Will Someone Please Explain - Texas Castle Law

[frankie_the_yankee]

I believe I know what you mean,

Thank you.

.....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.

I appreciate the concern.

I think my emphasis on context and APD Chief Acevedo's remarks, taken in context, minimize the chances of misunderstanding.

Certainly, any detailed discussion for the purposes of education should refer to and explain the statutory language.

At least that's my take on it.

FWIW, Ayoob relates a story of a guy (not in TX) who was involved in a self defense shooting that seemed (to Ayoob) to be justified. Nevertheless, the guy was charged with murder. For whatever reason, at trial the guy took the stand in his own defense. His case blew up when the prosecutor asked him if at any time during the altercation he was in fear for his life. The guy responded with something like, "I've never been afraid of any man."

Result: Guilty. The way Ayoob tells it, it was the guy's macho "no fear" declaration that sunk his case.

[Xander]

"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?

Not to answer your question, but if I may ask gently, why is your door unlocked? No need to post an answer, but please do consider the reason. There *are* a very few, and I do mean very few good reasons to leave your door unlocked, but as a matter of course we need to remember to layer our defenses. I don't care where I live, or how good my neighborhood is, leaving a door unlocked is simply asking for avoidable trouble. I don't need to determine whether an intruder needs to be stopped if that intruder never intrudes to begin with.

Just some food for thought.

[Diode]

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.

Exactly, I wondered about that back when this all started. THen I figure as long as it gets passed I don't care what they call it.

[TX Rancher]

"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?

Good question, and I too am interested in the responses to what constitutes force in this particular case.

The first thing to do is you need to establish if you are “In Fear For Your Life�…sorry, couldn’t resist lighting that particular fuse just one more time

Now back to answering your question.

Here’s how an uninformed person like me would look at it. If I meet the criteria for use of force or deadly force, then it doesn’t matter how the person gained entry to my house…forced entry is no longer relevant. By that I mean if I come down the stairs and find a person, who to the best of my knowledge is uninvited, standing in my living room with a gun in their hand, and they point it at me, I don’t believe I need to ascertain if they entered by breaking down a locked door, or walked in an open door. They are presenting me with a situation that I feel meets the criteria for the use of deadly force…I can draw my weapon and engage.

If they don’t have a weapon displayed, but they move in a fashion that concerns me, I believe I have the right to present my weapon as a threat of deadly force to encourage them to stop their actions…I believe that’s covered under the use of force.

Profiling would be a good thing to do at this point in time. If the “person of interest� is a 5 year old girl who looks lost, I don’t think Castle Doctrine’s intent is for you to be justified in shooting her since she’s in your house uninvited…regardless of how she got there.

Let’s assume the person is an 85 year old man who is totally confused, lost, and wandered into your house, maybe opening an unlocked door to gain entry. Again, I don’t think the intent of the law is that you are free to end his days.

I think if you stick to the definitions of force and deadly force, you won’t go wrong…and that’s whether you’re in your house or out.

How about some of you folks that know what you’re talking about jumping on to Abraham’s question? I too am interested in the anwers.

[longtooth]

I am presently dealing w/ this very "fear factor" w/ an aged couple in my church.
They have had "SEVERAL" pranks in the night at their house buy some teens. Drive way reflectors stolen, patio furniture moved out into yard, 4wheeler tracked yard, not rutted & tore up even just visible in the morning dew grass, now mail box vandalized.
He is extreemly poor health. She is not good.
They are both afraid how things may continue to escalate & I am too.
She recently said she would sit in the dark under "that tree over there" w/ my shotgun & shoot out their tires. (me ) They will think twice before scaring old people again."

You cant do that. If you shoot a gun, you have to be able to tell what force you were defending yourself against. (Now you legal eagles remember I really have to translate this into Deep East Texas English for this couple) You cant hide & wait w/ a shotgun for some one to run through your drive way on a 4wheeler.
They have agreed to call the sheriff & give him all the incidents & time frame. I showed her in their bedroom how to get on the floor by the side of the bed (w/ her shotgun now ) & be on the tele to the sheriff.
Now if someone gets in the house you can do what you need to for protection.
That satisfied & they are talking to the sheriff.

[seamusTX]

Theft or criminal mischief in the nighttime.

I think it's a really bad idea for an infirm elderly woman to stand guard. The thugs could see her and sneak up on her.

