“Castle Doctrine”

D

DangerousDan

Inactive
Hey TeXans!!!!!!
Send your support on the “Castle Doctrine” to your state representives.
Lets all Speak as One.

Log in the state web sight & just fill ing the short forms for each Rep.
Here is a quick note I sent.

“Castle Doctrine”
Senator Gallegos, Myself I serve as a fireman (volunteer) in Deer Park. I work closely with The DPPD on various Emergency related issues. After seeing the mental & physical effects of victims not able to protect themselves against assault, I find myself a supporter of the "Castle Doctrine" that is being embraced in our neighboring states. The “Castle Doctrine” allows a law abiding citizens to take a stand and protect themselves. Please help the victims of crime by supporting the “Castle Doctrine” & allow it to become law, when it is presented for discussion & a vote.
Thank You,
 
Well, you lost me. Don't we already have the right to defend ourselves as set down in PC 9.32?

PC §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.
Click to expand...
 
no what u guys need over there is a meet force with force law. IF u read that ordinace it looks like the need to first try and retreat is still stipulated. When u have a meet force with force law, there is no need to attempt to retreat first.
 
Nemesis, unfortunately as it is now,
it does not protect you from their family. Too many people
A loosing every thing they have. The "Castle Doctrine" would protect you.
Its a good thing..;)
 
IF u read that ordinace it looks like the need to first try and retreat is still stipulated.
Click to expand...

The law says "if a reasonable person would not have retreated" but it does not say you must attempt to retreat. I'm not worried about their family unless the family is armed too.

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b),
a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful
force.
Click to expand...

PC 9.33 sort of rounds it out. Texas law authorizes the use of deadly force in self-defense. I don't understand what the "Castle Doctrine" adds and I was not aware that it was being introduced in the Texas House.

Can you elucidate?
 
Nemesis, Yes, you have the right self defense..The Castle Doctrine
does many things But, The most important thing to me is that
it will stop all the crap that happens after the event..
It gives individuals protection against civil liability for the LAWFUL
use of force in self defense.
Not too long ago a man on the border lost his whole ranch, It was seized and
Is now owned by a nice family in Mexico.... Yes, an American Court...
 
I agree that it is a good thing. People should be exempt from any "damages" undertaken by families of criminals.

I would rather be dead than legally defend myself and cost my parents everything they have worked so hard for. I think it is ridiculous that people can win those types of cases. All it does is make people think twice about defending themselves.

Castle doctorine = :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top