I AM NOT A LAWYER... THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICEHotLeadSolutions wrote:Can you provide the statute for this? I can not find anywhere in the penal code that allows for the use of deadly force to end trespassing.RoyGBiv wrote:Subject says WIFE, post says SISTER
Trespass is not justification for deadly force until the request to leave is ignored... (IANAL)
First... In my earlier brevity I was imprecise... Should have said...
Trespass is not, in and of itself, sufficient justification for the use of deadly force. But after effective notice of trespass is given, criminal trespass can, under additional conditions defined in PC 9.42, lead to "justification"...
My earlier comment was that the OP's wife/sister was not "trespassing" as she was never given notice of such, nor any opportunity to remedy the trespass, if in fact she was trespassing. Therefore, brandishing (or threatening) with a weapon was not even remotely justified.
Three PC sections to consider..
1. Criminal Trespass
And then.... Justification for use of force (not deadly)PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense
if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including
residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a
building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and
the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
........... (not a complete citation).......
And for deadly force... Conditional .... After establishing criminal trespassPC §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.
Back to work.!PC §9.42. 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 other's 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.