- Jim

[longtooth]

That is what I told her.
Real problem w/ this one is, several of us are pretty sure we know who it is. They are prankie mid-teens w/ no parental discipline who are just out doing minor mischief. Problem is, getting the evening thrill is taking a bigger & bigger prank ever time.

[seamusTX]

Maybe some friends can volunteer to stand guard. If they are just juvenile pranksters, a meeting with Mr. Remington or Mossberg might encourange them to straighten up and fly right.

- Jim

[stevie_d_64]

The whole "fear" issue is what got me off on the tangent of why I believe it is good to remove that from any description or testimony you give in an investigation...As best you can...

I don't think its deceptive...If you were in fear, then yes, it is legitimate...

Fear is emotional, therefore something could be misconstrued as your emotions effected how "reasonable" you reacted to a threat...

I know it is a stretch, and should not be taken for gospel...But seeings how we are also concerned about "perceptions" thast others have about this community, sometimes the words we use, even though they are accurate and describe a situation enough for some...There are always others that will take what you say and spin it negatively against you...

I'm also not advocating we become some robot, or other form of ogre that has no feelings...

[seamusTX]

But seeings how we are also concerned about "perceptions" thast others have about this community, sometimes the words we use, even though they are accurate and describe a situation enough for some...There are always others that will take what you say and spin it negatively against you...

I agree. Many anti-RKBA people portray us as living in fear and being paranoid.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

Fear is emotional, therefore something could be misconstrued as your emotions effected how "reasonable" you reacted to a threat...

Yes, but it is a NORMAL emotion for someone to experience if they are threatened with an actual danger to life and limb.

So if you do NOT experience it in the situation in question, you could be considered to be "abnormal", which could create a perception that your reaction to the situation was possibly "unreasonable". Or possibly, the situation might be judged as not rising to the point where deadly force was necessary, in which case you're in trouble.

That's why I think the best policy is to tell the truth. If the situation put you in fear for your life, say so. That, in combination with a full description of what happened is most likely to produce a correct outcome, IMO.

[Abraham]

Xander,

I fully agree with you regarding the home door and it remaining locked.

It's my other half who leaves it unlocked with rather appalling regularity while home and so this question is on my mind. I've kindly reminded her to lock the door after she comes in and later with sternness to little affect.

I make certain all the doors of my pick up are locked when under way also.

TX Rancher,

Your insight is most welcome.

I too do my very best to approach any question with common sense, but when it comes to understanding the (at least for me) often peculiar wording of the law, i.e., "with force" I am often stumped.

Not to long ago the insurance industry was mandated by law to make their arcane and dense language understandable by the common man.

What irony.

The law itself holds it's arcane nomenclature clasped tightly to it's breast, so we of the common herd have to have interpreters.

And the interpreters often have so many elastic renderings they're not much help either.

[TX Rancher]

I too do my very best to approach any question with common sense, but when it comes to understanding the (at least for me) often peculiar wording of the law, i.e., "with force" I am often stumped.
…
The law itself holds it's arcane nomenclature clasped tightly to it's breast, so we of the common herd have to have interpreters.

And the interpreters often have so many elastic renderings they're not much help either.

I completely agree with you…straight answers are as rare as hens teeth. That’s why in the absence of an explanation I can understand, I tend to drift back to the force and deadly force definitions. At least those I think I have a handle on.

I was hoping one of our local authorities would chime in with some advise on what “Force� meant in regards to entering a door. Maybe someone will come on later with some info.

I too have the problem with a wife that leaves the door unlocked. If you figure out the answer to that one please pass it along

[Mithras61]

I too have the problem with a wife that leaves the door unlocked. If you figure out the answer to that one please pass it along

How about auto-locking doorknobs? Get some with a combination touchpad, and locking yourself out becomes a non-issue, and the auto-locking feature means that you won't have random wanderers.

[seamusTX]

I too do my very best to approach any question with common sense, but when it comes to understanding the (at least for me) often peculiar wording of the law, i.e., "with force" I am often stumped.

The code of criminal procedure gives this guidance:

Art. 3.01. [48] [58-59] WORDS AND PHRASES. All words, phrases and terms used in this Code are to be taken and understood in their usual acceptation in common language, except where specially defined.

The penal code does not define force, so we have to go to the dictionary.

violence: an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one"
physical energy or intensity; "he hit with all the force he could muster"; "it was destroyed by the strength of the gale"; "a government has not the vitality and forcefulness of a living man"

In addition, there is probably case law which I am not aware of.

In my opinion, not being a lawyer, opening a unlocked door in that manner in which it was designed to be opened is not force.

- Jim