Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Texas Enacts the "Castle Doctrine" effective Tomorrow 9/1/07

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Texas Enacts the "Castle Doctrine" effective Tomorrow 9/1/07

    Effective tomorrow, September 1, 2007, the Castle Doctrine will be in effect in Texas, making it easier to defend oneself. Here is the text:



    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:
    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
    against whom the force was used:
    (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;
    (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.
    (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:
    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
    against whom the deadly force was used:
    (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 an
    offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
    (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
    [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. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It
    is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal
    injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time
    the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that
    is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune
    from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
    the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of
    force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of
    unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
    SECTION 5. (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, applies 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 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

    View the text of Senate Bill 378 at: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378E.HTM

  • #2
    Very good information..very much appriciated JB.

    Comment


    • #3
      i'm sorry, can somebody explain this law more simpler for me? thank you its a lot.

      Comment


      • #4
        It means that you do not have to retreat from your house, vehicle or any other place you have the lawful right to be if and when someone tries to assault, sexually assault or kill you. (You can defend yourself) You can use deadly force against someone who is attempting to use deadly force against you or someone else where you are. (You can kill someone if they are assaulting and trying to kill you or someone else)

        Also tomorrow you can legally carry a handgun in your vehicle without a concealed handgun license to defend yourself.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah for Texas, I hope the Feds follow suit.

          Comment


          • #6
            thank you, this are good laws. it's true, that when guns become illegal, only those who do illegal things will have them.

            it is very fair that you dont have to worry about going to jail when you defend yourself. thanks

            Comment


            • #7
              oh hell yeah. I can DIG IT!

              Comment


              • #8
                Maybe I'm a cynic but,

                (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...



                Cue the lawyers

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gregimotis View Post
                  (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...



                  Cue the lawyers
                  Since I don't know where you live, I can't say whether you know the mindset in Texas. In Texas reasonable means reasonable, not some theoretical pie in the sky perfect condition. If you believe your life (or a third party's) is being threatened you can use deadly force. You have no obligation to retreat. Texas already had a law allowing one to shoot/kill people trespassing on one's property and took something that "you cannot replace" before this. I understand your skepticism and I apologize in advance if this seems in any way hostile or disrespectful.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No apology needed you're right, I'm not from Tx, and I appreciate the motivation of the law in question. I just don't trust lawyers.. or laymakers... or elected officials... or juries for that matter...


                    Somewhere between "I shot a man creeping into my bedroom in the dark of night" and "I shot a six year old stealing pie off my kitchen counter" there is a big blank space in which the people who make thier livings off other people's tragedies are going to gather.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by gregimotis View Post
                      No apology needed you're right, I'm not from Tx, and I appreciate the motivation of the law in question. I just don't trust lawyers.. or laymakers... or elected officials... or juries for that matter...
                      Nor do I!

                      Somewhere between "I shot a man creeping into my bedroom in the dark of night"
                      Deadly force is 100% justified in that case.

                      and "I shot a six year old stealing pie off my kitchen counter"
                      While that is technically justified by following the logic of the law, shooting a six year old under those circumstances would not be wise, unless it was dark and you couldn't see who was doing what.


                      there is a big blank space in which the people who make thier livings off other people's tragedies are going to gather.
                      True. However, the new law was drafted to protect homeowners and people in their cars from just those types of people. Reasonable would be to defend yourself with (up to) deadly force from the first situation you described almost to the second. Shooting someone who you knew wasn't armed and posed no threat, real or perceived, is not reasonable. The only areas of Texas where I see a District Attorney seeking charges without the home owner or driver being pretty negligent are Travis or Harris Counties. Most likely the grand jury would no-bill anyone being reasonable, under such stressful circumstances, anywhere in the state.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gregimotis View Post
                        (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...



                        Cue the lawyers
                        hello,

                        there is no way any lawmaker will draft a law that truly protects an individual. they will always leave the door open to putting people away.

                        careful with this folks. it still depends in the opinions and interpretations of those who will not be present for any of these situations.

                        be very careful with this.

                        thanks.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gregimotis View Post
                          I just don't trust lawyers
                          I don't trust lawyers either, although I deal with them everyday!

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X