Other thread got me to thinking and I don't really know?

I got a msg from TSRA the other day asking for support to help pass the Castle Doctrine which will end the duty to retreat.   Apparently the current penal code is subject to each courts own interpretation.  The new law would clarify that point and lean in favor of the homeowner.  

I thought Texas was a "drag 'em inside and then call the cops" state.

Just use the age old Texas defense:

"Cause they just needed killin"

In your home you are given more lattitude with respect to use of deadly force. I would go with TSRA on this one. I would like 'no legal duty to retreat' ever and a law similar to Oklahoma's that says if someone unlawfully enters your home, you can kill them DRT, and you are absolved from all criminal and civil prosecution. That my friends is how it should be!

Quoted: Other thread got me to thinking and I don't really know?

Basically the answer is that Texas is a required to retreat state for deadly force. More specifically the law states that you can use deadly force if it is justified and "if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated". The whole issue comes down the what is "reasonable".

If you are in a face to face encounter and turn to retreat then you are just leaving yourself open to attack from behind. Therefore deadly force would be justified since a reasonable person would not have retreated IMO. Would you turn your back on someone threatening to kill you with a knife and you have a gun? I think not.

I think the law would look on it differently if a person was 100 yards away with a baseball bat and he said that he would kill you. If you are in a position to escape before he could move the distance to carry out the threat, then you must attempt to retreat IMO.

Mostly it comes down to what your county District Attorney thinks should be prosecuted. In my county they are fairly conservative in these types of cases and they are rarely, if ever, prosecuted.

Is there a link to more info on the "Castle Doctrine" law TSRA is promoting?  Does it protect individuals from civil liability if they are cleared of criminal charges in a defensive shooting?

Quoted: .... Does it protect individuals from civil liability if they are cleared of criminal charges in a defensive shooting?

Yes. As I understand it, the proposed law would sheild a person from civil liabilities in the event of a "good shoot".

While I have no current information, I have heard that EVERY CHL holder who justafiably used their firearm has been sued in civil court.  

I keep wondering if it would be justifiable to (counter)sue the perp (or their estate) for damages due to emotional distress and other damages.

And yet, as I understand it..... use of deadly force is permitted after dark against criminal mischeif, and theft (if you have reason to believe the stolen property will be difficult to recover).

I wish they taught that in Elementary thru HighSchool......

Not that I have a huge problem with stupid kids, or that I'd shoot one for TP'ing my trees..... but still, if they thought a homeowner were legally justified in doing so....  

Quoted: And yet, as I understand it..... use of deadly force is permitted after dark against criminal mischeif, and theft (if you have reason to believe the stolen property will be difficult to recover). I wish they taught that in Elementary thru HighSchool...... Not that I have a huge problem with stupid kids, or that I'd shoot one for TP'ing my trees..... but still, if they thought a homeowner were legally justified in doing so....

Well, kinda.

The law says... "when the property could be protected by no other means" or  if the use of other than deadly force would expose the person to a "substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury".

It doesn't leave you open just to shoot at nighttime if it "will be difficult".

Quoted: I keep wondering if it would be justifiable to (counter)sue the perp (or their estate) for damages due to emotional distress and other damages.

Only works if the perp or his estate has money.  But yes, you could probably make a reasonable claim of civil damage from someone who breaks into your home and makes you shoot him.

Quoted: And yet, as I understand it..... use of deadly force is permitted after dark against criminal mischeif, and theft (if you have reason to believe the stolen property will be difficult to recover). I wish they taught that in Elementary thru HighSchool...... Not that I have a huge problem with stupid kids, or that I'd shoot one for TP'ing my trees..... but still, if they thought a homeowner were legally justified in doing so....

Well, kinda. The law says... "when the property could be protected by no other means" or if the use of other than deadly force would expose the person to a "substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury". It doesn't leave you open just to shoot at nighttime if it "will be difficult".

Actually the second quote above only refers to preveningt the other from fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property.

Deadly Force is never "permitted".  The penal code makes it a defense to prosecution (which means you can offer the defense at your trial) and gives justifications.

The penal code states that Deadly force is justified....  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson,
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or
criminal mischief during the nighttime;