OT Castle Doctrine in Texas

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:10 am

'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting

Web Posted: 04/29/2008 11:14 PM CDT

Robert Crowe
Express-News

After his home was burglarized earlier this week, Thomas Thames decided to arm himself in case the intruder returned, police say.

The following night, he heard another noise at his home in the 5800 block of East Midcrown, so Thames, 39, walked downstairs. It was about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday when he once again saw a young man in his kitchen. The back door was open.

This time, Thames fired a gun at the man, who ran into the backyard, where Thames shot at him again, police said.

Ronnie Scarborough, 18, was pronounced dead at the scene.

San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.

Police said the man killed at Thamesâ€™ Northeast Side home Tuesday matched the description of a burglary suspect the resident said he chased from the home the night before.

Police said Tuesday that Thames likely wonâ€™t be charged with a crime because Texas law gives homeowners latitude in protecting their property and themselves.

â€œA property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,â€

Post by **AmBraCol** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:32 am

Raymond Lemes found 19-year-old Tracy Glass inside his house about 2:45 a.m. one Saturday last August. Believing Glass was an intruder, Lemes chased the young man outside, where he shot him in the neck, arm and chest.

Hmm... if he was in someone's house uninvited - he was an intruder.

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary

Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin intrudere to thrust in, from in- + trudere to thrust â€” more at threat
Date:
15th century

intransitive verb 1 : to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome 2 : to enter as a geological intrusion transitive verb 1 : to thrust or force in or upon someone or something especially without permission, welcome, or fitness <intruded>

I guess it doesn't take much knowledge of the language to be hired as a writer at a newspaper anymore, eh?

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:35 am

Wandering into someones house and getting shot because you are drunk is no different than wandering into the street in front of a truck and getting run over because you are drunk. You got killed because you were drunk and stupid. Any relatived of mine would never sneak into my house to visit me.

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:45 am

This is just common sense if you ask me. I am preaching to the choir here of course but the law needs to be on the side of the potential victim, not the $%&# criminals. Err on the side of the victim is the way it should be.

Now, having said that and knowing nothing of the details of that drunken college student case, I personally wouldn't shoot the guy if he left the house when confronted and wasn't carrying my stuff.

But with me, if I find someboy uninvited in my house in the middle of the night, I'm going to be pointing a 45 with a bright light on it at them - if they broke in to my house and I don't know them - bang.

Simple as that.

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:55 am

I remember in 1982, Orlando Florida, I met a guy at my back door trying to break in during the middle of the night. I had a Mossberg 500 (bayonet lug, parkerized, wood stock, long mag) loaded and safety off when we met. He just about had the glass door pushed in when he saw me. He started back tracking imediately, went through the screen door and stumbled into yard, over fence and left running. I didn't know him, but he turned out to be a drunk neighbor three doors away. He showed up a couple of days later and apologized and stated that the shotgun sobered him up real quick. that was his story. I was very happy that I didn't take his life which I was very prepared to do. I don't remember what the laws were then and whether or not it would have been a "legal" shoot, just glad it didn't turn out that way.

Wasn't the same years later when three guys tried to rob a friends gun store I worked at part time. All I got to say on that is, wrong time, wrong place for them. No charges were filed.

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:57 am

The only problems I have with the two scenarios in the article are:

1. Both intruders were fatally shot after the began to flee. I'm all for shooting someone who is in your home, but if they run away at the sight of the gun, all the better.

2. Locking ones's door will generally keep out drunk morons. Legal or not, I wouldn't want on my conscience the fact that i killed someone for just being drunk and confused. Honestly, who among us can say we've never been drunk and disoriented ever before in our lives?

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:01 am

Jason_W wrote:The only problems I have with the two scenarios in the article are:

1. Both intruders were fatally shot after the began to flee. I'm all for shooting someone who is in your home, but if they run away at the sight of the gun, all the better.

2. Locking ones's door will generally keep out drunk morons. Legal or not, I wouldn't want on my conscience the fact that i killed someone for just being drunk and confused. Honestly, who among us can say we've never been drunk and disoriented ever before in our lives?

Jason,

I guess I look at it a little differently. Some lines you don't cross, if you cross them, you are bought and paid for. One of those lines is breaking into somebody's house.

