The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
That's just wrong...srothstein wrote:RoyGBiv wrote:Subject says WIFE, post says SISTER
I just can't resist pointing out that some people do move from Arkansas occasionally, even to Texas.
Dragonfighter wrote:About thirty years ago I had a guy do that to me in a club parking lot in Dallas. He had obviously been drinking and I was a lot more spry then so he ended up eating parking lot with his gun in my posession. My date called the cops, turns out the guy was a cop but the sergeant apologized and they took the guy away. I wonder...
Quite a story. It's not everyday that you can say you disarmed a cop. I wonder if he ever believed it when he was told the next day that a civilian disarmed him (assuming he had to be in a state where he wouldn't remember his actions, but then again, he might have just been that stupid sans alcohol).Fine, no problem...I just HATE the word "brandishing" because it seems that a lot of other states that DO have that word in their penal code use it overbroadly as a catchall term (against generally law-abiding firearms owners). I like our laws just fine, thank you to those who did the heavy lifting of getting them on the books. Those other states can keep the word "brandishing"...I don't want anyone getting any funny ideas that the word means something here in the Great State of Texas. Besides, disorderly conduct, communicating a terroristic threat, and unlawful carry seem like a much more solid thing to bust this guy with if they do catch him.n5wd wrote:No, but there is something called "Terroristic Threat".Heartland Patriot wrote:There is no such thing as "brandishing" in Texas law.
Looks like that one about covers it.Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place; or
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service.
(b) An offense under Subdivision (1) or (2) of Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (3) of Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (4) of Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree.
Wouldn't threatening the use of a firearm be the threat of DEADLY force, not simply force, in and of itself? If they refused to move their car, the next step should have been to call law enforcement. Operating under the premise that this scenario of "terminating trespass" was what actually occurred, of course.apostate wrote:In that case, I will play Devil's Advocate for a moment and describe two scenarios.camarowithbass wrote:Thanks for ANY input !
A. He likes the parking spot but has no legal claim to it. He's a bully and he threatened someone over a random parking spot. He broke the law, including something (or multiple somethings) in Chapter 22 of the Texas Penal Code.
B. The parking spot is his parking spot in the same way his apartment is his apartment. Someone was trespassing. He asked the trespasser to leave and they refused. He used the threat of force to terminate the trespass. He may be a jerk but he's legally justified. (9.04 & 9.41, Texas Penal Code)
Can you provide the statute for this? I can not find anywhere in the penal code that allows for the use of deadly force to end trespassing.RoyGBiv wrote:Subject says WIFE, post says SISTER
Trespass is not justification for deadly force until the request to leave is ignored... (IANAL)
Sec. 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.Heartland Patriot wrote: Wouldn't threatening the use of a firearm be the threat of DEADLY force, not simply force, in and of itself? If they refused to move their car, the next step should have been to call law enforcement. Operating under the premise that this scenario of "terminating trespass" was what actually occurred, of course.
I AM NOT A LAWYER... THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICEHotLeadSolutions wrote:Can you provide the statute for this? I can not find anywhere in the penal code that allows for the use of deadly force to end trespassing.RoyGBiv wrote:Subject says WIFE, post says SISTER
Trespass is not justification for deadly force until the request to leave is ignored... (IANAL)
And then.... Justification for use of force (not deadly)PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense
if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including
residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a
building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and
the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
........... (not a complete citation).......
And for deadly force... Conditional .... After establishing criminal trespassPC §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.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor
uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession
and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor.
Back to work.!PC §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.
He was drunk (I mean really drunk) and I wasn't. I was more reflex than thought then and well, I think I was as surprised as he was.Thomas wrote:Dragonfighter wrote:About thirty years ago I had a guy do that to me in a club parking lot in Dallas. He had obviously been drinking and I was a lot more spry then so he ended up eating parking lot with his gun in my posession. My date called the cops, turns out the guy was a cop but the sergeant apologized and they took the guy away. I wonder...
not with kids in the carOldgringo wrote:Hmmm, nobody thinks he should have been blasted out of his socks, eh?
Law enforcement officers who are not active duty military are likewise civilians.Thomas wrote:
Well, they gotta' grow up someday, better sooner than later.zero4o3 wrote:not with kids in the carOldgringo wrote:Hmmm, nobody thinks he should have been blasted out of his socks, eh?
Police and firefighters are no longer considered civilians, at least not according to most dictionaries. They are included with active duty military as not being a civilian in the formal definition of the word. But growing up around the military, I still tend to think they are.Law enforcement officers who are not active duty military are likewise civilians.
