Texas Castle Doctrine Wins Again

M

Mike Irwin

Staff
This really isn't law and civil rights related, as it's the outcome of something that has been passed into law. If it was a reopening of the debate over Castle Doctrine, that would be another matter.

Moving to General Discussion.
 
D

Double Naught Spy

New member
Actually, I don't see where Castle Doctrine has come into play in this case or is mentioned in the article. Nothing described in the article was outside of the law before Castle Doctrine. A homeowner shoots a perp during an attempted break-in of his home after dark (or in this case, before dawn)...which is and has been perfectly legal under Texas law for quite some time.
 
G

GetYerShells

New member
A homeowner shoots a perp during an attempted break-in of his home after dark (or in this case, before dawn)...which is and has been perfectly legal under Texas law for quite some time.
Click to expand...

...AKA "Castle Doctrine"
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
It is a related concept; but the laws the NRA has been promoting in the last few years under the "Castle Doctrine" moniker are different from the laws in play here.

The new laws promoted by the NRA remove the duty to retreat when you are in a public place and are also known as "Stand your ground" laws. The law in place here is an old Texas law and says you can use deadly force to defend your home against someone breaking in if you meet the statutory requirements.
 
B

BobbyT

New member
I don't see it as that different. The idea behind "castle doctrine" isn't that cutesy media smear job image that "he's on my land so I get to shoot 'im dead!"

It's that a home invasion is about as grave a threat to the life of anyone there as there can be. You're asleep, completely unprepared to defend yourself, and as vulnerable as you'll ever possibly be. The intruder has made a very conscious decision to break through whatever barriers you have between your unconscious body and the outside world--the odds are as heavily stacked against you as they'll ever be. You don't have to scramble for the door praying they'll be the "nice" kind of felons. The second your door gets kicked in, your life is in danger.

Extending this to your car may not be an identical scenario (you aren't sound asleep after all), but it's pretty close. You're strapped into a box with your movements greatly restricted; the guy demanding your car has your life in his hands. There's no magical button that will transport you out of his reach in a blink.

Just walking down the street when attacked or confronted may not put you at such an overwhelming disadvantage, but requiring retreat is still absurd because there is no safe way to do it. There's no level of passivity that will keep a violent felon from deciding he's better off without a witness or a dozen other random reasons you could end up dead.

You have the right to defend yourself against an imminent threat to the best of your ability, and that right shouldn't be diminished by where you are or whether some politician thinks you should take your chances hoping he's just a *little* violent but not really in the mood to kill you today.
 
B

blume357

New member
This is what I see the recent castle doctrines to mean...

it has extended one's rights outside of his or her 'castle.' Except for a few states, no one was expected to retreat from danger while in their home at any time or in most states even on their property or at their business.

the right to defend one's self, family and property has been a 'rule of law' for a very long time.
 
M

Maromero

Moderator
. the right to defend one's self, family and property has been a 'rule of law' for a very long time.
Click to expand...


Yes, but the property part has been curtailed. Deadly force may only be employed when a life is in danger. The castle doctrine grants you the option to stand your ground, not seek and destroy. It's a thin line that's very easily crossed inadvertedly and of course depends on the situation. Black and white in theory but a lot of gray area in reality.
 
D

Double Naught Spy

New member
This is what I see the recent castle doctrines to mean...
Click to expand...

Except for a few states, ...
Click to expand...

Which isn't even fully relevant to what Texas castle doctrine is just like Texas laws are not relevant to any other state (despite our apparent need to say what it is we can do in Texas when somebody asks about laws in other states). The shooting happened in Texas.
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Texas got rid of that clause? I thought you could shoot to defend property over a certain dollar amount...
Click to expand...

In order to use Deadly Force to protect property in Texas, you must first meet all the legal requirements to use force under Section 9.41.

At that point, if you can convince a Texas Grand Jury (and you will be facing one if you shoot somebody) that you had a reasonable belief that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or 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, then you may use deadly force to protect property in the following circumstances:

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

Note the parts in bold. You'll also have to convince the Grand Jury that you had a reasonable belief that using deadly force to protect property was immediately necessary, in addition to the other things you'll need to show them.

So let's look at a few areas where you could be in big trouble if the Grand Jury's view of the matter doesn't line up with yours

1. Land or property could not be protected or recovered by other means (or substantial risk of death or serious injury)
2. Reasonable belief
3. Immediately necessary

If the Grand Jury disagrees with your call on any of those points, you are going to be looking at criminal charges. In actual practice, Texas grand juries have been very lenient on the issue of deadly force to protect property; but considering what is at stake - that is a big bet to make over a color TV or a car stereo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top