Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The new state laws gives a person the right to defend his automobile,home, or business with lethal force without threat of a civil suit. Bout time the state passed a good law!!!
I must confess that I have not read the actual law, so I am not going to pass any judgment on it. However, as you reported it here (I taking the language you provided), that does not seem to be a wise law.
Common law in most states have always been that you can only use deadly force if faced with deadly force. The reason for this has been the natural law concept that human life is more important than property e.g. a car. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to use lethal force to defend yourself or others, but property - I am not so sure. TX may have made that judgment call, but it is certainly not the prevailing view in the country. Not that the majority view is necessarily the correct one, but there is truly some wisdom in the traditional CL rule.
Common law in most states have always been that you can only use deadly force if faced with deadly force. The reason for this has been the natural law concept that human life is more important than property e.g. a car. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to use lethal force to defend yourself or others, but property - I am not so sure. TX may have made that judgment call, but it is certainly not the prevailing view in the country. Not that the majority view is necessarily the correct one, but there is truly some wisdom in the traditional CL rule.
I know of no "natural law" concept that presumes that life is more important than the right to be secure in your private property and possessions. This is the essense of freedom.
The superficial comparrison of a life compared to a (TV, DVD player, jewelry, etc) is JUST that. Superficial. What is the price of true freedom and security?
A bit more direct? Deadly force only justified if first confronted with deadly force? THAT puts the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage. A lot of the scum out there will smile in your face, then stick a knife in you. Or break into your house and, if you happen to come home, wellll, maybe they didn't INTEND to commit murder when they first broke in, but hey, as they explain it later in video interviews "that M...F...come home and I had to do what I had to do...know what I mean..?"
I LOVE Texas law, which justifies deadly force in defense of person AND property. Let the scum of the earth be 'askeered of US for a while.
Wasn't the recently passed law the 'castle doctrine'? It's been on the books for quite some time now that you can defend your property and 3rd parties with deadly force. (Although legal to use deadly force to protect property you don't have a reasonable expectation to recover, it's never *recommended*.)
The Castle Doctrine assumes no duty to retreat if threatened. This means if someone tries to carjack you, you can defend yourself in place, without having to first attempt to escape. In some states, you DO have a duty to retreat, even if it means leaving your own house. In Texas, there isn't (wasn't) that duty to retreat, but you could still be prosecuted for standing your ground. Now, it's assumed that if you use deadly force in/on your own property, you acted in self defense.
I'm not well versed in other states' laws, but in Texas, deadly force is justified if a reasonable person would feel bodily injury or death is imminent. The situation is considered carefully - a slight woman against a bigger man vs. a body builder against an unarmed smaller man vs. a body builder against an armed woman.
If it's common in other places to let anyone have your stuff and take liberties with your body, I'm doubly glad to be back in Texas!
Wasn't the recently passed law the 'castle doctrine'? It's been on the books for quite some time now that you can defend your property and 3rd parties with deadly force. (Although legal to use deadly force to protect property you don't have a reasonable expectation to recover, it's never *recommended*.)
The Castle Doctrine assumes no duty to retreat if threatened. This means if someone tries to carjack you, you can defend yourself in place, without having to first attempt to escape. In some states, you DO have a duty to retreat, even if it means leaving your own house. In Texas, there isn't (wasn't) that duty to retreat, but you could still be prosecuted for standing your ground. Now, it's assumed that if you use deadly force in/on your own property, you acted in self defense.
I'm not well versed in other states' laws, but in Texas, deadly force is justified if a reasonable person would feel bodily injury or death is imminent. The situation is considered carefully - a slight woman against a bigger man vs. a body builder against an unarmed smaller man vs. a body builder against an armed woman.
If it's common in other places to let anyone have your stuff and take liberties with your body, I'm doubly glad to be back in Texas!
I'll NEVER retreat. For one it puts my back to them and since I saw them they could just as well shot me and kill me. No thanks. If the punks that show up to steal my car or whatever get away w/ it and not get any problems they will only go onto harder crimes and the next crime could be against a person. If they however find themselves looking down the barrel of my gun they will get prosecuted (if they don't try anything stupid and I end up shooting them), incarcerated (hopefully) and will hopefully think twice the next time they think of stealing something. The person(s) going out breaking into homes and cars DON'T CARE for anyone especially the victims they are hurting so why should I stop and care about them as they try to take off w/ things we have worked hard to have and provide for our family. I'll take my gun anyday and use it against any of these scumbags.
