Hmmm. I’ve seen some youtube videos advocating the use of pistol caliber carbines over rifles and shotguns for home defense so you get the advantage of greater control than a handgun, with less chance of “overpenetration”. Now I’m thinking that’s not a great idea, “from a legal perspective”.
Gets beyond the scope of the OP, but bullets from a PCC do not penetrate less through common house building materials unless they fragment, and even with the greater velocity from a PCC’s longer barrel (vs a handgun’s), most bullets won’t.
Higher velocity rifle bullets might fragment in such material, however, and if they do, their subsequent penetration is greatly reduced. Really a subject for another thread.
Agree with both of those points. Do NOT want to hijack the thread.
This idea that you may find your life threatened and have to defend yourself with deadly force is sobering.
And then there’s Texas.
https://www.deseret.com/1996/1/19/19220073/news-capsules
More of the backstory:
I know I’m telling it backwards but:
IANAL but as I read that I conclude that in Texas if someone is stealing your property, that may give you the legal right to kill them.
Are you legally required to call for help within some specified time frame?
If you see a car accident are you legally required to call for help?
I know you are not legally required to render aid.
They should blame the District Attorney since if they wanted an indictment they would have almost certainly gotten one.
A grand jury would ‘indict a ham sandwich,’ if that’s what you wanted. ~New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler
If you’re seeking to avoid a possible manslaughter charge, I would recommend calling for help soon enough that the person doesn’t die.
Did you cause the car accident?
I feel you’re looking at this from the wrong perspective. It’s not an issue of you being required to summon help. It’s an issue of your liability if somebody dies. If you take an action and that causes somebody to die, you may face criminal charges. So it’s in your best interests to do what you can to avoid them dying.
Self-defense may clear you for the act of shooting somebody. But it doesn’t automatically clear you for what happens after you shoot somebody.
The Time article I linked says:
I think they didn’t indict because a crime hadn’t been committed in the eyes of Texas law.
Read Texas Penal Code sections 9.41 and 9.42 very carefully. These sections are ‘justification sections’; they allow an actor to claim, ‘Even if I did this, this justification is why I shouldn’t be held criminally responsible.’
9.41, in its entirety, and which must be satisfied for 9.42 to even apply: blockquote A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. [/blockquote]
9.42 is using deadly force to protect property: [blockquote]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.[/blockquote]
There’s a lot to unpack there, and all of it must be satisfied before your hypothetical use of deadly force to protect property in Texas will be considered justified.
IANAL, but I suspect a lawyer would tell you that there’s no blanket way to answer this question, as circumstances will vary from one case to the next. I’ll respond to a few of the specific points based on my understanding of law.
In recent years (the past 10-15), particularly as concealed weapons laws and expanded castle doctrine (aka 'Stand Your Ground) laws have spread throughout the country, it seems that there’s been a growing sense among gun-toting activists that more force and deadlier force has gained increased legal protection. To some extent, this is probably true, but there are cases where some who’ve exercised deadly force in “self defense” have misjudged the law and ended up with lengthy prison sentences.
That’s true, but the evidence can. It comes down to what the police and prosecutors believe. If you kill someone, you’ve committed homicide: that’s an indisputable fact. In a sense, the burden of proof flips onto the person who committed the homicide to demonstrate that they had cause to do so, or they may face criminal prosecution. You can’t necessarily waive off an investigation just because you said you felt threatened.
That may be true, yes. But you could be jailed for crimes such as attempted murder to murder, which can carry lengthy jail terms. Legal defenses aren’t cheap, either.
I just don’t buy that - that’s frankly ridiculous. If someone enters your home, you can use deadly force, or not. You can use deadly force, whether with a golf club or a firearm to subdue someone without necessarily really wanting to kill them. There’s no law on the books that requires you to kill anyone. Sounds like a gun rights circle jerk to me.
I’m not sure what you mean.
IANAL I kinda understand some of what that says but what I posted isn’t hypothetical. The Time magazine article is saying that those killings actually happened. Citizens of Texas did use deadly force to protect property yet they were not found guilty in a court of law. I guess that means they satisfied the code you laid out, so the court let them go?
Yes, that’s what it means. The shooter had to jump through those hoops in order for his use of deadly force to be excused.
Deadly force may legally be used to protect movable, tangible property from being stolen in Texas. Provided all of the above code sections are met. Don’t steal. Especially at night.
