Texas governor stirs controversy

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by LateNight

I tried it once, I'll try it again..

HB 1097 is the companion bill to HB 89 (also by Representative LaFleur), the NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” bill which created presumptions in law for the use of force against intruders in your home, car or place of business and explicitly states in law that you have no “duty to retreat” from criminal attack if you are in a place where you have a legal right to be.


Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.


The opposite of a "castle" principle is the "Duty to Retreat", which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts[1] (where Castle Doctrine takes effect only within the confines of the 'dwelling'). Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" [2] or "no retreat" laws, and originate in the home, but are sometimes (depending on the state) extended to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example).

You are absolutely correct, except a breaking and entering doesn't constitute an attack. Nice of you to highlight where you went wrong in order to save me the trouble.

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

You are absolutely correct, except a breaking and entering doesn't constitute an attack. Nice of you to highlight where you went wrong in order to save me the trouble.

A big part of the Castle Doctrine and this bill is that it prevents potential victims of having to SECOND guess whether or not an intruder has a gun or a knife.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by LateNight

A big part of the Castle Doctrine and this bill is that it prevents potential victims of having to SECOND guess whether or not an intruder has a gun or a knife.

Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.

Yes, you have every right to defend yourself, but the presence of another person in your home DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY constitute a threat of physical harm against you or your family.

[joepole]

Yes, it does. Please cite one case where it did not.

[LateNight]

a person using force had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to himself or another if

(a) the person against whom he used force was illegally and forcefully entering a dwelling or occupied vehicle, was in the process of doing so, or removed or was attempting to remove a person against his will and

(b) the person using force knew or had reason to believe this was occurring.

[joepole]

I have to ask again, have you ever actually read the law you are pretending to know about? it doesn't seem like it.

If so, how do you ever interpret:

"...there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred."

...to mean anything remotely like what you're saying it does?

[joepole]

>I'm just saying you aren't automatically given a free ride just because the shooting victim was in your home.

It's evident that you're saying that, but it's also evident that you're wrong.

[LateNight]

A texas senator speaks of supporting the "Castle Doctrine" bill,
Jeff Wentworth

Texans who are attacked in their homes, their businesses, their vehicles or anywhere else they have a right to be should have the right to defend themselves without fear of criminal prosecution or civil litigation.
To make that right a reality, I intend to file a bill in the Texas Senate that would give potential victims of crime broader power to protect themselves, their relatives and their property.

Since I announced my intention to file a bill that would turn the concept of a “man’s home is his castle that he has a right to defend” into state law, Senators Robert Deuell, Chris Harris, Kyle Janek, Jane Nelson and Tommy Williams have joined me as co-authors. Other senators, including Senators Robert Duncan and Judith Zaffirini, have expressed interest in the bill, which would do away with Texas’ “duty to retreat.”

Current Texas law effectively imposes a duty to attempt to retreat before using force against an intruder. Texans who do not attempt to escape before using force to protect their homes, their businesses or their vehicles may be criminally prosecuted and face possible civil suits alleging wrongful injury or death.

Under my bill, if enacted into law, a person would be presumed to be acting reasonably in using force, including deadly force, against an attacker or intruder who unlawfully enters into that person’s home, occupied vehicle or place of business or employment.

The bill would make it clear that citizens are not obligated to retreat if they are attacked in places where they have a right to be and are not the initial aggressors or engaged in criminal activities. Aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery and aggravated robbery would all be considered justification for deadly force.

Finally, the bill would protect people using justified force from lawsuits filed by injured criminal attackers and their families.

Fourteen states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Michigan, have passed “Castle Doctrine” laws, and other states are considering them. The “Castle Doctrine” was the law in Texas prior to 1974. At that time, the law was changed, making the use of deadly force justifiable only if a reasonable person would not have retreated.

I do not believe that the law should require me to wait and decide if someone who is breaking into my home or office or attempting to hijack my car intends to harm me or a member of my family. The law should allow me to use immediate force to protect myself, my family and my property without fear of being charged with a crime or being sued.

Although the courts have traditionally upheld the spirit of the “Castle Doctrine” when men and women who were being attacked have responded with force, I want the spirit of the law to become the letter of the law in Texas.

it would seem to me the heart of this whole discussion, is what is at the heart of the whole Castle Doctrine type bills.

Somebody breaks into my home. I don't have to guess or wonder if he has a knife or a gun, or whatever.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

Yes, it does. Please cite one case where it did not.

Well I hate that you actually requesting that I look that crap up, but here goes.

I didn't find an actual "case" to support my stance, but I also couldn't find one to support yours. I every single case I found where charges were dropped or never filed were when the perp in fact had a weapon or had attacked someone.

However, I DID find some interesting information on the "shoot first" bill which is what you are REALLY referring to (don't worry, I didn't know it either). The "right" to shoot someone in your home regardless of the perceived intention of the intruder.

http://www.licensetomurder.com/main.php

This website, last updated 4/30/07 shows that many states, including Louisiana and Texas, in fact DO NOT have shoot first laws. I'm sure if you're really interested, they'll have the specific data you are looking for.

Somebody breaks into my home. I don't have to guess or wonder if he has a knife or a gun, or whatever.

In Louisiana, yes you do.

[BrainSmashR]

License to Murder Killer Ruled Guilty by Jury, Law Still on the Books

[joepole]

>In Louisiana, yes you do.

No, you don't.

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

http://www.licensetomurder.com/main.php

This website, last updated 4/30/07 shows that many states, including Louisiana and Texas, in fact DO NOT have shoot first laws. I'm sure if you're really interested, they'll have the specific data you are looking for.

In Louisiana, yes you do.

well, I get a feeling that website just isn't up to date as far as louisiana is concerned.

Here is the URL to the act, SIGNED by the Governor
HB89 - 2006 Regular Session (Act 141)

attached is a PDF of that document.

This is the bill that the "Anti-gun" folks are calling "Shoot first"

and my take on the bill, is if someone breaks into my house... I'm not gonna wait to SEE if they have a gun or knife or whatever.

[Texasbelle]

Originally Posted by LateNight

This is the bill that the "Anti-gun" folks are calling "Shoot first"

and my take on the bill, is if someone breaks into my house... I'm not gonna wait to SEE if they have a gun or knife or whatever.

I agree with you Latenight. You break into my house uninvited then you better be prepared to take the consequences.

[BrainSmashR]

Now I'm not suggesting you risk your life second guessing by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying you aren't automatically given a free ride just because the shooting victim was in your home.