Self-defense in home and posting no-tresspassing

[chl-dawg]

i am still new to learning more about self defense, but wouldn't this be under the castle doctrine? i had my chl class two weeks go and i don't remember the instructor saying anything about posting a no trespassing signs in order to use deadly force.

[goose]

You do not have to post your house "No Trespassing." Just ask Joe Horn. That situation involved a front yard.

I would guess that there are parts of the friend's story we don't know yet.

[RPBrown]

The police can arrest you for a traffic ticket if they want to (or so I've been told). In a shooting, from what I understand, it is not uncommon to be taken to the station for an interview and even a grand jury seated for the case. However, if it was a home invasion, it should be no billed by the GJ if its even brought to them. If it is a lawful shoot and charges are filed, that would, I think, open them up for a huge lawsuit. However IANAL and didnt sleep at Holiday Inn last night

[Soccerdad1995]

The police can arrest you for a traffic ticket if they want to (or so I've been told). In a shooting, from what I understand, it is not uncommon to be taken to the station for an interview and even a grand jury seated for the case. However, if it was a home invasion, it should be no billed by the GJ if its even brought to them. If it is a lawful shoot and charges are filed, that would, I think, open them up for a huge lawsuit. However IANAL and didnt sleep at Holiday Inn last night

and I would add that the police can also take any and all of your possessions anytime they want. Well to be perfectly accurate, they can and do try, and they have more firepower than most citizens, so... You may well get your freedom and possessions back after going to court and paying for a lawyer.

To the OP, is there any chance that the police thought the BG may have been an invited guest? That's one circumstance where a posted "no trespassing" sign could clear up confusion.

LOL at the friends who think guns are for "wimps". Maybe I should just behead a home invader with a machete instead?

[Pig Renter]

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 if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 [see below];

and

when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night-time from escaping with the property;

and 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.

[END OF SECTION 9.42 SUMMARY]


PC Section 9.41 says “A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force [but not necessarily “deadly 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.

[Pig Renter]

So based on the very little details we know about the situation, and assuming it was a clear-cut case of an intruder "forcing his way into the house", it would appear he was justified in shooting the person based on the Penal Code Sections stated above.

P.S.

I aint no lawyer.

[mcscanner]

To the OP, is there any chance that the police thought the BG may have been an invited guest? That's one circumstance where a posted "no trespassing" sign could clear up confusion.

I don't see the logic in that.

Mike

[Javier730]

Nope. An invited guess would not be forcing their way in and a person forcing their way in would not be an invited guest.
mcscanner, you should edit your post as it was not RPBrown who wrote that.

[Skiprr]

From the basic description by the OP, I actually don't believe PC §9.42 would be the section in play, but that it would be §9.32 instead:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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 actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

[srothstein]

While we do not know enough to say what happened, we are all ignoring one very real possibility. It could be that the homeowner saw what happened to Joe Horn and took a lot of our advice. When the police came to investigate the shooting, he just said he wanted to talk to his lawyer first. When that happens, I can almost guarantee that he would be arrested but then set free after the lawyer worked with him to get a statement to the police.

Of course, I find it easier to believe that there is something in the story we just don't know yet, but this is possible.

[WTR]

That all said, is there any basis in Texas law for having to post a no-trespassing sign to exercise deadly force against a someone who entered a property owner's occupied dwelling?

I would not shoot someone because they have trespassed on my property ( I would shoot at least one person a week if I did). However, my home is a different story.

[Skiprr]

That all said, is there any basis in Texas law for having to post a no-trespassing sign to exercise deadly force against a someone who entered a property owner's occupied dwelling?

To my knowledge, none...though IANAL. The only section of the TCPC that uses the words "force" and "trespass" in the same paragraph is §9.41; by incorporation, it is also denoted in sections 9.42 and 9.43; but those deal only with protection of property.

Chapter 9, Subchapter C deals with protection of persons. The 80th Legislature in 2007 amended and clarified §9.32: "The actor's belief...that the deadly force was immediately necessary...is presumed to be reasonable if the actor...knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used...unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment..."

"Trespass" and its definition really never come into play; the key phrase is "unlawfully and with force."

[drjoker]

I actually asked my lawyer once the exact same question, "Can I get arrested and get jail time for shooting someone inside my home who broke in?"
"Yes."
My lawyer explained that although there's a Castle Doctrine, you'd still have to pass what's known as the "reasonable person" clause. For example, the castle doctrine protects you from a real perp that broke into your home. However, if a drunk guy broke in to your home then fell asleep on your kitchen floor, you do NOT have the right to shoot him while he is sleeping. That is not reasonable and the legalese is that it does not pass the "reasonable person" test. Some other examples my lawyer threw at me from real life cases;
1. sleeping drunk on your kitchen floor
2. neighborhood kids chasing after a ball that was thrown through your window during a game of catch
3. apartment maintenance guy inside your home. You do not have a right to lock him out as it is not your home since you are a renter. If he breaks in to conduct repairs, you do NOT have a right to shoot him.

[Keith B]

I actually asked my lawyer once the exact same question, "Can I get arrested and get jail time for shooting someone inside my home who broke in?"
"Yes."
My lawyer explained that although there's a Castle Doctrine, you'd still have to pass what's known as the "reasonable person" clause. For example, the castle doctrine protects you from a real perp that broke into your home. However, if a drunk guy broke in to your home then fell asleep on your kitchen floor, you do NOT have the right to shoot him while he is sleeping. That is not reasonable and the legalese is that it does not pass the "reasonable person" test. Some other examples my lawyer threw at me from real life cases;
1. sleeping drunk on your kitchen floor
2. neighborhood kids chasing after a ball that was thrown through your window during a game of catch
3. apartment maintenance guy inside your home. You do not have a right to lock him out as it is not your home since you are a renter. If he breaks in to conduct repairs, you do NOT have a right to shoot him.

I totally disagree on the last one. If you are currently occupying the apartment, they do NOT have the right to force entry into it. As the lessee, you have rights to stop them from unreasonably entering your occupied apartment unless there is an emergency situation to repair, then you probably want them to come in.

I know this one for a fact as I stopped a landlord at gunpoint from forcing his way into my apartment to 'show it to a perspective tenant' many years ago. The landlord was charged with burglary of a residence and assault. I ended up dropping the charges just because I didn't feel like messing with it, but he got the message. It was not the first time he had done this to a tenant, but I was first one to stop him.