As far as being drunk. Man, I have never been so drunk that I broke into somebody's house. It would not bother my concience to kill somebody, drunk or sober, who crossed the line.

Best regards,

Scott

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:30 am

San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.

Doesn't dragging the man back inside the house show foul play? Meaning, that there was more than just a attempt to protect oneself? Or did he pull the guy in to help him? Helping the guy maybe a stretch but until all facts are shown...

Post by **Hobie** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:31 am

I had a recent incident, recounted here, where I was able to avoid shooting somebody who was impaired and I am glad of it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do something.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't hold it against somebody who did just because the intruder was drunk/high. Indeed that makes people less predictable and more dangerous.

oldmax · Post by **oldmax** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:33 am

Yup, Let them go so they can enter and rob and do harm to someone else!

Makes sense to me...... NOT!

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:35 am

ScottT wrote: As far as being drunk. Man, I have never been so drunk that I broke into somebody's house. It would not bother my concience to kill somebody, drunk or sober, who crossed the line.

Best regards,

Scott

Getting drunk, and actually breaking in (as in kicking in a door, picking a lock, or prying open a window) No. However, getting drunk and trying the latch at a residence you think is yours (probably easier to do in one of those suburban neighborhoods where all the houses look the same) is something a blind drunk college kid might do.

I just think locking the door should be the first line of defense.

2ndovc · Post by **2ndovc** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:35 am

A good friend of mine was a paramedic in Cleveland for many years. At the time the city required it's emergency personell to live with in the city limits. He lived in a fairly decent neighborhood but it was steadily going downhill. One night he hears someone beating the stuff out of the back door. Went out on the upper deck and yelled at the guy. The guy was so drunk/high/ both that he was convinced that it was his house and his wife had locked him out. Alan went in and called 911 and was told by the dispatcher that she didn't know when someone would be there. After some choice words he hung up and went back out on the deck. Not having any weapons in the house other than a bat he started throwing stuff off the deck at the guy.

Mr. Goofball finally got the message he had the wrong house.

Alan finally moved to a better neighborhood but now has the Mossberg 590 that I gave him after that night and a Ruger p85 that another friend has given him and has been tought how to use them. Not that Mr. Goofball deserved to get blasted but it could have gotten much worse.

I completely agree that if you break into someone's house you give up all rights to continue breathing.

I also completely agree that you need to be darned sure who you're aming at before pulling that trigger!

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:56 am

I'm here to tell you that crossing that line is sometimes an invisible mark in one's life. In my last hour on the last nite of full time duty in CA, I probably had my closest call, and will only say that the fact that he finally did drop the knife after his second and final warning, which, if memory serves, was something like, "I'm not nervous, but if you don't drop the @#$*^# knife, I'm puttin' your @#$^&* brains on the other side of the p/u." At my Lt's question, "Why am I not filling out a death report and calling IA for a shooting investigation?" I could only say, then and now, I didn't feel threated by the idiot. Only God & I can know whether I did the right thing that nite. For my part, I know I did, for I simply encountered a family man that made an unwise choice NOT to follow a direction from a LEO involving a weapon in his possession. He is very lucky that he didn't have a nervous, trigger happy, inexperienced person behind the gun he stared at. But, I will say that a twitch or any movement other than his hand opening would have ended his life. Let us just say that there wasn't any more slack in the trigger of my Mdl 65.

Oh yea, a 6" Rapala filet knife will stick in the rubber floor matting when dropped from the height of a steering wheel.

And I have no doubts about their ability to lay open flesh. Which was foremost in my mind throughout this exchange.

Drunkedness is no excuse for one's behavior. When over-indulging, you're giving up control in more ways than one. I have no problem shooting when justified, and since I see no reference to "...in the back", I have no problem with the outcome of any of the cited cases.

Post by **AmBraCol** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:09 pm

Jason_W wrote:Honestly, who among us can say we've never been drunk and disoriented ever before in our lives?

I can, Jason. And there's plenty more around too. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life, but getting high or drunk are not on that list.

