First time to threaten use of gun

[Beiruty]

This lawyer here http://equinelaw.alisonrowe.com/2008/03 ... -property/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Justify the threat of deadly force to terminate trespassing!

Not agreeing with he stated...

[speedsix]

...you'd better go read that again...more carefully...he doesn't (nor does he have the power to ) justify anything...and you missed his "probably..."...you'd better stick to what the LAW says rather than some lawyer's opinionated blog...or he could be sittin' in a restaurant reading about you, sippin' on his latte....you're pickin' and choosin' again...list out on a blank paper everything he suggests in order...qualify every step...and you're closer to what he really said...instead of grabbin' a nugget and runnin...

[Beiruty]

...you'd better go read that again...more carefully...he doesn't (nor does he have the power to ) justify anything...and you missed his "probably..."...you'd better stick to what the LAW says rather than some lawyer's opinionated blog...or he could be sittin' in a restaurant reading about you, sippin' on his latte....you're pickin' and choosin' again...list out on a blank paper everything he suggests in order...qualify every step...and you're closer to what he really said...instead of grabbin' a nugget and runnin...

I was not agreeing with him. The probably... and perhaps does not float my boat.

He stated:

Reasonable force includes any force that is not potentially lethal. This would probably include physically blocking the trespasser's entry onto the land and perhaps even showing the trespasser that you have a gun and are prepared to use it if warranted. However, as discussed below, an actual discharge of a firearm, unless clearly not aimed anywhere towards the trespasser, may expose the land owner to unwanted scrutiny by law enforcement.

[speedsix]

...you'd better go read that again...more carefully...he doesn't (nor does he have the power to ) justify anything...and you missed his "probably..."...you'd better stick to what the LAW says rather than some lawyer's opinionated blog...or he could be sittin' in a restaurant reading about you, sippin' on his latte....you're pickin' and choosin' again...list out on a blank paper everything he suggests in order...qualify every step...and you're closer to what he really said...instead of grabbin' a nugget and runnin...

I was not agreeing with him. The probably... and perhaps does not float my boat.

He stated:

Reasonable force includes any force that is not potentially lethal. This would probably include physically blocking the trespasser's entry onto the land and perhaps even showing the trespasser that you have a gun and are prepared to use it if warranted. However, as discussed below, an actual discharge of a firearm, unless clearly not aimed anywhere towards the trespasser, may expose the land owner to unwanted scrutiny by law enforcement.

...oh, I see now that you're not agreeing with him...thank God for the edit button...free lawyer advice is OFTEN a bait to get a lawyer business...we're safe to read it in the law...not a blog on horse ranches...though there is some truth in what he says...it isn't the whole picture...and doesn't affect what the OP did...he wasn't trying to terminate a trespassing by threatening to produce a weapon...he was concerned with much more serious probabilites...(so what're you horsin' around for??? )

[wgoforth]

I guess I do not understand,... man whom you know was looking through your vehicle....advances towards you on your own property. You tell him twice to stop. He tells you no and continues advancing. Why would I NOT be able to say I felt threatened and deemed it neccesary to stop him? BTW, his outstanding warrant was for illegal posession of a firearm.

[wgoforth]

BTW, this made the Abilene news and NRA says they will use it in their Armed Citizen section.

[speedsix]

I guess I do not understand,... man whom you know was looking through your vehicle....advances towards you on your own property. You tell him twice to stop. He tells you no and continues advancing. Why would I NOT be able to say I felt threatened and deemed it neccesary to stop him? BTW, his outstanding warrant was for illegal posession of a firearm.

...regardless of what his warrant was for...you understand perfectly, and did quite well what a reasonable man would do...and were justified...and are to be commended for your restraint in not drawing and pointing it at him...though that would have been justified in your scenario as you posted it...

[Heartland Patriot]

So, after reading all the posts here, I have to ask something. Would the OP have been justified in threatening the use of FORCE, not deadly force, in response to the NO of the BG when told to leave the property? That is, could the OP have said, "Either leave or I will make you leave"? or words to that effect? Would THAT have been justified? Not saying it would have been the correct thing but simply would it be JUSTIFIED? Everything I read from all these different situations seems that it should be on a step by step basis (IF you are unable to de-escalate, of course) or unless the BG does something serious (like producing a weapon) to short-circuit the process. The OP was on HIS property, he has NO DUTY TO RETREAT, and the BG was the one ignoring the request by the OP to stop his unwanted actions and depart the property. If the OP WOULD have been justified in threatening force, then when would the OP have been justified in the THREAT of deadly force? When the BG got up to him, possibly with a knife from his pocket? Or the BG is ten years younger and stronger than the OP 'cause he's been in and out of jail and every time he goes in, he spends his time "pushing weight"? I understand that we can't just go around doing terrible things to some pushy salesman nor do I advocate that level of response to a simple pushy salesman...but the BG in this case had already done other things that were past being just a pushy salesman...hope I make sense here, IANAL, and I don't know all the right terms to make it flow well.

[Count]

So, after reading all the posts here, I have to ask something. Would the OP have been justified in threatening the use of FORCE, not deadly force, in response to the NO of the BG when told to leave the property?

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

[Jumping Frog]

I am talking about the case where you threaten deadly force as a means of using (regular) force when only (regular) force is justified. It is legal to threaten deadly force as a means of using (regular) force, but you can be charged under those circumstances with failure to conceal.

...nope...can't agree with that...common sense tells me that if you can't legally shoot, you can't legally threaten to shoot...THAT'S where we have disagreement...

First of all, we are closer in outlook on this that you may realize. My attitude is, "don't pull it out if you can't legally shoot it."

However, the part I was talking about is PC §9.04., which says in part "as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force."

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

However, if someone reads that and thinks it is OK to threaten to shoot because it constitutes force instead of deadly force, I am saying it is still a stupid idea because they can still be charged with failure to conceal. See http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... al#p310312" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[speedsix]

...I have said what I'm sayin'...and we still disagree...that's OK...

[AlaskanInTexas]

I often open my front door with a gun showing if my shirt's off...it is NOT brandishing...

Please put a shirt on before answering the door.

[speedsix]

...only if you have an appointment...all others get "potluck"...or "pot belly"...


...104 right now, by the way...and how 'bout in Alaska??? how hot does it ever get up there???

[speedsix]

...wouldn't ya know it!!! Dallas evening news had a feature about scammers claiming to be security company representatives with a slick story about changes and needing to inspect the system in order to get into the house...just like happened to our OP...heads up!!!

[wgoforth]

Didn't realize until today that the story made TV news.... http://bigcountryhomepage.com/search-fu ... _id=397777" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;