I must confess that I have not read the actual law, so I am not going to pass any judgment on it. However, as you reported it here (I taking the language you provided), that does not seem to be a wise law.
Common law in most states have always been that you can only use deadly force if faced with deadly force. The reason for this has been the natural law concept that human life is more important than property e.g. a car. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to use lethal force to defend yourself or others, but property - I am not so sure. TX may have made that judgment call, but it is certainly not the prevailing view in the country. Not that the majority view is necessarily the correct one, but there is truly some wisdom in the traditional CL rule.
So one should wait till the person that broke into their home has tied them up and threatend to kill them and/or their family before using deadly force? Don't think so. Not exactly like you can ask the scumbag breaking in if they are there just to steal some jewelry or intending to cause bodily harm meaning possibly death and they are going to answer. Lol, and if they do say yes are you going to ask them to hold on while you go get your gun first? Not a chance here. If I hear someone breaking into my house my first reaction is going to be up, get the phone to call 911 as I am getting my gun and then making sure my family is safe. If it means firing as they step thru a broken window/door I'll do it. I'd rather they get buried then me be left to bury my kids or them to bury me. Where is this "wisdon" in the "traditional CL rule"? Waiting till you get fired upon by a crook before firing back?
I know of no "natural law" concept that presumes that life is more important than the right to be secure in your private property and possessions. This is the essense of freedom.
The superficial comparrison of a life compared to a (TV, DVD player, jewelry, etc) is JUST that. Superficial. What is the price of true freedom and security?
A bit more direct? Deadly force only justified if first confronted with deadly force? THAT puts the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage. A lot of the scum out there will smile in your face, then stick a knife in you. Or break into your house and, if you happen to come home, wellll, maybe they didn't INTEND to commit murder when they first broke in, but hey, as they explain it later in video interviews "that M...F...come home and I had to do what I had to do...know what I mean..?"
I LOVE Texas law, which justifies deadly force in defense of person AND property. Let the scum of the earth be 'askeered of US for a while.
Hi:
Sigh. The hypotheticals above are somewhat absurd. I stated the general rule, and there are recognized exceptions to it, such as the Castle Doctrine, which a poster above pointed out.
1. If someone smiles in your face and then stabs you ---> I am not sure why you picked this example. It doesn't prove your point - I think we would both agree that by this point you should fight for your life - by ANY MEANS possible.
2. The scenario in your home ---> as already mentioned, is covered by the well-recognized castle doctrine. Essentially, this doctrine assumes that someone who enters your home unauthorized, is intending to use deadly force. Again, we are in agreement - if you feel unsafe, you should defend yourself by ANY MEANS possible.
Where the general rule is best demonstrated is e.g. with issues of personal property. The general rule does NOT allow you to shoot and kill someone who drives away and steals your car. But even this gets hazy - suppose you are carjacked, and the person places you in fear for your life in the process, deadly force would be entirely justified.
Unfortunately, crime always puts the innocent person at somewhat of a disadvantage.
I'll NEVER retreat. For one it puts my back to them and since I saw them they could just as well shot me and kill me. No thanks. If the punks that show up to steal my car or whatever get away w/ it and not get any problems they will only go onto harder crimes and the next crime could be against a person. If they however find themselves looking down the barrel of my gun they will get prosecuted (if they don't try anything stupid and I end up shooting them), incarcerated (hopefully) and will hopefully think twice the next time they think of stealing something. The person(s) going out breaking into homes and cars DON'T CARE for anyone especially the victims they are hurting so why should I stop and care about them as they try to take off w/ things we have worked hard to have and provide for our family. I'll take my gun anyday and use it against any of these scumbags.
The "retreat always" rule is a minority rule by far and most states have done away with it as improper and unsafe. To this point, I agree with your comments.