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:27 pm

AmBraCol wrote:
Jason_W wrote:Honestly, who among us can say we've never been drunk and disoriented ever before in our lives?
I can, Jason. And there's plenty more around too. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life, but getting high or drunk are not on that list.

All I'm really saying is that for the most part, locking one's door at night will keep out drunk and confused college kids staggering home from a night on the town.

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:26 pm

Jason_W wrote:
AmBraCol wrote:
Jason_W wrote:Honestly, who among us can say we've never been drunk and disoriented ever before in our lives?
I can, Jason. And there's plenty more around too. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life, but getting high or drunk are not on that list.
All I'm really saying is that for the most part, locking one's door at night will keep out drunk and confused college kids staggering home from a night on the town.

Maybe I have led a sheltered life, but I don't see many drunk and confused college kids going into folks' houses. Am I missing something here?

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:46 pm

ScottT wrote:
Jason_W wrote:
AmBraCol wrote:
Jason_W wrote:Honestly, who among us can say we've never been drunk and disoriented ever before in our lives?
I can, Jason. And there's plenty more around too. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life, but getting high or drunk are not on that list.
All I'm really saying is that for the most part, locking one's door at night will keep out drunk and confused college kids staggering home from a night on the town.
Maybe I have led a sheltered life, but I don't see many drunk and confused college kids going into folks' houses. Am I missing something here?

I guess you've never lived in a college town.

I went to the wrong door once, but I realized it before trying my key in the lock.

I've grown up a lot since then.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:50 pm

ScottT wrote:
Jason_W wrote:
AmBraCol wrote:
Jason_W wrote:Honestly, who among us can say we've never been drunk and disoriented ever before in our lives?
I can, Jason. And there's plenty more around too. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life, but getting high or drunk are not on that list.
All I'm really saying is that for the most part, locking one's door at night will keep out drunk and confused college kids staggering home from a night on the town.
Maybe I have led a sheltered life, but I don't see many drunk and confused college kids going into folks' houses. Am I missing something here?

Scott,

What I can't get is where it states in the Texas Castle Doctrine where it's ok to move a body after you shoot someone.

Does anyone else find it out the ordinary to move a body back into a house after shooting the person that just left?

I think I know why he did it but it seems like it was not needing to be done.

Johnny

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:38 pm

The Law of the state of Texas really does not say anything about moving somebody after you shoot them.

So, I am not real sure what you are getting at. The law does not say anything about most of what we do, in particular criminal law just tells you what you must not do without consequences.

It is good advice not to try to drag somebody back inside the house to try to fool the police into thinking that he was shot inside the house. That will get you put in prison. But if you were not trying to tamper with the evidence, I'm not sure what you would be charged with.

morgan in nm · Post by **morgan in nm** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:39 pm

I can only guess that he moved the body back in the house because he thought that he would be charged with a crime if the intruder was found dead OUTSIDE his house. I really don't know though. If that was the case, despite the fact that it was a legal shooting, he did tamper with evidence.

I too can claim that I have never been so drunk and disorderly that I would confuse my place of residence. But, when I used to drink, I would only drink in my house and wouldn't leave for any reason. I have known people who were violent drunks that would be so far off their rocker that they didn't know where they were and would try and kick the door down of a residence that they thought was theirs. In those cases, you would have to sympathise with the home owner for shooting the person for being intoxicated.

Anyways, this is a topic that makes me glad that I have always lived out in the middle of nowhere. If there is somebody in my property, they are usually visitors. A few times, people have showed up thinking that nobody was home and would try to steal things but the shotgun is a good deterant and they usually back step and come up with an excuse for their actions. I have never had to even call the police yet but feel assured that I will not hesitate to shoot if the time comes.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:49 pm

I dont know enough to form a real opinion about these cases, but am somewhat suprised that castle doctrine anywhere makes it ok to shoot once the threats over or retreating. Heck, cops cant even do that most times.
I'm all for not having a duty to retreat but was unaware that that equated to authority to attack or advance.

I'm suprised thers so many here that never have been inebriated or know any folks that were. I'm not apologizing for it or entering someones house when you were drunk but things do happen & part of the responsibility of weilding deadly force is determining if there is a threat. Being woke up at night dont always mean someones out to get you. One example might be a sleep walking youngster. My boy never made it out of the house but we caught him fumbling with the door more than once at 3:00AM.

