TexasCHLforum.com

I'm probably the only one here who isn't completely informed as to how the Texas Castle Doctrine or Law works.

For me, reading the technical language of the law is an exercise in futility.

I just aint smart enough, so, if anyone can explain how it works in plain English, I'll be most grateful.

Thanks!

If someone comes after you in your house, car, boat, garage, and you fear for your life because of them you are good to take them down without having to back away.

That is my understanding of it.

Several years ago our legisture followed the lead of eastern states and passed a law stating that if you could retreat from where you were you had to do so before using deadly force. Castle doctrine basically says if you are where you are supposed to be you have no obligation to retreat before defending yourself.

Dougmyers5 wrote:If someone comes after you in your house, car, boat, garage, and you fear for your life because of them you are good to take them down without having to back away.

That is my understanding of it.

NO, no no. Being in fear of your life means nothing. (didn't we JUST have a thread about it?)

The Castle law is really misnamed. In Texas, there was a general duty to retreat before using deadly force IF a reasonable person would have done so in the same situation, and IF you were anywhere but your habitation.

The "Castle Doctrine" law, basically removes the requirement to retreat from ANY place you legally have a right to be.

It also gives a presumption that your belief that FORCE was reasonable if the person "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; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) 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."

The rest of the use of force and deadly force statutes stand.

You must reasonably believe that the deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.


It does not lower the standard for use of force or deadly force, it clarifies reasonableness and removes the duty to retreat.

It also offers some civil immunity.

I don't know how "Castle Doctrine" got stuck to this bill, because Texas already had a castle doctrine: that is, no duty to retreat within your own home before resorting to deadly force.

What people frequently call "castle doctrine" is the law that removes any obligation to retreat, so long as you're in a place where you have a right to be. It's more accurately called a "stand your ground" law.

KBCraig wrote:I don't know how "Castle Doctrine" got stuck to this bill, because Texas already had a castle doctrine: that is, no duty to retreat within your own home before resorting to deadly force.

What people frequently call "castle doctrine" is the law that removes any obligation to retreat, so long as you're in a place where you have a right to be. It's more accurately called a "stand your ground" law.

Correct. The NRA has termed this type of legislation "Castle Doctrine" because it sounds better to the general public than "stand your ground". From a political standpoint this has been a successful tactic. It puts the antis on the defensive.

txinvestigator wrote: NO, no no. Being in fear of your life means nothing. (didn't we JUST have a thread about it?)

Actually, if you review the other thread, we established that being in reasonable fear for your (or another innocent) life was more or less a brief way of expressing that the requirements for deadly force had been met without quoting the full verbiage of the statute.

I would refer you especially to the comments of APD Chief Acevedo as he describes the circumstances of a recent officer-involved shooting.

txinvestigator wrote:NO, no no. Being in fear of your life means nothing. (didn't we JUST have a thread about it?)

As Charles put it during the seminar... I am in fear of my life whenever my sister in law is driving my car and I'm a passenger. But that doesn't give me the right to shoot her. Not those words but something along that line.

By the way, Charles already did this in another thread.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Okay folks, here's a stab at a short summary of the Castle Doctrine.

Duty to Retreat
There will be no duty to retreat before using deadly force if:

• 1) You are legally where you are when deadly force is used;
  2) You did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used;
  3) You were not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used.

Presumption
A person is presumed to have reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary if:

1) You knew or had reason to believe that:

• a) The person had entered or attempted to enter your home, business or car and did so unlawfully and with force;
  
  b) The person removed you, or attempted to remove you, from your home, business or car and did so unlawfully and with force; or
  
  c) The person was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

2) You did not provoke the person; and

3) You were not committing any crime, other than a Class C misdemeanor involving traffic violations.

"Immunity" from civil liability.

You can be sued, but you will win and probably early in the case.

Chas.

Thanks all for trying to help me understand how all this works.

I have a question.

a) The person had entered or attempted to enter your home, business or car and did so unlawfully and with force

"with force" has me asking if a complete stranger walks into my home as the door is unlocked and this person has NO presumption to be their - What is my legal standing regarding their presence?

No 'force' per se was used to enter my home, but I'd be mighty concerned if I suddenly encountered a stranger in my home.

Or does this individuals uninvited presence alone constitute force?

Or am I out of luch (regarding the use of a weapon) if a stranger walks in without the use of force?

Thanks for your patience.

The real world explanation I got was:

it takes force to open a door, even if it was left unlocked

it takes no force to walk through an open door

You don't need to show a busted door to say entry was forced. You could've been standing at the door with the door open six inches and the door was pushed open.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: NO, no no. Being in fear of your life means nothing. (didn't we JUST have a thread about it?)

Actually, if you review the other thread, we established that being in reasonable fear for your (or another innocent) life was more or less a brief way of expressing that the requirements for deadly force had been met without quoting the full verbiage of the statute.

I would refer you especially to the comments of APD Chief Acevedo as he describes the circumstances of a recent officer-involved shooting.

I understand that's the consensus you came to, but it's incorrect. If all you say is "I was in fear for my life," then you have not met the requirements of TPC §§9.31 & 9.32 for using deadly force. It was the facts related by the Chief that established a reasonable belief that deadly force was immediately necessary. Some people may be in fear, some may not, but those facts gave rise to justification under the Penal Code. If "fear" was an element, then the lack of fear would mean deadly force cannot be used.

I believe I know what you mean, but my concern, and txinvestigator's, is that some people can read such statements and think that "anytime I'm afraid, I can shoot." That could get some good people into a lot of trouble.

Chas.

propellerhead wrote: As Charles put it during the seminar... I am in fear of my life whenever my sister in law is driving my car and I'm a passenger. But that doesn't give me the right to shoot her. Not those words but something along that line.

Because shooting would not be a reasonable response in that situation.

I think things were very well explained in the other thread. The rest is just word games, selecting from among multiple meanings that most words have to arrive at a nonsensical example or ignoring proper/intended context.

Again, I refer you to APD Chief Acevedo's comments quoted in the other thread. Taken in context, the meaning is very clear.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: NO, no no. Being in fear of your life means nothing. (didn't we JUST have a thread about it?)

Actually, if you review the other thread, we established that being in reasonable fear for your (or another innocent) life was more or less a brief way of expressing that the requirements for deadly force had been met without quoting the full verbiage of the statute.

No, WE didn't. There was a lot of random postings, but that "fact" was never established, nor should it be acceptable around here. There are too many newbies and lurkers that could take action on wrong information. And it is clear to me that many new posters think "being in fear of your life" IS a legal justification.

I would refer you especially to the comments of APD Chief Acevedo as he describes the circumstances of a recent officer-involved shooting.

So what? DA Rosenthal in Houston says that the traveling presumption means nothing. Just because someone said it don't make it so.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Because shooting would not be a reasonable response in that situation.

I think things were very well explained in the other thread. The rest is just word games, selecting from among multiple meanings that most words have to arrive at a nonsensical example or ignoring proper/intended context.

Again, I refer you to APD Chief Acevedo's comments quoted in the other thread. Taken in context, the meaning is very clear.

Yes, things were very well explained in the other thread. Fear is not justification to use deadly force.

txinvestigator wrote: So what? DA Rosenthal in Houston says that the traveling presumption means nothing. Just because someone said it don't make it so.

No. He didn't say it meant nothing. He said that just because it was a "presumption" it didn't mean that it was automatically true in every case. So he adopted a policy of arresting people who were carrying guns in their cars without CHL's and let the finders of fact determine (at trial) whether the presumption that someone was travelling was true in any given case.