Replies

...if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41

...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.

Well, let's parse this further. What does section 9.41 say? And since ALL these elements are necessary to perfect the right, the last part of the statute seems to say that there is an strong aspect of self-defense involved -- so this is NOT clearly a right to use deadly force to defend property per se.

In other words, the classic case is someone who loads a spring-loaded gun in an abandoned house he owns, triggered and aimed at the door. Door opens, gun goes off.

These cases come up from time to time. This statute certainly does not permit that.

"someone who loads a spring-loaded gun in an abandoned house he owns, triggered and aimed at the door. Door opens, gun goes off."

A booby trapped gun can not differentiate between a six year old kid with a peanut butter sandwich in his hand and a thug wielding a gun or sledgehammer and maybe you would have trouble differentiating. I, for one, would have no problem.

I'm half watching this game, half reading this thread. Are you trying to say that rigging a gun behind a door set to go off automatically is the same as being prepared to protect yourself from scum if they appear at your buisiness and attempt to steal your livelihood and potentially your life?

On the issue of "a grand jury obviously agreed" - you darn sure know as well as I that grand juries are routinely led where prosecutors wish to take them. The fact that a grand jury "agreed" doesn't make the prosecutors actions any less reprehensible. These men are justified in defending their livelihood from predators, without becoming an election vehicle for an ambitious D.A.

>>This statute certainly does not permit that.

Go read some Texas case law. It, or something else, often does, from what I can tell. There are cases that seem to depend on this that pop up fairly routinely in Texas.

Maybe there is more common sense and less liberal jurisprudence protecting criminals in Texas.

You practice in Northern Virginia?

§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

In other words, the classic case is someone who loads a spring-loaded gun in an abandoned house he owns, triggered and aimed at the door. Door opens, gun goes off.

WTF??? How did a spring-gun get into this conversation? They didn't set a trap for Hammer-boy, they were working in their shop.

The laws that have been posted most surely do make it legal to use deadly force in defense of property, whether it is at your home of not. Granted, this is Texas law, but it makes the point that not all states look unfairly on someone who stops a thief with a bullet.

3. he reasonably believes that:

A. the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or