Cant speak for anyone else but if I ever need to draw a gun on someone & it causes them to cease & desist I wont be shooting at them. If they run they run, if they drop when I say drop thats fine. Its not my job to catch criminals, only to protect my family, but if the guy complies & waits for the police all the better.

Can police in Texas shoot a man when he's running away?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:00 pm

ScottT wrote:The Law of the state of Texas really does not say anything about moving somebody after you shoot them.

So, I am not real sure what you are getting at. The law does not say anything about most of what we do, in particular criminal law just tells you what you must not do without consequences.

It is good advice not to try to drag somebody back inside the house to try to fool the police into thinking that he was shot inside the house. That will get you put in prison. But if you were not trying to tamper with the evidence, I'm not sure what you would be charged with.

Scott,

Morgan made made point.

I can only guess that he moved the body back in the house because he thought that he would be charged with a crime if the intruder was found dead OUTSIDE his house.

Not trying to be negative, just trying to understand why, outside of medical help, the guy would drag the intruder back into his house. I guess until facts are known its only assumptions.

Johnny

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:31 pm

I don't see the logic in trying to find fault with a guy who shot a burglar who broke into his house wiith the obvious intent to steal his stuff and harm his family in the middle of the night.

He moved the thing. So what? Maybe he wanted to show his kids what a scumbag looks like.

With regard to drunk college students and stupid neighbors, they ought to pay better attention. If they ooze into the the wrong house at the wrong time they're just another unidentified a-hole caught B&E.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:51 pm

FWiedner wrote:I don't see the logic in trying to find fault with a guy who shot a burglar who broke into his house wiith the obvious intent to steal his stuff and harm his family in the middle of the night.

Neither do I nor did I.

He moved the thing. So what? Maybe he wanted to show his kids what a scumbag looks like.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Outside of medical attention the body should not be touched.

[/quote]

Post by **AmBraCol** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:53 pm

Jason_W wrote:Locking ones's door will generally keep out drunk morons. Legal or not, I wouldn't want on my conscience the fact that i killed someone for just being drunk and confused. Honestly, who among us can say we've never been drunk and disoriented ever before in our lives?

I've no problem with folks deciding to get drunk - as long as they stay home and don't harm others or put others in harm's way. But I've a REAL problem with folks who go out drinking and then use that as an excuse to do whatever they want or their confused mind tells them to do. Anything that happens to them under the influence of alcohol is their own fault and I feel no remorse for them. Idiocy has consequences. It's when their idiocy harms others that I get mean. If I were king there would be an automatic death penalty for anyone who under the influence of alcohol or drugs caused harm to another. I've seen too many drunks who use the bottle as an excuse, "I'm sorry honey, it wasn't ME who whupped up on you, it was that darn whiskey that did it!" - yeah, right. I've known plenty of drunks over the years and have no quarrel for those who are peaceful and keep to themselves. It's those who inflict their drunkenness on others that get my blood to boiling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "teetotaler" nor do I believe that having a drink in and of itself is wrong. But there's no excuse for excessive indulgence in alcohol and then using it to excuse abhorrent behavior.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:54 pm

I imagine there is a lot of jumpy juice runnin through a person after an incident like that, so moving the body may have just been a result of all that stress and adrenaline.

Rod WMG · Post by **Rod WMG** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:59 pm

I've been told more than once that if a person/robber gets out of the house and collapses, "You'd bettrer drag him back in." I don't think that'd ever work because the evidence would reveal it.

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:46 pm

AmBraCol wrote:
Jason_W wrote:Locking ones's door will generally keep out drunk morons. Legal or not, I wouldn't want on my conscience the fact that i killed someone for just being drunk and confused. Honestly, who among us can say we've never been drunk and disoriented ever before in our lives?
I've no problem with folks deciding to get drunk - as long as they stay home and don't harm others or put others in harm's way. But I've a REAL problem with folks who go out drinking and then use that as an excuse to do whatever they want or their confused mind tells them to do. Anything that happens to them under the influence of alcohol is their own fault and I feel no remorse for them. Idiocy has consequences. It's when their idiocy harms others that I get mean. If I were king there would be an automatic death penalty for anyone who under the influence of alcohol or drugs caused harm to another. I've seen too many drunks who use the bottle as an excuse, "I'm sorry honey, it wasn't ME who whupped up on you, it was that darn whiskey that did it!" - yeah, right. I've known plenty of drunks over the years and have no quarrel for those who are peaceful and keep to themselves. It's those who inflict their drunkenness on others that get my blood to boiling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "teetotaler" nor do I believe that having a drink in and of itself is wrong. But there's no excuse for excessive indulgence in alcohol and then using it to excuse abhorrent behavior.

