Took CHL class this weekend. Want to be "Crystal" clear so let's discuss please.

[txinvestigator]

OK, so to play devils advocate say I forget to lock my door one night and the guy just walks in. That's not forced but he is certainly not authorized to be there. I can't shoot him?

Niot under 9.32. Under 9.42 (protection of property) you might have a justification for defense of property.

Did your instructor explain to you what a defense to prosecution is and how it applies to chapter 9?

 

[Texas1911]

That section requires that you reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to from the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent one of the listed crimes.

It states force, not deadly force.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE
(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;

but then 9.32 states...

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);

 

[Texas1911]

Kinda ambiguous, but it does state twice that unlawful entry and the use of force, but not deadly force, is justification.

 

[Texas1911]

Then we have 9.42

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.

 

[Texas1911]

Given those laws, someone entering the house with the intent or presumption to commit theft would be a justified shoot. That would be supported by case law as well.

 

[txinvestigator]

Given those laws, someone entering the house with the intent or presumption to commit theft would be a justified shoot. That would be supported by case law as well.

Agreed. That is why I mentioned the propert crime aspect.

 

[txinvestigator]

It states force, not deadly force.

Not sure what you mean by "it". But you can only use deadly force if you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to protect yourself form the others use or atttempted us of unlawful deadly force. (See in red, below)

The presumption is only for the "reasonable belief" and not for "others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force".

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE
(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;

but then 9.32 states...

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);

 

[picasso]

See below.

 

[picasso]

I tend to be pretty blunt, so please don't take this as hostile; but read what the real law has written and you tell me what YOU think.

If that is what the law means why does it not say that?

I will also bet that your instructor has not received ANY training on the Castle Doctrine from DPS. I know I have not. As an instructor I have to read changes in the law and apply common sense, my experience from dealing with the courts as a LEO, and many conversations about these laws with other instructors amd a couple of attorneys.

I also am not trying to convince you. You were not my student and I have nothing invested in how you may respond to such an event. However, as someone who cares about my fellow CHLer I try to help.

It's your life, and your freedom. Protect your family, and be reasonable about it and you should be fine.

No offense taken. Actually my instructor was a long time police officer.

If someone enters my house at night w/out my consent I can only assume their up to no good. Does the law want me to take time out and ask them why their there? If I do that it could be to late. I would be in fear of my life or serious bodily injury but what your saying is I still could not shoot them until they tried to hurt me? This is what I hate about the law. It's always open to interpretation.

 

[txinvestigator]

No offense taken. Actually my instructor was a long time police officer.

If someone enters my house at night w/out my consent I can only assume their up to no good. Does the law want me to take time out and ask them why their there? If I do that it could be to late. I would be in fear of my life or serious bodily injury but what your saying is I still could not shoot them until they tried to hurt me?

being in fear is not a factor. It might describe your emotion, but it is not a justification. If you ever ride in a car with my sister, you will be in fear of your life.......... but you can't shoot her. lol

Your example said a person walked into your unlocked door and stood there. No justificaction to shoot. You can draw and give verbal commands. What he does next will tell you what you do next.

You do not have to ask them what they are doing. You will use many factors to determine their intent. Them just standing there does not cut it, IMO. I would never hesitate to defend my family, but I won't shoot the drunk neighbor who thinks he has been locked out of his house, forces the front door open, then stands there wondering what the hell happened. Of course in my situation, the alarm would be blaring and my GSD would be chewing on him.......but that's another story.

 

[Texas1911]

Not sure what you mean by "it". But you can only use deadly force if you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to protect yourself form the others use or atttempted us of unlawful deadly force. (See in red, below)

The presumption is only for the "reasonable belief" and not for "others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force".

Case law would support the usage of deadly force against those committing burglary, without the usage of deadly force against the homeowner.

I was taught differently in both my CHL courses. That the usage was allowed in the commission of the above acts (rape, murder, etc.) as well as burglary.

My most recent course was taught by an ex-LEO of 30 years, so I'd tend to believe him.

 

[txinvestigator]

Case law would support the usage of deadly force against those committing burglary, without the usage of deadly force against the homeowner.

Case law and the actual law support that. I agree.

I was taught differently in both my CHL courses. That the usage was allowed in the commission of the above acts (rape, murder, etc.) as well as burglary.

Again, we agree

My most recent course was taught by an ex-LEO of 30 years, so I'd tend to believe him.

I would "tend" to also.

So what are we arguing about?

 

[Texas1911]

Your example said a person walked into your unlocked door and stood there. No justificaction to shoot. You can draw and give verbal commands. What he does next will tell you what you do next.

You do not have to ask them what they are doing. You will use many factors to determine their intent. Them just standing there does not cut it, IMO. I would never hesitate to defend my family, but I won't shoot the drunk neighbor who thinks he has been locked out of his house, forces the front door open, then stands there wondering what the hell happened. Of course in my situation, the alarm would be blaring and my GSD would be chewing on him.......but that's another story.

Correct, my argument was implied towards a more aggravated motivation, theft of property inside the house, etc.

I did have a little run in with two guys that had the "wrong address" one day, knocked on the door, then helped themselves to my backyard, I greeted them with my M1A on the back porch and showed them the way out, LOL. One of them probably had a brown moment.

 

[Texas1911]

So what are we arguing about?

Nothing, I was just clarifying. People read things differently. I think the emphasis you were going for is simply, just because someone enters the house you can't just start blowing them away, but it wasn't as clear in words.

 

[Bithabus]

That is a pretty good explanation, but not exactly true.

That section requires that you reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to from the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent one of the listed crimes.

If the person unlawfully and with force entered your home (in Picasso's example) the presumption of reasonable belief is only valid if you were protecting yourself from the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, or to prevent on of the listed crimes.

If simply kicking in your door and stepping one foot inside were enough, the law would read like this;

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, or
(C) 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;



See the difference? The presumption does not replace ALL of 9.32 (A) and (B). It only replaces the words "reasonable belief".

Yes there is a difference, but I believe that is a mistake of wording. Case law has interpreted the statute as though it were written as your altered version.

 

[cseale86]

being in fear is not a factor. It might describe your emotion, but it is not a justification. If you ever ride in a car with my sister, you will be in fear of your life.......... but you can't shoot her. lol

Best Quote Ever LOL