I understand that the "Castle doctrine" is operative in Texas. A pal of mine who is involved in training folks for handgun licenses keeps repeating the mantra that "each bullet that leaves your gun in self-defence situation leaves with a $10,000 price tag." I've read about the Horn guy in Texas who shot two criminals during a home breakin. How will this Castle doctrine affect the outcome? Thanks.
Castle doctrine
- Thread starter Benzene
- Start date
The Castle Doctrine dictates that if a stranger forcibly enters your home and you have a reasonable fear that you, your family and/or other person's within your home is in danger, that you can use deadly force to stop any harm to you, your family and any/all persons within your home. It does not apply to someone else's home. Mr Horn shot two burglars in the back who just stole items from his neighbors home. He did this AFTER the 911 operator told him to stay inside. While Texas is a "Castle Doctrine" state, the castle doctrine was never written to be used in the way Mr. Horn use it and therefore does not apply in his case. Sadly, Mr. Horn may be facing manslaughter or murder one charges for his actions.
As for the price tag for each bullet, I would place it at $25,000 per bullet, taking into account lawyer fees, possible fines/penalties for misuse of a firearm, as well as, punitive damages filed against you. Remember, if your bullet hits an unintended target, your bullet AND you are responsible for all property and human damage. If you shoot someone because you perceive them to be a threat, only to find out that they were lost and just wanted to ask for directions, not only are you liable, you may be perceived as emotionally/mentally disturbed and may required to get court-ordered therapy, sent to jail AND loose your gun permit/license your respective state through the legal process of license revocation. This is true regardless of how relaxed the gun laws are in your respective state.
Bottom line: As a gun owner, I am ready to defend myself with justifiable deadly force if I feel that my life is in danger, but I am not going to "shoot first and ask questions later". That's an irresponsible/wreckless frame of mind and I would never advocate it as others have done. When I draw my weapon, I also retreat and/or look for cover for myself and anyone with me. My goal is to get our of the dangerous situation with the minimum use of ANY force and preferably no use of force at all. I would then dial 911 and get the police/sheriff to respond. Mr. Horn did not do any of these things and he will have to live with his actions for the rest of his life.
As for the price tag for each bullet, I would place it at $25,000 per bullet, taking into account lawyer fees, possible fines/penalties for misuse of a firearm, as well as, punitive damages filed against you. Remember, if your bullet hits an unintended target, your bullet AND you are responsible for all property and human damage. If you shoot someone because you perceive them to be a threat, only to find out that they were lost and just wanted to ask for directions, not only are you liable, you may be perceived as emotionally/mentally disturbed and may required to get court-ordered therapy, sent to jail AND loose your gun permit/license your respective state through the legal process of license revocation. This is true regardless of how relaxed the gun laws are in your respective state.
Bottom line: As a gun owner, I am ready to defend myself with justifiable deadly force if I feel that my life is in danger, but I am not going to "shoot first and ask questions later". That's an irresponsible/wreckless frame of mind and I would never advocate it as others have done. When I draw my weapon, I also retreat and/or look for cover for myself and anyone with me. My goal is to get our of the dangerous situation with the minimum use of ANY force and preferably no use of force at all. I would then dial 911 and get the police/sheriff to respond. Mr. Horn did not do any of these things and he will have to live with his actions for the rest of his life.
TexasSIGMan
New member
There has been no evidence of that one way or the other. None of the evidence has been made public and they Harris County DA does not expect to hand any of this to a Grand Jury for at least another 2 weeks.
Also, in Texas, the castle doctrine CAN apply to your neighbor's home.
In Florida, the castle doctrine applies to any home or dwelling in which you are residing, even temporarily. That includes tents, RVs, or a home where you are staying as a guest.
As far as the comments about Horn: That is why we have court rooms instead of just trying people in the press. The press is anti-gun, and will do the story that reflects that view.
In Florida, the castle doctrine applies to any home or dwelling in which you are residing, even temporarily. That includes tents, RVs, or a home where you are staying as a guest.
As far as the comments about Horn: That is why we have court rooms instead of just trying people in the press. The press is anti-gun, and will do the story that reflects that view.
The key to the Castle doctrine is as you said yourself, "where you are", in other words, you must be in direct danger. As the 911 tapes clearly point out, Mr Horn was not inside his neighbors house when it was being robbed. He freely and willingly removed himself from the safety of his own home, knowingly entered into a potentially dangerous zone in order to justify shooting the burglars. Now please don't get me wrong, I am very much in favor of the Castle Doctrine, ALL my friends and neighbors KNOCK before entering,
but to go looking for danger is not rational nor logical. Having a firearm is for when danger arrogantly pushes itself into your life, not the other way around. I feel sorry for Mr Horn's rash decision making, but I do not feel that he did the right thing here.
Horn should have demanded that the scumbags turn around, so he wouldn't have to shoot them in the back. Seriously, although I don't think he had any obligation to take a 911 dispatcher's legal advice, he just might have really screwed up. Supposedly, the shooting was witnessed by an off-duty cop. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
All the 'castle laws' are not going to prevent someone from filling a civil suit.
