maybe the dude just needed a bath really bad?
could have been drunk and been in the shower for an hour when dude got home. maybe?
could have been drunk and been in the shower for an hour when dude got home. maybe?
There is NO state in the USA - not even Texas - where shooting a guy locked in your bathroom who is on the phone with the police is going to be protected by a castle doctrine type law.
I invite the armchair lawyers here who think it's legal to justify it by citation to their state's laws on the subject.
Anybody in my house, uninvited and especially if forceful entry was used I can legally shoot them and cannot be held criminally or civilly liable once they are inside the threshold of my house. That is the foundation of castle doctrine, once they are inside, they're fair game.
like I said - cite to me your state's laws on the subject.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was
used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment of the actor; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by
Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against
a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense
of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.
SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action
that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action
that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by
the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is
continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
like I said - cite to me your state's laws on the subject.
Believe me, I'm no anti-gun freak, and 9 times out of 10 side with the homeowner where an intruder is shot.
Your generalization, however, is wrong. I invite you to actually read your state's law - it won't be more than a few paragraphs long. Believe me, no state in the USA gives a carte blanche right to kill anyone illegally in your home. If you believe otherwise, please, prove it.
like I said - cite to me your state's laws on the subject.
Believe me, I'm no anti-gun freak, and 9 times out of 10 side with the homeowner where an intruder is shot.
Your generalization, however, is wrong. I invite you to actually read your state's law - it won't be more than a few paragraphs long. Believe me, no state in the USA gives a carte blanche right to kill anyone illegally in your home. If you believe otherwise, please, prove it.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Amended 2006
503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle -- Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible
Ok, but this was what was taught in my concealed carry class and also verified by a policeman after I got broken into. They were very clear - once across the threshold under any circumstances you are legally protected for using deadly force.
Here's the law.
And here's KRS 503.055
That's the key. If they are unlawfully in my home I can shoot them. It doesn't even have to be forceful entry.
That is mental, so If someone walks into the wrong house or car you can just shoot them in the face legally?!
Yep. Your in my residence unlawfully not to mention trespass.
You know what's insane? Having squatters take over your home and legally kick you out.Fuck me! American seems insane.
It'd be nice if you could sue the perp's estate to rub salt into that gaping wound.Yep. Your in my residence unlawfully not to mention trespass.
That is mental, so If someone walks into the wrong house or car you can just shoot them in the face legally?!
As long as there is no perceived threat, I don't think the use of lethal force is justified.
It'd be nice if you could sue the perp's estate to rub salt into that gaping wound.
The mere fact that the person is there is proof enough.
Thankfully you are not a lawyer.
It depends on the State. By your profile you are in Texas. In Texas there is no need to prove a threat exists to shoot someone that is unlawfully in your castle. The mere fact that the person is there is proof enough. To take time to second guess an intruders intent can cause you to loose your life.
Lesson. If you don't want to die, don't break into somoene's home.
glancing over the Texas code on the subject, it looks like just walking onto someone's property would not be covered.I live in a rural part of east Texas -its not uncommon to go walking through the woods and accidentally get off your property and on someone elses.
It would really suck to take my daughter walking, get off our property, and someone starts shooting at us.
Just because something is legal, does not make it right.
(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; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery
You know what's insane? Having squatters take over your home and legally kick you out.
Who the fuck walks into the wrong house? That sounds like a moronic excuse mainly used BY criminals to get out of such things.
"What are you doing here"?
"Oh sorry, I have the wrong house"
"You don't know what your own house looks like"
"Welll, uh... they all kind of look the same"
"Then why did you break the window of your own house?"
"Oh... uh, I thought I left my keys in here."
No, this doesn't just happen by accident. People who are in your house without permission should be dead. Immediately. No excuses.
Can't they just stroll in and claim your house in your country? Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
I live in a rural part of east Texas -its not uncommon to go walking through the woods and accidentally get off your property and on someone elses.
It would really suck to take my daughter walking, get off our property, and someone starts shooting at us.
Just because something is legal, does not make it right.
True but given that the UK has around 15,000 squatters and the US has at least 21.6% of Americans own guns, I'll take my chance with the squatters
Drunk people.
Drunk people.
It would take you a month to find him.You enter my house or bang on my door or try to push your way in because your too drunk to realize you're at the wrong house and you're gonna get dead. And the law is on my side. My home is my castle.