Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Member kotetu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    169
    seems logical - the crime of trespass should not affect whether lethal force is justified. For example, had a CHL holder been present in Aurora and shot Holmes, he would have been justified in doing so.

    Is it up to the business owner to press charges for a 30.06 violation, or is that up to the discretion of the city attorney?
    Quote Originally Posted by Younggun View Post
    I look forward to liberal heads exploding as they try to decide if the man is racist for tackling a black man, or a hero for attacking a gun owner.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Lloyd
    When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.
    The Two Boots of Authoritarianism

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth, TX
    Posts
    12,919
    Quote Originally Posted by kotetu View Post
    seems logical - the crime of trespass should not affect whether lethal force is justified. For example, had a CHL holder been present in Aurora and shot Holmes, he would have been justified in doing so.

    Is it up to the business owner to press charges for a 30.06 violation, or is that up to the discretion of the city attorney?

    The prosecuting attorney can file a violation of 30.06/07 without the complaint of the property owner. The property kind of already made their desire to prosecute by the posting of the signs.
    "Remember those who died, remember those who killed them."- Max Joseph

    "Speed is fine, but accuracy is final"-Bill Jordan

  3. #13
    Member Thirtymike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    North Central TX
    Posts
    32
    Once on the signed premises, you realize your error. No crime is committed in the course of removing yourself (walking toward an exit) from the premises. Exercise your right to self defense on your way to the door and you're ok? LTC instructors please chime in.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth, TX
    Posts
    12,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirtymike View Post
    Once on the signed premises, you realize your error. No crime is committed in the course of removing yourself (walking toward an exit) from the premises. Exercise your right to self defense on your way to the door and you're ok? LTC instructors please chime in.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Entering past a validly posted sign is an offense. However, it does not negate your justification for self defense.
    "Remember those who died, remember those who killed them."- Max Joseph

    "Speed is fine, but accuracy is final"-Bill Jordan

  5. #15
    Senior Member locke_n_load's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirtymike View Post
    Once on the signed premises, you realize your error. No crime is committed in the course of removing yourself (walking toward an exit) from the premises. Exercise your right to self defense on your way to the door and you're ok? LTC instructors please chime in.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    See posts #7 and #8.
    "They that would give up Essential Liberty, for a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

    EDC - Glock 26 Gen IV

  6. #16
    Senior Member locke_n_load's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by txinvestigator View Post
    Entering past a validly posted sign is an offense. However, it does not negate your justification for self defense.
    A little further down the rabbit hole.

    Sec. 9.31. SELFDEFENSE.
    (a) Except as provided in Subsection
    (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to
    the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
    necessary to protect the actor 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.
    What's bolded states that you can use force against any other type of unlawful force. If it does not fall under the subsections (1)(2)(3), you lose your automatic presumption of reasonableness, but it can still be found to be reasonable.


    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is
    justified in using deadly force against another:
    (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against
    the other under Section 9.31; and
    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes
    the deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to protect the actor 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.
    (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.
    What's bolded here is that deadly force is lawful if you are found reasonable under 9.31, and if someone is committing one of the specific acts listed in (2)(A)(B). The use of deadly force for any other act against you is not lawful, period. Your use of deadly force can still be found reasonable even if you don't meet the automatic presumptions in (b), as long as something in (2)(A)(B) is occurring against you.

    If that is correct, I never recognized that there is that much difference in 31 and 32 before.
    Last edited by locke_n_load; 03-20-2017 at 02:21 PM.
    "They that would give up Essential Liberty, for a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

    EDC - Glock 26 Gen IV

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


About Texas Gun Talk

    Texas Gun Talk is the most active and largest Texas gun forum on the net. Be sure to check out our gun classifieds, political, and hometown sections.

Quick Links

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook youtube google+

Back to Top