Castle Doctrine, how protected are we?

[TennisFreak]

So interesting news story all over the TV this morning here in DFW.
News reports all over the morning news cast talking about a home invasion and the intruder was shot and killed.
The news reporters are specifically mentioning the Castle Doctrine but saying that the home owner is not out of the clear because apparently a home owner can still face charges if they cannot prove their life was in danger.

So I have been reading the Castle Doctrine and it seems like a gray area to me as there is not specific (at least clear understanding to me) wording saying you must prove your life is in danger.

If it is true that even though a home invasion takes place a home owner cannot use deadly force unless they can prove their life was in danger, how safe (if at all) are we?

I have a wife and 2 children and lets suppose someone at 2 a.m. breaks into my home by kicking in one of the doors. It is dark, we were asleep, and the alarm suddenly goes off.
Am I supposed to turn on the lights and wait to see if the invader is armed or tries to attack me or one of my family members?
Could I be prosecuted if I just shot the invader in the dark?

The way this is being reported on the news is giving me serious concern that the Castle Doctrine really does not protect us because it still places the liability of proof on the homeowner and the reason of doubt on the intruder.

What are your opinions?

 

[majormadmax]

It will go before a Grand Jury (required for all shootings) and most likely the homeowner will be cleared (e.g receive a No Bill).

It is extremely rare for that not to happen in Texas, our laws protect law-abiding citizens defending their lives and property.

Plus, how is anyone suppose to know what the intent of an intruder is?

No need for concern, the law works the way it should. It's the DFW press playing up all the gun control hype.

 

[General Zod]

Burden of proof is not on the homeowner/resident. If an intruder breaks into your home or vehicle, you can use deadly force to defend yourself in Texas.

 

[txinvestigator]

Reporters have no clue of the law. This mornings shooting is in question because it involved illegal drugs.

Read this from the attorneys at Texas Law Shield. http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/...-castle-doctrine-stand-your-ground-101-a.html

 

[TX69]

"I was in fear for my life" Then shut your piehole.

 

[txinvestigator]

Fear of your life is not a justification.

 

[mantawolf]

At nighttime rules are different than daytime rules.

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.

PENAL CODE  CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

 

[txinvestigator]

At nighttime rules are different than daytime rules.

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.

PENAL CODEÂ*Â*CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

ONLY protection of property and only for theft and criminal mischief are restricted to nighttime . And nothing is different.

 

[shortround]

An unwelcome intruder into a home is "presumed" to have acted illegally and if he is shot by the homeowner (renter, tenant) then Texas Law protects the shooter from further civil prosecution if the shooting is ruled "justified."

 

[Chupacabra Hunter]

"I was in fear for my life" Then shut your piehole.

I thought this would be good enough....

Fear of your life is not a justification.

so....fear for your life is not justifiable? but loss of propery is?
If an intruder breaks in your property, its not to bake cookies....

 

[txinvestigator]

An unwelcome intruder into a home is "presumed" to have acted illegally and if he is shot by the homeowner (renter, tenant) then Texas Law protects the shooter from further civil prosecution if the shooting is ruled "justified."

Well, not exactly. There is not really "civil prosecution". Civil suits are brought by citizens, and are not a prosecution. One can be sued for any use of force or deadly force. Regardless of the criminal outcome, a person could still be found liable in suit.

a person acting illegally Is not a justification for deadly force. See penal code 9.32 and 9.42.

 

[txinvestigator]

I thought this would be good enough....



so....fear for your life is not justifiable? but loss of propery is?

Those words never appear in chapter 9. Chapter 9 is very specific.

If you ever ride in a car with my sister driving......you will be in fear of your life. Your emotion at the time is not the justification.

If an intruder breaks in your property, its not to bake cookies....

Unless perhaps her name is Rose.

 

[Chupacabra Hunter]

ok... point taken.... so whats the legal terminology for shooting to kill an intruder whom you "believe" is there to commit harm or theft?

 

[txinvestigator]

ok... point taken.... so whats the legal terminology for shooting to kill an intruder whom you "believe" is there to commit harm or theft?

Harm or theft is not a justification. Use of deadly force is mainly divided into two categories; protection of persons and protection of property.

Read penal code 9.31 and 9.32 to see when deadly force protect persons is justifiable. In the case of a burglary, if a person unlawfully and with force entered your occupied habitation, the you have presumption of reasonable belief. Read that link, it really does a great job of explaining this. Much better than I can type.

 

[M. Sage]

ok... point taken.... so whats the legal terminology for shooting to kill an intruder whom you "believe" is there to commit harm or theft?

A: You don't shoot to kill, you're shooting to stop. The only time it's legal to intentionally kill someone in Texas involves courts and death row. If you shoot someone to stop them from harming you and you die, then meh. It's justifiable homicide (which is the term you're looking for).

Your belief has to be reasonable. Reasonable people in the same circumstances would have to come to the same conclusion.