Mark Davis on WBAP 820AM talking Castle Doctrine

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:25 am

Mark Davis, a talk show host for the radio station WBAP 820AM, is currently talking about the "Caslte Doctrine". He is stating that two state congressmen are promoting the "Castle Doctrine". I thought we already had this:

Â§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself 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 requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

He is all for it but, I think he's confused about a proposed bill to eliminate (2)(a) in public; the so called "Stand your ground" law.

I emailed him about it but can't call due to work. If anyone wants to call, the number is 214-787-1820.

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:30 am

The NRA, among others, use the term Castle Doctrine to refer to removing the requirement to retreat in any place you have the right to be, at home or in public.

See http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=199.

You are correct that we are not required to retreat at home, or in someone else's home for that matter.

- Jim

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:36 am

Thats what I thought, but he is only talking about within your own home. I don't think he knows that this bill is applicable to a public area as well. With the number of people that listen to his show around here, and the fact that he goes national at 11 o'clock, far too many people are being misinformed.

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:50 am

Imagine that, a radio personality who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Maybe your e-mail will straighten him out, or at least get him to ask an expert.

I didn't know there were radio stations with W call letters in Texas.

- Jim

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:35 pm

seamusTX wrote:I didn't know there were radio stations with W call letters in Texas.

WBAP Fort Worth and WOAI San Antonio both pre-date the W/K divide.

Same with WFAA-TV in Dallas.

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:55 pm

Oh well, don't worry about calling now. His national show goes until 1:00 CT but I don't remember the different number.

gmckinl · Post by **gmckinl** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:01 pm

Guys, help me here as I'm confused. Here's what the latest copy of the Penal Code has to say:

PC Â§9.21. PUBLIC DUTY.
If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.

Given that, are we not already "Castle Doctrine" covered? IANAL and I know the law can be complex but this seems pretty clear? So would someone more in the know please tell me wasup. Thanks.

lrb111 · Post by **lrb111** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:19 pm

This may have been where the host got his impetus this morning.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 193c8.html

The best laugh i've had lately was because of this quote.

"The law only changes things for the bad guy," Mr. Ragbourn said. "The good guys already had the law on their side. All that's changed is there is now an extra defense for somebody who shoots somebody."

I won't spoil it by telling you who he represents...

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:01 pm

gmckinl wrote:PC Â§9.21. PUBLIC DUTY.
If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that section applies to police officers, constables, and so forth, who are performing official duties.

- Jim

TxBlonde · Post by **TxBlonde** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:53 pm

Well if it is going to be like Flordia then my that law if your shooting is declared JUSTIFIED and you do not get charged criminally then the victim or their family can not go after you in Civil Court. You can shoot someone and not get into trouble criminally, but the civil court room is different is a different subject the way the law stands right now.

DustinB · Post by **DustinB** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:01 am

IMO it sounds like they are talking about people talking crap to you or you being in a situation you could walk away from without exposing yourself to danger.

Venus Pax · Post by **Venus Pax** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:02 am

I'm actually more worried about a civil suit than criminal charges.

There are idiots out there that would actually award these criminals' families with a law-abiding citizen's hard-earned money, simply b/c that citizen was put in a position of shooting or being killed/maimed.

TxBlonde · Post by **TxBlonde** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:23 am

i am studying to be a lawyer but I would never fight for someone or there family that had a case of the stupids and got themselves shot.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:25 am

gmckinl wrote:Guys, help me here as I'm confused. Here's what the latest copy of the Penal Code has to say:

PC Â§9.21. PUBLIC DUTY.
If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.

Given that, are we not already "Castle Doctrine" covered? IANAL and I know the law can be complex but this seems pretty clear? So would someone more in the know please tell me wasup. Thanks.

That applies if you have a "public duty" to use deadly force. That means if you are REQUIRED by statute to use deadly force, or if it is in the lawful conduct of war.

This is the law regarding deadly force outside of those circumstances;

Texas Penal Code
Â§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not
have retreated

Skipper5 · Post by **Skipper5** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:00 pm

Venus Pax wrote:I'm actually more worried about a civil suit than criminal charges.

There are idiots out there that would actually award these criminals' families with a law-abiding citizen's hard-earned money, simply b/c that citizen was put in a position of shooting or being killed/maimed.

++++1 Agree big time....the Castle Doctrine as in AZ, LA, FL, etc put the end to criminal and civil actions by the BG.
Just verifying from our classes....no need to retreat when dead force justified....that is correct, right?....
Just saw tx's comment...as always thanks tx for your clarification!