swatspyder
Regular Member
imported post
END_THE_FED wrote:
END_THE_FED wrote:
It's true, but you can go to the Texas board to ask for references.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Aaron1124
Regular Member
imported post
swatspyder wrote:
swatspyder wrote:
So, in Texas, you can shoot someone for trespassing, but you can't OC?
END_THE_FED
Regular Member
imported post
Well there is some truths in all myths i suppose
Texas Penal Code 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.
Well there is some truths in all myths i suppose
Texas Penal Code 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.
imported post
I bought a book "Self Defense Laws of All 50 States" and Washington seems to be a state that looks for reasonable force in defense. Unless the thieves were actively trying to run the guy down, he shouldn't have shot at them.
My question to the author was can you fire anyone in your house that shouldn't be there, and he said no, that's not reasonable force. They have to be armed and a threat that warrants using a firearm. Unarmed idiots don't qualify.
I bought a book "Self Defense Laws of All 50 States" and Washington seems to be a state that looks for reasonable force in defense. Unless the thieves were actively trying to run the guy down, he shouldn't have shot at them.
My question to the author was can you fire anyone in your house that shouldn't be there, and he said no, that's not reasonable force. They have to be armed and a threat that warrants using a firearm. Unarmed idiots don't qualify.
G20-IWB24/7
Regular Member
imported post
Aaron1124 wrote:
Why would you phrase the question that way??? "...best self defense law..." Why would you want to shoot someone who does not absolutely need to be shot? Fleeing the property after a theft is not an immediate threat to life or limb.
Aaron1124 wrote:
Why would you phrase the question that way??? "...best self defense law..." Why would you want to shoot someone who does not absolutely need to be shot? Fleeing the property after a theft is not an immediate threat to life or limb.
Aaron1124
Regular Member
imported post
G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
I'm not looking for personal opinion. I'm looking for which state has the best self defense law, as in the loosest forms of restrictions.
amlevin
Regular Member
imported post
Aaron1124 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
Kind of like the "Old West", right?
Tomas
Regular Member
imported post
Best details I have is the perps were NOT on the shooter's property, and the drainage ditch pipe scraps were not in any way the shooter's property...
So, not only is it at this point questionable if there was any actual theft (or if there was, who the theft was from), it does not appear that any threat was made against the shooter at any time during the event.
He first shot at the vehicle as it was departing, and fired again, at the driver, after the truck turned around at the dead end and again came down a public road...
Off hand, it doesn't really sound like a "good shoot."
Best details I have is the perps were NOT on the shooter's property, and the drainage ditch pipe scraps were not in any way the shooter's property...
So, not only is it at this point questionable if there was any actual theft (or if there was, who the theft was from), it does not appear that any threat was made against the shooter at any time during the event.
He first shot at the vehicle as it was departing, and fired again, at the driver, after the truck turned around at the dead end and again came down a public road...
Off hand, it doesn't really sound like a "good shoot."
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
END_THE_FED wrote:
END_THE_FED wrote:
You beat me too it.
skiingislife725
Regular Member
imported post
END_THE_FED wrot
"Use of force — When lawful.The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;"
See Marty Haye's articles:
http://www.personaldefensenetwork.c...defense-network/legal-issues-in-self-defense/
http://www.personaldefensenetwork.c...onal-defense-network/reasonable-man-doctrine/
Also: State v Brightman, which is the WA Supreme Court case that Hayes refers to.
END_THE_FED wrot
True to a certain extent. You also have to take into account RCW 9A.16.020. That is, was in necessary to use deadly force in the situation?
"Use of force — When lawful.The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;"
See Marty Haye's articles:
http://www.personaldefensenetwork.c...defense-network/legal-issues-in-self-defense/
http://www.personaldefensenetwork.c...onal-defense-network/reasonable-man-doctrine/
Also: State v Brightman, which is the WA Supreme Court case that Hayes refers to.
Ruby
Regular Member
imported post
Voob wrote:
Voob wrote:
No, they do not have to be armed, not in Washington anyway. Ever hear of disparity of force? I am a woman and I guarantee you that if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night I am not going to ask them if they are armed. They will receive a warning to leave, that I am armed. If they do not leave and are threatening me, I would not hesitate to use my firearm to protect myself. I don't recall reading anything about "reasonable force"; I believe it was worded what a "reasonable person" would do under the same circumstances; it amounts to the same thing. I haven't read that particular book, I am referencingWashington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities by Dave Workman.
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
Ruby wrote:
Ruby wrote:
Ruby... why on Earth would you ever give them a warning... do that and you give away your position... and IF they have guns... they might just shoot you before you can shoot them. The best thing to do is to quietly confirm they are not your family getting a midnight snack... and once you can be 100% sure you don't know them... shoot them. Keep shooting until you know they are no longer a threat. Reload if you have to... but make sure they do not have the ability to come after you or your family. Then call 911 and report a dead robber.
skiingislife725
Regular Member
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
On that note, would "quietly confirming" include going around the house to clear your home? Not having a SWAT team to protect my back as I enter into another room, I'd probably just wait until they come to me. Personally, would I yell out a warning? I don't think I would. I would confirm their identity if/when they got to my bedroom and proceed accordingly.
