TexasCHLforum.com

so...here's the deal...I’ve been reading all the Texas Concealed handgun laws and statutes and never see any mention of the words "Castle Doctrine". So I think to myself (i know...dangerous at times)….it must just be randomly scattered throughout the codes. I’m looking to find the which codes contain parts of the Castle Doctrine.

I saw Jim’s (seamusTX) post on the “Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders” that stated:
“Castle doctrine only clarified the situation with respect to vehicles and places of employment:

PC §9.32 (b)(1)(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; ...”

And after reading thru that post started looking on my own to find the "other pieces" of it. I found this in the codes about the Civil Immunity part of the Castle Doctrine...

CPRC §89.001. Civil Immunity. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.


But nothing else. I’ve heard all kinds of things about it and would like to find the actual code to back up the “rumoured” claims of what all is covered in the Castle Doctrine. (For example, I’ve heard that the definition of the BG under the Castle doctrine is just that they are any uninvited person on your property). Obviously we shouldn’t just start shooting at uninvited people , but that’s the whole reason for this post....I want to find the exact specifics in the actual code itself ... not just what different people have heard or feel like should be covered. Not trying to be rude or anything...just want to make sure that I have the real codes/statutes to back up the “non-legalese” version of it all .
So...any help/additions would be great!

Thanks,
FOM

First let me say that the phrase "Castle Doctrine" is misleading at best and often misused.

The core of the Castle Doctrine is that a man's home is his castle, and that he can legally use deadly force to repel an intruder if necessary (except for lawful entry by police, etc.)

That law is older than the United States itself, going back to British common law.

In Texas law, you could use deadly force to prevent any burglary of your home, business, or other buildings that are under your control.

The most recent Castle Doctrine legislation clarified the situation with respect to vehicles.

People often mix up the removal of a duty to retreat (Stand Your Ground) and other concepts with Castle Doctrine.

You are correct that elements of this law are scattered throughout the statutes. They were the result of a number of bills in the 2007 legislative session. You can see them all here and figure out which bill did what. HB 103 and SB 378 were the key Castle Doctrine bills.

BTW, these handles like Castle Doctrine and Motorist Protection Act have no legal meaning in Texas and do not become part of the statute. We do not have the unfortunate situation with deceptively named bills that exists at the federal level.

- Jim

The "Castle Doctrine" did three things:

• Removed the duty to retreat anywhere you legally are when using deadly force (some limitations)
  Created a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary, when dealing with your home, business, or car, or when attempting to prevent certain violent felonies (some limitations)
  Created immunity from civil liability, of your use of deadly force was justified under TPC Chp. 9.

For the exact Code Sections amended, have a look at SB378, or come to my seminar .

You won't find a definition of BG in SB378. In fact, to get the presumption, he/she must have acted "unlawfully and with force" and merely being an uninvited guest doesn't get you there.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:For the exact Code Sections amended, have a look at SB378, or come to my seminar .
Chas.

that's "SO WRONG"....I'd love to....want to...need to. But gonna have to wait a while on that .

Jim, Charles....thank you very much for the info... I'll dig into the links you both provided. I knew they'd be scattered throughout and that the "idea" behind the whole thing had gone back hundreds of years. But didnt' know exactly what our codes/statues provided for. Thanks for summing them up and providing the links and bills to check out!