In all the examples you give, there is malevolence present. I agree that drunkenness is not excuse for violence.

The question I'm asking is this:

A 19 year old college kid gets too drunk at his friend's house. He doexs the somewhat responsible thing and decides to walk home, rather than drive. He gets a little confused and shows up at a door he thinks is his own and opens the unlocked door and walks in. The owner shoots him dead.

Did that kid really deserve to die?

Do you agree or disagree that such stupid though innocent mistakes could be avoided by simply locking one's door? [/u]

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:00 pm

Me being from NY which would be one of the last three states to have a
castle doctrine I can only say what I would do if I was blessed with the choice.

Robber, rapist, anyone who comes to my house to do harm or discontent.

Lead poisoning for sure.

(worlds best deterrent)

A drunk kid who thought he walked into his own home? I'm gonna have to say
he would get a free pass. To do anything else is abhorrent and I wouldn't want
to answer that question at the pearly gates.

Anyone on my property who was not invited gets questioned about it regardless
of what the law is.

Killing just because you have the legal right to do so is morally reprehensible.

Killing to protect friends, family, and property is what the law is about.

The doctrine is a tool to be used in concert with our 2nd amendment. Good
responsible use will help to keep crime down and people safe.

If people keep getting killed over misunderstandings you will see that law
get repealed and then where are we? That's right, all living in NY

Post by **AmBraCol** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:05 pm

Jason_W wrote:The question I'm asking is this:

A 19 year old college kid gets too drunk at his friend's house. He doexs the somewhat responsible thing and decides to walk home, rather than drive. He gets a little confused and shows up at a door he thinks is his own and opens the unlocked door and walks in. The owner shoots him dead.

Did that kid really deserve to die?

Do you agree or disagree that such stupid though innocent mistakes could be avoided by simply locking one's door? [/u]

Such stupid though innocent mistakes could be avoided by not getting drunk (on the part of the hypothetical college kid) and, yes, by locking one's door. There are still parts of the US where folks don't lock their doors. I've spent too much time in certain parts of the world to NOT lock my door at night, but folks still DO sleep with unlocked doors in places. I still maintain, however, that anything that happens to a drunk is THEIR fault for their lack of self control and prudence. To blame a home owner for shooting an invader simply because the invader was drunk is not right. Yes, anyone who "drops the hammer" on another human being will have to live with their decision - no matter the circumstances. However, it still comes back to the responsibility of the hypothetical drunk for allowing himself to enter such a state of stupor. My niece was killed last year because her father tried to avoid an ambulatory drunk. My sympathies do not lay with anyone who makes such an irresponsible decision. If you're dumb enough to get drunk at least have the decency to stay where you are until you're sober again - I don't care if you're walking, driving or riding a donkey, to wander around in such a state is the height of irresponsibility. Unfortunately, it's usually other people who pay for such things, rarely the drunk.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:52 pm

ScottT wrote:'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting ...............................................................

San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.

....................................................................................

Police said Tuesday that Thames likely wonâ€™t be charged with a crime .........................................................................................................

First off.
If the police aren't charging Mr. Thames that tells me he dragged the thing back into his house to;

A. keep and eye on him while he called the police.
Or.
B. Render aid.
Or,
C. He was afraid the guy would get away and possibly come back and harm him or his family.
Or,
D. All the above.

You can't assume the guy died immediately. That's Hollywood BS. That aint real life.

Second,
I don't think this particular rightous shoot has much to do with the Castle Doc. For as long as I can remember if someone is on your property after dark uninvited, you can assume he is there for no good and it would be reasonable for a person to be in fear for their life. Texas has always held that deadly force is justied in these cases.

