TexasCHLforum.com

They had Mark Davis (WBAP radio) on this morning, giving Tim and Megan a little lesson in the Castle Doctrine as well as force laws in general.
was actually well thought out (as Mark Davis usually is) and covered some of the "misconceptions" associated with Force and Deadly Force.

anyone else see that?



on a side note, this whole Aguilar thing has been a big topic at work, and because of it, I have found 3 newly educated people that "just found out" about gunlaws. it's amazing when people learn that CHL means GoodGuy, and that yes, literally anyone could have a gun.

This one? (Link)

Mark's a good guy. I've met him once at one of Senator Jane Nelson's annual 40th birthday parties. He is so busy it makes me tired just watching.

He did an OK job. Guess he does not know about PC 9.42 either.

Interesting....but sad.....when the news spends more time on football than it does on One's basic human rights.

Looks like Fox is trying to make up for the Rebecca Aguilar story on Mr. Walton's use of deadly force. Two days in a row that they've had someone explaining Texas law with emphasis on the legal use of deadly force. They seem to be trying really hard to make sure people understand that Mr. Walton was within his rights.

Although this doesn't even come close to an apology (in my openion), at least they seem to be trying to make sure people understand the law.

bpet wrote:at least they seem to be trying to make sure people understand the law.

They need to get someone who knows what they are talking about, I have yet to see anyone in the media correctly explain Castle Doctrine.

Oh, I'm sure Mark Davis "knows" the law, as well as did the best he could of explaining things in the format and time he was allotted.

DoubleJ wrote:Oh, I'm sure Mark Davis "knows" the law, as well as did the best he could of explaining things in the format and time he was allotted.

Well if he does, he is keeping it a secret. He was wrong on his radio show too when he tried to explain it.

Didn't hear his show but perhaps, you can enlighten us as to what he said that was incorrect.

bpet wrote:Didn't hear his show but perhaps, you can enlighten us as to what he said that was incorrect.

(1) Did not mention civil liability protection, (2) thinks Castle Doctrine only applies to the home, and (3) did not know "stand your ground", already applied when in your home.

Pretty much the same mistakes everyone else makes.

Renegade wrote:

bpet wrote:Didn't hear his show but perhaps, you can enlighten us as to what he said that was incorrect.

(1) Did not mention civil liability protection, (2) thinks Castle Doctrine only applies to the home, and (3) did not know "stand your ground", already applied when in your home.

Pretty much the same mistakes everyone else makes.

Having the above quoted knowledge along with a CHL makes me all warm inside to know that I belong to a group of informed, intelligent people.

(1) Did not mention civil liability protection, (2) thinks Castle Doctrine only applies to the home, and (3) did not know "stand your ground", already applied when in your home.

Pretty much the same mistakes everyone else makes.

Renegade,
Missed your point initially. I thought you were saying that Mark Davis was providing incorrect information. After re-reading your comments, and getting clarification on your issue, I see that you are focusing more on incomplete rather than incorrect information.

I guess I have to defend Mr. Davis. I think that Fox gave him about 15 seconds to make his point and I think he did a good job. Most people have very little interest in the details of the law and when Fox did the hack job on Mr. Walton, they raised the issue that Mr. Walton may have somehow pushed the limits of the law by exercising it more than once in a lifetime. Mr. Davis, I believe, made it clear in his brief that Mr. Walton (or any other citizen of the great state of Texas) has a right to use lethal force to defend his property. I'm sure that Mr. Davis is fully aware of the limits of the law and chose to make his brief as concise as needed for the time he was alloted to ensure that the typical (uninformed) viewer understood that Mr. Walton was fully within his rights to do what he did.

I fully agree that he did not cover all aspects of the law and may have, as a result, not "fully" informed. But, he got his point across in language even the uninformed and uncaring would have to think about before condemning what Mr. Walton did.

bpet wrote:

(1) Did not mention civil liability protection, (2) thinks Castle Doctrine only applies to the home, and (3) did not know "stand your ground", already applied when in your home.

Pretty much the same mistakes everyone else makes.

Renegade,
Missed your point initially. I thought you were saying that Mark Davis was providing incorrect information. After re-reading your comments, and getting clarification on your issue, I see that you are focusing more on incomplete rather than incorrect information.

He stated there was a reasonableness test before deadly force can be applied on an intruder in the home, which their is not under Castle Doctrine or before Castle Doctrine. So that was incorrect. The rest was mostly omission of useful information.

Renegade wrote: He stated there was a reasonableness test before deadly force can be applied on an intruder in the home, which their is not under Castle Doctrine or before Castle Doctrine. So that was incorrect. The rest was mostly omission of useful information.

Hello?

I think there is a mass of case law that requires your actions to be reasonable whenever deadly force is used. Before or after Castle Doctrine doesn't matter. In or out of your home doesn't matter.

Trust me, if a 5 year old kid somehow manages to unlawfully enter your house, and you whack him, you're gonna have a lot of 'splainin' to do, Castle Doctrine or no Castle Doctrine.

And if the members of the jury find your actions to be unreasonable, you're gonna do time.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Renegade wrote: He stated there was a reasonableness test before deadly force can be applied on an intruder in the home, which their is not under Castle Doctrine or before Castle Doctrine. So that was incorrect. The rest was mostly omission of useful information.

Hello?

I think there is a mass of case law that requires your actions to be reasonable whenever deadly force is used. Before or after Castle Doctrine doesn't matter. In or out of your home doesn't matter.

We are talking about Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground. The reasonable person test for Stand Your Ground does not apply in the home. Look it up in 9.32 if you are a non-believer.

Obviously you cannot just shoot anybody in your home without cause.

However, under Castle Doctrine I think you really can just shoot any intruder. The fact they broke into your home is cause enough. That is why the guy who shot the musician (who was outside the home and unarmed) got off with no charges. Merely attempting to break in is cause enough.
I will have to see the final version of SB378 that gets enrolled to be sure though.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: And if the members of the jury find your actions to be unreasonable, you're gonna do time

Yeah, that is the rub. Even if you are 100% in compliance with the law, if your jury is composed of folks who think you should have retreated to the farthest corner of your bedroom before shooting, you can still go to jail if they say "guilty".