As an aside, the likely cost of the criminal defense lawyer such a property owner will want to retain in that instance, will exceed considerably the value of the property being defended.
How did Joe Horn manage to evade prosecution then?
He jumped through a slightly different set of hoops, in my not-a-lawyer opinion: Texas Penal Code § 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.32 | FindLaw
Surprising two burglars caught in the act, as they turn around the corner of a house and approached Mr. Horne, was enough for an armed Horne to perceive an imminent risk of serious bodily injury. Again, IMHO.
Still cost him, per my CHL instructor (I’ve no idea how he would know the amount either.), about 50 thousand dollars for his legal fees.
The Time article states:
So it’s not something that hypothetically could happen but rarely does. It can and did happen 370 times from 2002-2011…about once every ten days on average, somewhere in the state. The hoops must not be impossible to jump through.
Let’s take a step back. We all agree that lethal self defense shootings happen. And per capita it is still rather uncommon (even at once every ten days) but far from rare. Since the definitions of justifiable homicide are determined by the state, we are subject to a hodgepodge of different legal limitations on the responsibility of the shooter. I think most of us would agree that Texas is far more permissive than most, perhaps to the degree that makes people uncomfortable.
In the context of what we’re discovering about the failed justifications of police officers, we should probably take a deep look at the laws on the books, but since there isn’t a lot of willingness to find a common ground on these subjects politically, I’m not exactly holding my breath.
Regardless, the point both I and @Gray_Ghost have been making is that yes, you may not end up being found guilty in a sufficiently justified self defense shootout. But even if you are found justified, you are most likely going to have substantial financial and social costs, not to mention the emotional fallout. It is never going to be as easy as TV and movies makes it out to be.
If you own, or are considering purchasing a firearm for defense, think about these issues. I’m not saying it will change your mind, or should for that matter. But if you don’t you are that much more likely to panic and make poor choices. One of the things that has worried me a bit in the thread is some posters seem to be looking for loopholes under which you could finish someone off. Which sounds a lot like the circumstances that the cite for Joe Horn found himself in.
As moderators on GD and other forums have said, when you start looking to define the exact edge you can go to, without going over, you are probably not acting in the best interests of the community. I don’t honestly believe anyone here is looking for reasons to commit a justifiable homicide, but it is a darkly titillating thought process, a sort of evil ‘what if’ that is probably unhealthy to a degree.
You are probably right about this for the purposes of this thread but, also, in this thread we have numerous examples of people killing others who were committing a crime where it is clear the “defender” was eager to shoot someone.
What’s worse is, in most of those cases, it was a robbery/theft (I forget the distinction). These people were executed on the spot for running away with stuff. No state has the death penalty for theft. But in some states you can be judge, jury and executioner if someone is running out the door with your TV.
Seems wrong to me.
@ParallelLines the once every ten days is only for people stealing.
From 2013 through 2017, the most recent year available, 15,695 firearm deaths were reported in Texas, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Phelps said the Giffords Law Center used that number and divided it by the number of hours over the same five-year period: 43,824.
It comes out to roughly one death every 2.8 hours.
Ruling: We rate this claim True.
Some of that’s murder, some self-defense, and I suppose they may have counted mass shootings. Once every 2.8 hours is 8.5 per day. Here’s another angle to consider.
That was 1994. It happened again not long ago…this guy may get off as well.
Here were a couple guys just doing their job, shot by people who didn’t pay their bills. A grand jury wouldn’t even indict the first one and the more recent may go the same way.
Texas will make generalizations about guns difficult. Just saying.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
I never said they were impossible, lb63. I simply pointed out the laws that had to be followed for an act of deadly force in Texas, to protect either a person or property, to be considered justified by the criminal justice system. It’s not simply a case of, ‘that guy took my stuff, and now I get to shoot him.’
My guess to the increased number is that an increased number of people own firearms in Texas now, and the number of (old) Concealed Handgun License/(new) License to Carry holders have skyrocketed. Not that the vast majority of LTC holders carry a gun. Anyway, more guns, being carried by more people, equals more occasions for this sort of thing to occur. Plus, the population’s grown over the last 10 years.
Again, don’t steal in Texas. Don’t look like you’re stealing something after dark in Texas. Rules that are amazingly easy for the vast, vast majority of people in this state to follow.
Also, do not be mistaken for someone who is stealing in Texas. Do not unintentionally be in the line of fire when someone is thought to be stealing something in Texas.
Or do what has worked for me, avoid Texas and the southern US.