So one should wait till the person that broke into their home has tied them up and threatend to kill them and/or their family before using deadly force? Don't think so. Not exactly like you can ask the scumbag breaking in if they are there just to steal some jewelry or intending to cause bodily harm meaning possibly death and they are going to answer. Lol, and if they do say yes are you going to ask them to hold on while you go get your gun first? Not a chance here. If I hear someone breaking into my house my first reaction is going to be up, get the phone to call 911 as I am getting my gun and then making sure my family is safe. If it means firing as they step thru a broken window/door I'll do it. I'd rather they get buried then me be left to bury my kids or them to bury me. Where is this "wisdon" in the "traditional CL rule"? Waiting till you get fired upon by a crook before firing back?
Hi:
I think I answered your questions in my post above. Your hypothetical(s) will all fall within the "castle doctrine" and the general rule would not even apply. I agree entirely with most of your comments in this post. Note also, that under the majority CL rule, you are NOT required to wait to get fired before firing back - the use of deadly force by the other party must simply be imminent.
From reading your posts, I don't think our disagreement is very broad.
Sigh. The hypotheticals above are somewhat absurd. I stated the general rule, and there are recognized exceptions to it, such as the Castle Doctrine, which a poster above pointed out.
1. If someone smiles in your face and then stabs you ---> I am not sure why you picked this example. It doesn't prove your point - I think we would both agree that by this point you should fight for your life - by ANY MEANS possible.
2. The scenario in your home ---> as already mentioned, is covered by the well-recognized castle doctrine. Essentially, this doctrine assumes that someone who enters your home unauthorized, is intending to use deadly force. Again, we are in agreement - if you feel unsafe, you should defend yourself by ANY MEANS possible.
Where the general rule is best demonstrated is e.g. with issues of personal property. The general rule does NOT allow you to shoot and kill someone who drives away and steals your car. But even this gets hazy - suppose you are carjacked, and the person places you in fear for your life in the process, deadly force would be entirely justified.
Unfortunately, crime always puts the innocent person at somewhat of a disadvantage.
The point is that the "general rule" is not the law in Texas. But perhaps we are talking past each other on this.
The "smiles in your face example" was intended to be a little absurd. Which in turn was to point out the absurdity in a rule which says one must first be confronted with deadly force before using deadly force in turn. Still though, perhaps I misread you there. I took that to mean that -- as I believe it is in some states -- before a person is justified in using lethal force, a deadly assault against them must actually be in progress. In Texas, there is a reasonable person standard (i.e. reasonably believes death or serious bodily injury is imminent) in the face of direct assault. And also, the new law (the so-called Castle Doctrine) which PRESUMES ahead of time that if someone breaks into your occupied home, place or business or vehicle, they are there to cause said harm. Further, that you have no duty to retreat...either in these instances, or if attacked in a public place where you have a legal right to be.
So far as the property aspect goes, in Texas the law does permit the use of deadly force to recover stolen property if it is "reasonable" to believe it cannot be recovered any other way (this is perhaps a reason why Texas law allows deadly force to prevent "theft in the nighttime.").
Again, maybe I read your post too quickly. That is, you talking "general rules" and me referring to Texas law. My apologies if so.
With that said though, I DO firmly believe, regardless, that the old argument about a human life being worth more than a piece of stolen property, in order to refute the notion that deadly force is justified in protection of property, is a nice emotional argument and might make sense from a dollars and cents point of view.
However, again, I maintain that the proper way to frame the question is not in terms of monetary value, but in terms of the right to be secure in your property and possessions. And that further, it is the criminal who is going to have to make the call as to whether property is worth his life.
Question, we will be moving from CA to TX next year. My husband bought a firearm last year here in CA, registered and everything. When we are in the process of moving from here to TX does anyone know if we will need a special permit to do so? It wouldn't be loaded, it's just packed with our moving stuff. Also, once we get to TX, we don't need to carry a concealed weapon just have it at the house. So is there anything we need to register or some sort of license to just have it at the house?
Thanks
Nope, no license or registration at all is needed. Just like you don't need a license to buy a gun or ammo. You also don't register your guns here. All you have to do to buy a new gun is pass a background check that is done almost instantly. The last gun I bought a few months ago took about 25 minutes to fill out a couple of forms, and wait for the background check. Once I was done shopping they walked me out the front door and that was it. No more waiting period, at least not in Texas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