Third,
I am under no obligation to lock my doors so you can get drunk and act stupid. Be responsible in your actions or suffer the consequences.

Ever now and then the gene pool needs a shot of chlorox.

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:56 pm

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around somebody being so drunk that they entered the wrong house. I just don't get it.

Seriously, I have seen folks die of alcohol poisoning, but I have never even heard of this kind of thing. I spent better than 10 years in police work and the last 30 studying gunfights and shootings. I just don't get it.

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:02 pm

sore shoulder wrote:I imagine there is a lot of jumpy juice runnin through a person after an incident like that, so moving the body may have just been a result of all that stress and adrenaline.

This is probably the most logical explanation. Having participated in a few of these things, you never know how you are going to react. It is not an easy thing, even in the line of duty.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:04 pm

Scott,
I seem to remember reading something about the right of a homeowner to protect his home in Texas. IIRC Texas is the only state that uses language saying that it is OK to use deadly force if someone is about to burn your house down. do you know about that?

thanks,
Rusty <><

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:09 pm

Rusty, It has long been the law that one can use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of arson. Texas is NOT the only state to have a similar provision. Here is the relevant Penal Code provision. I know that the Arson portion has remained unchanged for better than 30 years.

Â§ 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, Â§ 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Â§ 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Post by **AmBraCol** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:12 pm

ScottT wrote:Rusty, It has long been the law that one can use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of arson. Texas is NOT the only state to have a similar provision. Here is the relevant Penal Code provision. I know that the Arson portion has remained unchanged for better than 30 years.

Â§ 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, Â§ 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Â§ 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Looks like that pretty much covers the situation mentioned above.

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:24 pm

Boys, I am not for or against folks shooting other folks. I just found this newspaper story in our local paper this morning and posted it.

Some folks can shoot somebody under particular circumstances and some folks cannot shoot anybody under any circumstances. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

If you don't want to shoot somebody who breaks into your house at night, there is nothing wrong with that. But there is also nothing inherently wrong with plugging somebody who breaks into your house at night. Most likely they are not there simply to wish you good night.

So, no advocacy was intended with the original post and I cannot tell even how accurate it is. Most of the time the papers don't get the story right.

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:25 pm

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:
Third,
I am under no obligation to lock my doors so you can get drunk and act stupid. Be responsible in your actions or suffer the consequences.

Ever now and then the gene pool needs a shot of chlorox.

Perhaps. I personally take the advice that my father gave me and his father gave him. It's never a bad idea to keep the honest people honest.

I live in a state that has the lowest crime rate in the union, yet I still keep my home and car locked. I just feel that to do otherwise is tempting fate.

It would sort of like flashing large amounts of cash around in a really bad neighborhood. Doing so doesn't give thugs the right to mug you, but it's still a bad idea.

I guess, overall, I'm glad no one shot me when I was younger and stupider.

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:32 pm

Jason_W wrote:
Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:
ScottT wrote:'

Third,
I am under no obligation to lock my doors so you can get drunk and act stupid. Be responsible in your actions or suffer the consequences.

Ever now and then the gene pool needs a shot of chlorox.
Perhaps. I personally take the advice that my father gave me and his father gave him. It's never a bad idea to keep the honest people honest.

I live in a state that has the lowest crime rate in the union, yet I still keep my home and car locked. I just feel that to do otherwise is tempting fate.

It would sort of like flashing large amounts of cash around in a really bad neighborhood. Doing so doesn't give thugs the right to mug you, but it's still a bad idea.

I guess, overall, I'm glad no one shot me when I was younger and stupider.

PLEASE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE OR CUT AND PASTE QUOTES SO THAT THEY LOOK LIKE THEY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ME. I WILL DO MY OWN TALKING WITH MY OWN WORDS THANK YOU.

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:35 pm

I had someone banging on my door recently. The guy was loud and obnoxious and demanded that I open the door.

I had a loaded 12 ga shotgun aimed about center mass as I told the guy that there was no way I would open the door to him, and that he was trespassing and comitting criminal trespass.

I was rational enough to know I was gonna pull the trigger if he tried to force the door or come thru a window.

