Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TexasFreeper2009

There seems to be a problem with Freeper gun owners who don’t know the Penal Code concerning deadly force. Here is the Texas handbook which is issued with the Concealed Carry License:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/LS-16.pdf

The easiest way to stay out of trouble is to remind yourself you should only use deadly force to prevent death and bodily harm to yourself and others. The use of deadly force should be stopped when the threat is over.


71 posted on 08/18/2009 7:33:34 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA /Patron - TSRA- IDPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Shooter 2.5
So, am I correct in assuming the guy is technically in the clear as long as his attorney can demonstrate that he could not recover the property by other means and/or without exposing himself to risk?
PC 59.42. 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 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.

85 posted on 08/18/2009 7:56:07 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: Shooter 2.5

I should add though, that I agree with your last sentence there...


86 posted on 08/18/2009 7:56:59 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: Shooter 2.5
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one’s place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one’s car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her “castle”), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Conditions of use
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary (CHECK)
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the “Duty to retreat” and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of “Castle Doctrine” expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term “home” is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

Texas is a state that extends the castle doctrine to businesses. The person was in the process of committing a felony... He met the requirements, the shooting was justified.

133 posted on 08/18/2009 9:12:18 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied, the economy died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson