TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote:

EEllis wrote:As an aside what is up with all the "Can't I please shoot them" threads?

Exactly.

The valid question (after meeting the legal requirements for deadly force) is: "Is there no other reasonable way to prevent death or serious injury to an innocent person?"

Folks who approach deadly force issues from the "Can I shoot 'im" school of thought should sit down, take a deep breath, and really think that through.

Jumping Frog wrote:Three scenarios come to mind:

Scenario 1: Lawful eviction. If the homeowner has received the legal papers showing lawful eviction, then self defense would not apply because PC §9.31 includes the phrase "immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force". If the eviction was lawful, then attempting to tear down the property is not the use of "unlawful force" and self defense is not justified. Second, if the homeowner has received the legal papers for the eviction and has not complied, then the homeowner is the one trespassing. Armed trespass is a Misdemeanor A, which makes the statute language for deadly force applicable: "was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used."

Scenario 2: Mistake. I am aware of instances where a construction company shows up to tear down the wrong house. In this circumstance, I believe ordinary force under PC §9.41 may be justified in the sense of openly carrying a firearm and telling them to wait until the police arrive. Certainly deadly force would not be justified because it fails this test:

PC §9.42(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.

If a construction company mistakenly tears down the wrong house, any reasonable person knows they are going to be liable in court for the damages caused and the monetary damages allows one to recover the value of the property. This isn't some punk stealing your heirlooms at night and fleeing never to be found.

Scenario 3: Obstinacy. The homeowner receives the eviction notice but disagrees. It violates "his rights". The remedy here is to pursue one's options in court, not create a sniper hide inside his house and starts shooting people like some overblown sovereign-citizen whackjob. This scenario is equivalent to an evicted apartment dweller deciding to resist eviction with deadly force. Not going to go well for the person.

jmra wrote:

Stupid wrote:

jmra wrote:Hey Stupid,

Here's my take:
If the construction company attempts to illegally destroy your home, let them and then sue their pants off. My bet is the company (regardless of hypothetical conjecture) feels they're on pretty solid legal ground if they actually roll in equipment which means they have consulted their legal representation. You should do the same before taking any deadly action.
I guess what I'm saying is don't do anything stu..., anything you might regret.

BTW, love your user name.

Of course I know what to do. :-) Just a hypothetical question as I am curious how this statue would apply.

In that case I believe some very wise people have already answered your question.

jmra wrote:Hey Stupid,

Here's my take:
If the construction company attempts to illegally destroy your home, let them and then sue their pants off. My bet is the company (regardless of hypothetical conjecture) feels they're on pretty solid legal ground if they actually roll in equipment which means they have consulted their legal representation. You should do the same before taking any deadly action.
I guess what I'm saying is don't do anything stu..., anything you might regret.

BTW, love your user name.

EEllis wrote:Not unless they snuck up on you and are tearing it down into middle of the night while you were sleeping.


Any case where you could get away with shooting you could easily win a legal action so why would you shoot? That would only come up when someone had lost all legal actions and at that point you couldn't get away with shooting. Suicide by cop is very uncool.

mojo84 wrote:Not enough info to determine whether or not to shoot someone. Tread lightly and make sure the deed hasn't been transferred. Call the police is someone is there to damage your property.