The rule in this house is that the doors are locked all the time. Friends and family ALL call ahead to say when they'll be at the door. And even then they have to ID themselves in a way that I recognize if they want me to let them in. This includes my adult children. It's protocol. It assumes nothing. It hopes for the best.

Everyone else who is at my door is there without my prior knowledge and consent, and by default are already trespassing by the time they knock. I normally don't open the door if they can't pass the pop quiz:

Do I know you?

mumble mumble mumble

What do you want?

mumble mumble mumble

You're trespassing, leave now.

I've had this conversation countless times since I arrived in the lower 48. I had a similar conversation once or twice in Alaska over a thirty year time frame. Alaskans aren't as stupid as the average trespassor in the PNW. They know for a fact that every household is armed, loaded, and hot.

Makes it hard to be friendly to strangers, I probably won't be entertaining any angels unawares, mores the pity.

Grizz

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:44 pm

ScottT wrote:
PLEASE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE OR CUT AND PASTE QUOTES SO THAT THEY LOOK LIKE THEY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ME. I WILL DO MY OWN TALKING WITH MY OWN WORDS THANK YOU.

Sorry, it wasn't intentional. I'm editing to correct.

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Thu May 01, 2008 4:03 am

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around somebody being so drunk that they entered the wrong house.

it happened to Robert Downey Jr., he wandered into somebody's house in Malibu.

got to be careful out here, you might just plug a celebrity.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:01 am

Jason_W wrote:
ScottT wrote:
PLEASE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE OR CUT AND PASTE QUOTES SO THAT THEY LOOK LIKE THEY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ME. I WILL DO MY OWN TALKING WITH MY OWN WORDS THANK YOU.
Sorry, it wasn't intentional. I'm editing to correct.

Jason, don't take my statement to mean that I don't lock my doors. My point is I'm not required to lock them to save someone from their own stupidity. I do it because it's slows criminals and makes good sense.

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:04 am

I lock my doors all the time. But I do not presume to tell other folks how to live.

Think of it this way:

If someone does want to or cannot or will not lock their doors, does that make their personal safety or personal possessions any less valuable than mine?

I don't think so.

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:24 am

ScottT wrote: If someone does want to or cannot or will not lock their doors, does that make their personal safety or personal possessions any less valuable than mine?

I don't think so.

I agree with you and I'm not telling anyone what they should or should not do.

I personally feel that I (and this is just a personal rule of engagement) am not justified in shooting someone if I have not first taken reasonable measures to keep them from entering my dwelling.

Part of the reason for this is I'm not sure how well shooting an intruder would hold up in court if I didn't first try to keep them out with locks. Then there is civil court to worry about if I'm aquitted in criminal court. Right or wrong, we do live in a litigation crazy society.

The same goes for shooting a fleeing intruder. I'm really not sure how a bullet hole in the back would look to a jury. While I don't want to be dead, I also don't want to go to prison. I'm way too pretty. I'd never make it.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu May 01, 2008 12:02 pm

Jason_W wrote:I personally feel that I (and this is just a personal rule of engagement) am not justified in shooting someone if I have not first taken reasonable measures to keep them from entering my dwelling.

Part of the reason for this is I'm not sure how well shooting an intruder would hold up in court if I didn't first try to keep them out with locks. Then there is civil court to worry about if I'm aquitted in criminal court. Right or wrong, we do live in a litigation crazy society.

The same goes for shooting a fleeing intruder. I'm really not sure how a bullet hole in the back would look to a jury. While I don't want to be dead, I also don't want to go to prison. I'm way too pretty. I'd never make it.

I lock my doors, but just for conversation sake...

My house has a front door. Leaving it unlocked does not imply that entrance is encouraged, and I don't have a sign out front that says Open House, Come-On In, or Welcome. Whether the door is opened or closed, crossing that threshold without MY permission is trespassing.

A punk caught leaving someone else's property in the middle of the night with things that don't belong to him , who might end up with a magmum hole center-mass looks to a jury like just what he is. A scumbag thief who spun the big wheel and lost.

What you have to worry about is whether your local laws favor the rights of the victim/property owner or the rights of the thief/murderer/scumbag punk.

