Posted on 04/05/2022 12:09:13 PM PDT by Red Badger
I had one such incident. But the intruder didn’t try to wrestle my firearm away from me.
Well, the big meathead decided that he was going to play BMOC and compete for dumbest person on scene.
Perfectly legal castle doctrine defence.
***Not perfectly legal... but legal enough to decline prosecution. I have been living in California too long. I really need to move to Texas. These kinds of incidents are basically advertisements.
This is true. But I see no basis that the land owner had no reasonable basis for belief that he was in such danger in
No matter how much emphasis you put on the size difference a big person first must mean to attack in order to be dangerous. This big person wanted to argue and refused to leave. But showed no indication he was going to attack.
Now as far as I know there is a valid reason not to charge the landowner. I am no expert on law and do not pretend to be. Just saying the way I saw it on that video the only person in serious risk of bodily harm or death was the big guy. Even though he was big and the other guy smaller. Even though it was the small guy's land and the big guy had no right to remain there when asked to leave.
Ok. You’re confident in your conversation and history. As a teaching point, it’s potentially a bad principle to introduce into armed self defense. Maybe I’m digging to deeply into it, but I’d simply suggest to a person embarking on the arned self defense continuum to simply train to assess, decide, engage to stop, assess and decide.
Generally the widely acxeoted and well proven initial tactic is to fire twice to the center of visible mass, or if appropriate, the center of the torso from any angle, then assess and re-engage in the same manner.
But advanced tactics vary in application and technique and generally are not pursued nor taught to the average self-defense minded person.
Regards,
How many times has this same situation happened to a police officer? Suspect tries to grab the officer’s weapon and gets shot, no charges filed.
TN
Now supposing the police officer was off duty and in an argument about child support and to end the argument the officer started shooting warning shots inches from people's feet...
“..compete for dumbest person on scene.”
He won that competition.
Again, under Texas law and case law, he does *not* need to believe he is actively in danger. He only has to believe that there is a risk of serious bodily injury or death if he were to attempt to remove the trespasser by regular force. That requirement, per the courts, is met by the very large discrepancy between the meathead’s build and the home owner’s build. No indication that meathead is going to attack is required to bring deadly force to bear, only the assessment that accosting the trespasser could reasonably result in serious bodily injury or death. That is all that is required.
Again: If a landowner in Texas tells you to get off their property, you leave. Immediately. If meathead had left the property but continued to shout and yell from the roadside or sidewalk, there is nothing that the home owner could have legally done.
The gun was really used to end the discussion not stop the trespass.
If meathead would have gone to the sidewalk when he was told to leave, you would be correct.
He did not. At that point, he starts moving towards the porch instead of leaving. And at that point, it’s game over for him. Fully justified in Texas law - 9.41 and 9.42 requirements are met.
widely acxeoted ???
The righteous infallible landowner could have removed the lowly worm eating meathead scum without deadly force and without undeadly force. Without any force at all. By walking to the sidewalk himself. Thus none of it applies. No force was ever necessary. The meathead did not care about trespassing, he cared about the conversation being resolved in his favor. The land owner could have walked to the sidewalk. Did not have to carry the big man. Did not have to risk his life. Just had to walk down from his porch to the sidewalk to get the meathead out of his sacred ground. But he was u willing to endure the meatheads company. So he stayed on his property and decided to opt for deadly force when a peaceful solution was available.
Ah, so you’re one of those people who advises peace at any price, and that the homeowner should have fled from his property and let the meathead dispossess him of his home.
Would it surprise you to know that Texas law *still* would allow the dispossessed homeowner to use deadly force to return to his property? And it allows the homeowner to exert that force from the sidewalk? Or the street?
Sorry, the only way this ends well is if meathead leaves the property when told to. Texas has Castle Doctrine, no duty to retreat, and very good private property protection laws.
For the record:
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN 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.
So even if meathead had run the homeowner off his own property, it doesn’t matter. Meathead was using threat and had no claim of right at the time. 9.42 still applies, the homeowner can use deadly force because he reasonably believes any less force would probably result in his serious bodily injury or death.
Do. Not. Trespass. In. Texas. If the landowner tells you to leave, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY.
Prosecutors in my state are hesitant to try and build a case on the "you should've called 911.." excuse. Primarily because of slow or no police response. When I moved to my current location, I was told directly by the sheriff's department: "Do you have a gun? We can't really protect you this far out in the county."
Then, you should have a look at what Texas Penal Code says. The hostilities started long before the homeowner got the gun, and certainly were in full bloom after the homeowner told the trespasser to leave. God bless Texas.
But, he entered the property, and directly threatened the owner. That's a no-no in this state. God bless Texas!
Just one of many reasons people flock to Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.