable in these instances. 3. But what I haven't seen mentioned before, is that the law doesn't determine the law - court precedent does. So while "fear for your life" isn't specifically mentioned in Texas law, if enough cases (or sometimes just one) come before a judge & jury, and that is the defense that is proffered, and juries accept this defense, then that becomes precedent and becomes as good as law. That is one of the functions of juries - to not act on invalid or unfair laws, and/or to interpret laws as they think is fair, hence justice can be done. Jury nullification is used to this effect. Having moved from a state that allows "fear for your life" as a defense, I believe it has its advantages. |
|
Another question - Let's say you are a rancher in the Ft. Hancock area. Last week, the Border Patrol publicly announced that farmers and ranchers needed to arm themselves.
What does Texas law say about the legalities under that context. I am not asking about shooting illegal immigrants, but what would a person do in this environment, legally. |
|
Quoted:
Hi Texas! I've been reading the news about how dangerous your southern border has become, and have a question for discussion's sake. I've always read around Arfcom that you can shoot people on sight for trespass on private property in TX. Is that the case? Does that hold up in court? If that is the case, is there any reason a group of people can't set up on one of the more active immigration zones on private property and put and end to this crap? Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! Darcy in Nevada. There's your first mistake. And no, trespassing is not a justified use of deadly force. |
|
Quoted:
Another question - Let's say you are a rancher in the Ft. Hancock area. Last week, the Border Patrol publicly announced that farmers and ranchers needed to arm themselves. What does Texas law say about the legalities under that context. I am not asking about shooting illegal immigrants, but what would a person do in this environment, legally. well we don't need the border patrol or anyone else telling us to arm ourselves that is a right we have in Texas. Rules of engagement are per the deadly force statutes... Per above See section 9 |
|
,,,so let's say I have a range on my property [1000m], and the limits are signed & fenced off {3 strands of barbed wire, standard for the area};
suddenly I get the urge to shoot at one of the targets I keep setup (metal plate),,,but alas, there's someone downrange that didn't read the sign!!!!! Oh what to do 
|
|
would you rather prove you were "in fear of your life" (intangible and subject to opinion)
or prove your attaker was engaged in behavior that made your response justified (tangible and defined action) Like I've said before, if "fear for your life" counted, I could open fire all the way down 635 and I would be okay lol 
|
|
Quoted:
,,,so let's say I have a range on my property [1000m], and the limits are signed & fenced off {3 strands of barbed wire, standard for the area}; suddenly I get the urge to shoot at one of the targets I keep setup (metal plate),,,but alas, there's someone downrange that didn't read the sign!!!!! Oh what to do I would wait until I assessed the situation a little better. I remember my grandfather in his latter years, unable to see well enough to read, and senile enough to go wandering through the woods. He harbored no ill will toward anyone, but could very well have wound up in your situation. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks for the good discussion guys! Don't mistake the good discussion to be your doing. The Texas HTF is a pretty quality bunch of fellas. I'm pretty anti illegal myself, but if you're talking about ambushing and killing women and kids, you're going to find yourself on the wrong side of a lot of Texans' rifles. Keep that shit elsewhere. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for the good discussion guys! Don't mistake the good discussion to be your doing. The Texas HTF is a pretty quality bunch of fellas. I'm pretty anti illegal myself, but if you're talking about ambushing and killing women and kids, you're going to find yourself on the wrong side of a lot of Texans' rifles. Keep that shit elsewhere. What he said exactly. |
|
Take a look in Houston. numerous reports about the homeowner going outside to see their vehicle being broken into. The homeowner/owner of the vehicle kills the thief. Cops do not arrest.
I do not know what happen after that report. simple trespass would be a no no. No sense in using force. Call the cops and yell at the guy/kid. (like the old guy with the Cane "get off my lawn you kids!"). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the good discussion guys! Don't mistake the good discussion to be your doing. The Texas HTF is a pretty quality bunch of fellas. I'm pretty anti illegal myself, but if you're talking about ambushing and killing women and kids, you're going to find yourself on the wrong side of a lot of Texans' rifles. Keep that shit elsewhere. Only referring to the cartel/coyote types. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the good discussion guys! Don't mistake the good discussion to be your doing. The Texas HTF is a pretty quality bunch of fellas. I'm pretty anti illegal myself, but if you're talking about ambushing and killing women and kids, you're going to find yourself on the wrong side of a lot of Texans' rifles. Keep that shit elsewhere. Only referring to the cartel/coyote types. They don't wear signs... |