Having said that, I don't have kids to worry about yet so I don't need to leave my bedroom to protect others than are unable to protect themselves. And if my girlfriend was more interested in home defense, a clearing of the house MIGHT be something to think about. Would still have to weigh the risk of clearing versus that of getting shot while not being able to cover all areas at once.
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
I can see both sides to this argument. The advantage I see in giving an intruder a warning is that it might keep them away from your bedroom where you hopefully are. No encounter with an intruder equals no chance that you get shot in the face while shooting at the intruder yourself.
On that note, would "quietly confirming" include going around the house to clear your home? Not having a SWAT team to protect my back as I enter into another room, I'd probably just wait until they come to me. Personally, would I yell out a warning? I don't think I would. I would confirm their identity if/when they got to my bedroom and proceed accordingly.
Having said that, I don't have kids to worry about yet so I don't need to leave my bedroom to protect others than are unable to protect themselves. And if my girlfriend was more interested in home defense, a clearing of the house MIGHT be something to think about. Would still have to weigh the risk of clearing versus that of getting shot while not being able to cover all areas at once.
Tomas
Regular Member
imported post
Depends on circumstance, but making some assumptions - and using my situation as a starting point - I would not call out a warning or offer the intruder a free first shot, EXCEPT...
Two people have legitimate access to my place, myself and my 84 year old mother.
If it appeared to be something I could do without endangering either of us I would yell to her to go to her bathroom, lock the door and call 911 (there is a phone in there).
(Her bedroom and bathroom are the two farthest points from the main entry and patio doors, I would likely be between her and anyone entering from outside.)
If I did not do that, she might easily come out of her bedroom into the central hallway to see what was going on.
Yelling instructions to her WOULD give the intruder warning, but I would still have to protect her at least to the extent of keeping her from wandering into the danger zone.
(I can hear it now - train her not to go toward the loud noises, and instead to seek cover, but the "old dogs new tricks" thing comes into play. Won't work.)
Depends on circumstance, but making some assumptions - and using my situation as a starting point - I would not call out a warning or offer the intruder a free first shot, EXCEPT...
Two people have legitimate access to my place, myself and my 84 year old mother.
If it appeared to be something I could do without endangering either of us I would yell to her to go to her bathroom, lock the door and call 911 (there is a phone in there).
(Her bedroom and bathroom are the two farthest points from the main entry and patio doors, I would likely be between her and anyone entering from outside.)
If I did not do that, she might easily come out of her bedroom into the central hallway to see what was going on.
Yelling instructions to her WOULD give the intruder warning, but I would still have to protect her at least to the extent of keeping her from wandering into the danger zone.
(I can hear it now - train her not to go toward the loud noises, and instead to seek cover, but the "old dogs new tricks" thing comes into play. Won't work.)
devildoc5
Regular Member
imported post
I understand the whole give em a warning thing...Friday night I was kinda stupid and came in after having a cigarette and didn't lock the door (was doing something in the kitchen and just put it off (extremely stupid I know)
Point of the matter is I had a drunk neighbor come into my apartment on "accident". All I said was "get out" he did no problem. Proper esalation of force. Then again I live in an apartment complex and I was the one who screwed up so....
I understand the whole give em a warning thing...Friday night I was kinda stupid and came in after having a cigarette and didn't lock the door (was doing something in the kitchen and just put it off (extremely stupid I know)
Point of the matter is I had a drunk neighbor come into my apartment on "accident". All I said was "get out" he did no problem. Proper esalation of force. Then again I live in an apartment complex and I was the one who screwed up so....
Ruby
Regular Member
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Thanks guys, I appreciate the input. A little more about my particular situation. I live alone, except for a 60lb chocolate lab and a kitty, so no other family members to worry about. Perhaps the dog going crazy would be enough to make them leave. They would have to know that at least I would be awake and alert. My house is very small and has a basement. Because of a previous break in many years ago, the basement windows are boarded up on the inside, except for one. The two main doors upstairs are both highly visible from the street. I would not attempt to clear my house. I would want them to know that I am armed to give them a chance to change their minds and leave. I don't have anything material so valuable that it would be worth dying for. I would call 911 and lay the phone down with the receiver open so dispatch would be able to hear what's going on. My .45 sleeps on my bedside table along with 2 spare mags.If they continue to come towards my bedroom after hearing the dog and my warning, then they will get shot. I am not at all anxious to shoot anyone and I would give them a warning in hopes of them leaving on their own. But I would defend myself with lethal force if necessary.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Dogs are great alarms. Now if mine would stop waking up at 2 in the morning to bark at the owls across the street. ( Are owls protected species? J/k)
Dogs are great alarms. Now if mine would stop waking up at 2 in the morning to bark at the owls across the street. ( Are owls protected species? J/k)
skiingislife725
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
I thought about that when there was a 6pt buck outside of Brandon's house in Sudden Valley during hunting season just staring at us (wasn't seeing much elsewhere). Hmm...wonder if I'd have to go drag him out of someone's yard after I get him with an arrow. Then my brain kicked in lol.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Aaron1124 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
Texas. Don't be the repo man in Texas.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
skiingislife725 wrote:
skiingislife725 wrote:
The deer here get frustrating I want to put a guillotine up with a salt lick on one side. And some are getting quite large lately, I don't walk my dogs with out my fire arm I've had to face down a few of those large bucks. No fear of people here.