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

To: WL-law
§ 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.

67 posted on 01/26/2003 4:52:39 PM PST by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: Double Tap
>>WTF??? How did a spring-gun get into this conversation?

I see I'm not the only one trying to figure that out (see my #64).
68 posted on 01/26/2003 5:07:13 PM PST by FreedomPoster (This space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: Double Tap; FreedomPoster
Katko v Briney (183 N.W.2d 657) is THE classic case of defending property with lethal force... the owner left an "abandoned" shack rigged with a spring gun after some robberies... it took off the leg of a "collector" who was taking old mason and ball jars from the abandoned shack.
114 posted on 01/27/2003 11:41:50 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | 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