ScottT · Post by **ScottT** » Thu May 01, 2008 1:32 pm

Jason_W wrote:
ScottT wrote: If someone does want to or cannot or will not lock their doors, does that make their personal safety or personal possessions any less valuable than mine?

I don't think so.
I agree with you and I'm not telling anyone what they should or should not do.

I personally feel that I (and this is just a personal rule of engagement) am not justified in shooting someone if I have not first taken reasonable measures to keep them from entering my dwelling.

Part of the reason for this is I'm not sure how well shooting an intruder would hold up in court if I didn't first try to keep them out with locks. Then there is civil court to worry about if I'm aquitted in criminal court. Right or wrong, we do live in a litigation crazy society.

The same goes for shooting a fleeing intruder. I'm really not sure how a bullet hole in the back would look to a jury. While I don't want to be dead, I also don't want to go to prison. I'm way too pretty. I'd never make it.

Jason,

I am going to chalk this up to where you live. I have lived and worked in some pretty violent places and they probably don't look or smell like anyplace in Vermont.

That being said, I don't fault you for your position. You may be a better man than I am because of it. It is a principled decision and you appear to have put some thought into it. As such, each man must make his own mind up. And we should respect that your decision is the right one for you.

Texas has not been civilized as long as Vermont has. Nor did Vermont go through Reconstruction. Those are very important differences that we tend to forget. I like it here and am comfortable with the state of the law here....but I may not have been if I were not raised and trained here.

God bles and good luck.

Scott

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Thu May 01, 2008 1:40 pm

[quote="ScottT]
Jason,

I am going to chalk this up to where you live. I have lived and worked in some pretty violent places and they probably don't look or smell like anyplace in Vermont.

That being said, I don't fault you for your position. You may be a better man than I am because of it. It is a principled decision and you appear to have put some thought into it. As such, each man must make his own mind up. And we should respect that your decision is the right one for you.

Texas has not been civilized as long as Vermont has. Nor did Vermont go through Reconstruction. Those are very important differences that we tend to forget. I like it here and am comfortable with the state of the law here....but I may not have been if I were not raised and trained here.

God bles and good luck.

Scott[/quote]

Nor do I fault you for yours.

It really is a different world up here in Northern New England. I really can't recall a time when I felt unsafe in my home or on the town.

Well, maybe that time when Carl Drega was shooting up northern NH and VT back when I was in high school. That was a bit freaky.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Fri May 02, 2008 12:20 am

Jason_W wrote:[

Could be just differences in ages as well. I grew up in rural Texas back in the 50's and 60's. That was a time and place where the line between right and wrong was not as blurry as it is now days.

Jackrogers3 · Post by **Jackrogers3** » Fri May 02, 2008 1:41 pm

I am thoroughly tired about worrying about the "rights" and sensibilities of criminal types. I carried a rifle and a rucksack for many years in the US Army. My wife went thru 2 pregnancies with me overseas except for a week before the baby and 3 weeks after birth. I have worked hard for the things I have. My car, my goods and possessions all represent hours/days of my life that I worked to earn the money to buy them. Someone breaks in to my house I will do my best to stop him, without shooting if possible but one way or another I will try to stop him..period. Its even worse along the Texas-Mexico border. My aunt is 69 years old and lives just outside of Brownsville. People come up to her house all the time and ask for water / food. Most of the time they are decent about it but she has been in fear of her life on more than one occaision. Her house has been burgled and a family dog was killed once. The government cant or wont control the border, the courts are kept from dealing with property crime by judges who care more about a criminals rights than they do about mine and the police dont do much more than get dirty footprints all over the carpet after the burglary is done. When I was stationed in Korea, property fencing was cinderblock with broken glass mortared into the top. Slickieboy may have gotten in but he was extremely careful about trying to climb over the fences.

Sorry for the rant... just ventilating

OT Castle Doctrine in Texas

OT Castle Doctrine in Texas

castle doctrine

Re: OT Castle Doctrine in Texas

Re: OT Castle Doctrine in Texas

Re: OT Castle Doctrine in Texas

Re: OT Castle Doctrine in Texas

Re: OT Castle Doctrine in Texas

Im tired about worrying about "Their" rights