It's not just the "castle doctrine". Let me rephrase that.CaptDave wrote:Let me start off by saying I'm not a lawyer - and I don't play one on the internet- ( I stole that from someone on this forum, I think).
For instance if you were threatened and you can drive off in your car but you decide to step out and escalate the confrontation to where you have to use your gun to stop a threat that you could have just driven away from, you are in BIG trouble. There are some exceptions, notably the "castle doctrine" which relates to the physical inside of your home. In a nutshell: there is no legal requirement to retreat once inside your own home.
It's not "just inside " your home.
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.
I would really like to see 9.32 (2) defined in class better. (Specifically the word "reasonable")
Texas is a big state. What is reasonable in Dalhart, Ft. Stockton, Orange, or Paris, might not be reasonable to the denziens of "Moscow on the Colorado".