# Limits of weapons in self defence in America? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 4, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-weapons-in-self-defence-in-america/538318 "2010-05-04T19:03:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-weapons-in-self-defence-in-america/538318/41 "2010-05-05T21:54:24Z")
Also, **jtgain** is not crazy, there _is_ a provision in the Texas law that refers to “theft during nighttime,” however _burglars_ (as these were) can be shot at any time. Again, the only catch for Horn is that his neighbor apparently didn’t _ask_ him to defend the place. > [@](#): > > SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY > > Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) 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. > > Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. > Sec. 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. I apologize for not doing better research before my first post. I was working mainly off the memory of a class given by a police officer in another state. I still don’t really understand why theft during nighttime is treated differently than theft during daytime. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-weapons-in-self-defence-in-america/538318/42 "2010-05-05T23:52:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > In other states, notably Texas, they have the Castle Doctrine which means if someone is robbing your neighbor (not threatening you) you can [chase them down and shoot them in the back](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy) legally. You make that sound worse than it is; my neighbors on one side are something like 85 and 82. The husband is old, frail and kind of stooped over, and the wife has mobility issues due to nerve damage in her back. You’d better believe I’d gun down any sorry fuck who was breaking into their house; they’re not really able to defend themselves, and I have no faith in the DPD to actually get there before some lowlife might do something terrible. On the other hand, I might be able to do something, and I will, if it ever comes to that. And I’ll probably be in the right, both morally and thankfully, legally. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-weapons-in-self-defence-in-america/538318/43 "2010-05-06T00:42:20Z")
Many states such as my own have laws regarding the use of deadly force that spell out that if retreat from a confrontation is feasible, you have a duty to do so. The Castle Doctrine is the doctrine that you do not have a **duty** to flee from your own home to avoid a deadly confrontation. IOW the prosecutor can’t say “so why did you shoot the intruder when you could have run out the back door?” ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-weapons-in-self-defence-in-america/538318/44 "2010-05-06T02:28:48Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > Ah, I was right about NJ. The relevant statue includes the wording: > > Plus you’d have to get a LEO to sign off on the federal paperwork to get the gun in the first place. You do realize that NJ still has an assault weapons ban? That covers semi-autos that look scary. 58-5 covers the unlikely event that someone may have the legal need to have an assault weapon. Has to be approved by the Superior Court and the County Prosecutor. Not going to happen for a private citizen. Possibly for some sort of security firm. Even then I doubt they would be able to get a permit for full auto. Maybe something like a semi-auto MP5. In 12 years I know of no one who has ever obtained one. I have never seen a legal or illegal automatic weapon in NJ. Except in my National Guard unit. This is a state where it is almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit even though that is officially legal too. I suspect many or most of the states that say that autos are legal have similar restrictions. Unlikely or impossible for a regular citizen to legally have automatic weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-weapons-in-self-defence-in-america/538318/45 "2010-05-06T03:05:09Z")
> [@bump](#): > > You make that sound worse than it is; my neighbors on one side are something like 85 and 82. The husband is old, frail and kind of stooped over, and the wife has mobility issues due to nerve damage in her back. > > You’d better believe I’d gun down any sorry fuck who was breaking into their house; they’re not really able to defend themselves, and I have no faith in the DPD to actually get there before some lowlife might do something terrible. On the other hand, I might be able to do something, and I will, if it ever comes to that. And I’ll probably be in the right, both morally and thankfully, legally. Totally for you defending your elderly neighbors. Got no issue with that. In the case of Joe Horn he called 911, emergency response told him (repeatedly) to _not_ go outside both because it is not worth shooting someone over stuff and because police may be there and they didn’t want to complicate their problem. Horn was chomping at the bit to not let the thieves get away, noted that the laws had recently changed which allowed him to get the robbers, noted that he barely knew the neighbors that were being robbed (and the neighbors were not home), ran outside and yelled “BOOM, you’re dead” before shooting, said to 911 he shot one running down the road (as if he was going to get away). BIG difference from your hypothetical. Just look at the 911 transcript posted above and let me know why you think Horn’s actions are just peachy. ETA: Don’t pick on me for incorrect use of “robber”, “thief” or “burglar”. I know they have different legal meanings but I think for purposes here that distinction is not important. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-weapons-in-self-defence-in-america/538318/46 "2010-05-06T13:22:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Totally for you defending your elderly neighbors. Got no issue with that. > > In the case of Joe Horn he called 911, emergency response told him (repeatedly) to _not_ go outside both because it is not worth shooting someone over stuff and because police may be there and they didn’t want to complicate their problem. Horn was chomping at the bit to not let the thieves get away, noted that the laws had recently changed which allowed him to get the robbers, noted that he barely knew the neighbors that were being robbed (and the neighbors were not home), ran outside and yelled “BOOM, you’re dead” before shooting, said to 911 he shot one running down the road (as if he was going to get away). > > BIG difference from your hypothetical. > > Just look at the 911 transcript posted above and let me know why you think Horn’s actions are just peachy. > > ETA: Don’t pick on me for incorrect use of “robber”, “thief” or “burglar”. I know they have different legal meanings but I think for purposes here that distinction is not important. We’re obviously drifting into GD territory here, but I think you’d be very hard pressed to find a 911 transcript where the dispatcher ever told the caller to ahead and shoot an intruder, regardless of the circumstances. I know I’ve read some where the caller says “They’re coming into my room!” and the dispatcher is saying “Don’t shoot! Don’t shoot!” even though the cops were still minutes away. _Blindly_ following the instructions of someone sitting safely miles away while you’re in a life threatening situation isn’t always the best thing to do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-weapons-in-self-defence-in-america/538318.md?page=2)