A DA is going to make a decision if they believe you acted under the law.
If he thinks you are outside the law he can pursue criminal charges.
You wil still need to defend yourself.
If ciminal charges are not pursued, civil charges can be brought and you wil need to show you acted under the law to the civil court.
The DA declining might help here, but you are still likely to end up before a judge and need to defend yourself.
Many of these laws are new enough that there is no case law to show how judges have inerpreted them.
Count on some large legal bills.
It still beats being dead in any case.
A DA is going to make a decision if they believe you acted under the law.
If he thinks you are outside the law he can pursue criminal charges.
You wil still need to defend yourself.
If ciminal charges are not pursued, civil charges can be brought and you wil need to show you acted under the law to the civil court.
The DA declining might help here, but you are still likely to end up before a judge and need to defend yourself.
Many of these laws are new enough that there is no case law to show how judges have inerpreted them.
Count on some large legal bills.
It still beats being dead in any case.
Actually, it's obvious from the tape that he left his home in order to stop the criminals from escaping with what they'd stolen from his neighbor.
And where did you see the information about the coroner's report? I haven't been able to find anything about such a conclusion despite various searches.
In North Carolina, one can also use deadly force to prevent forceable entry as long as the defender has a reasonable belief that the person forcing his/her way in is doing so with the intent to commit a felony. This means that you can use deadly force on the person breaking down your door at 3 am if you think he is doing so to commit a felony. However, if the intruder is already inside your home, deadly force can only be used if you are in reasonable fear of your life or the lives (or serious bodily injury) of others in the home.
However, if you are outside of your home, one must retreat, if such retreat can be done safely, before applying deadly force.
However, if you are outside of your home, one must retreat, if such retreat can be done safely, before applying deadly force.
Last edited:
NOT TRUE! In Indiana our laws (Castle Doctrine) protect someone who lawfully used lethal force from ALL LIABILITY both criminal AND civil.
So essentially, if they choose to not file charges... no civil suits allowed. If they file charges and the lethal force is found to be lawful... no civil suits allowed.
TexasSeaRay
New member
Two other things about the Texas Castle Doctrine law as I understand--
1. You do not have a duty to retreat, and
2. If you are no-billed by the grand jury or the DA clears you, you cannot be sued in civil court by the criminal or his/her family, friends, pimps, translators, sponsors, live-in-girlfriends, estranged common law wives, etc. In other words, if it was a righteous shoot, tough titty to the recipient of the projectile all the way around.
Jeff
1. You do not have a duty to retreat, and
2. If you are no-billed by the grand jury or the DA clears you, you cannot be sued in civil court by the criminal or his/her family, friends, pimps, translators, sponsors, live-in-girlfriends, estranged common law wives, etc. In other words, if it was a righteous shoot, tough titty to the recipient of the projectile all the way around.
Jeff
IF Mr. Horn gets in trouble it will be because of flapping his gums with the 911 operator about what he intended to do. Its kinda hard to say that you fired out of fear for your life when not 2 minutes earlier you repeatedly stated that you were going to shoot them.
Having said that, i fully support Mr. Horn. The bottom line to me is that he stopped the theft of someones hard earned property. I doubt this was these scumbags first home breakin and certainly wouldnt have been the last.
When you break into someones home, you know the risk, you know you could get caught and go to jail and you know you could get shot. Thats the price they put on thier own lives when they smashed in that window, you reap what you sow. NO sympathy from me whatsoever.
Having said that, i fully support Mr. Horn. The bottom line to me is that he stopped the theft of someones hard earned property. I doubt this was these scumbags first home breakin and certainly wouldnt have been the last.
When you break into someones home, you know the risk, you know you could get caught and go to jail and you know you could get shot. Thats the price they put on thier own lives when they smashed in that window, you reap what you sow. NO sympathy from me whatsoever.
In Texas, you can kill to protect property, you do not have to fear for your life. That is the way I read it.
Since, according to the transcripts, he thought the criminals were going to escape, I think that the call actually helps his case.
Speculating without knowing the facts or the law is what the Brady bunch does.
Since, according to the transcripts, he thought the criminals were going to escape, I think that the call actually helps his case.
Speculating without knowing the facts or the law is what the Brady bunch does.
chris in va
New member
And as I understand Castle Doctrine (or Stand Your Ground) you don't have to retreat no matter *where* you are, not just your home. Right?
I am speaking of Florida Law, and the laws of other states can vary. Since I live in Florida, I am most familiar with the laws here. Here it is:
776.013:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
776.013:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
"
Quote:
All the 'castle laws' are not going to prevent someone from filling a civil suit.
NOT TRUE! In Indiana our laws (Castle Doctrine) protect someone who lawfully used lethal force from ALL LIABILITY both criminal AND civil.
So essentially, if they choose to not file charges... no civil suits allowed. If they file charges and the lethal force is found to be lawful... no civil suits allowed."
You had better look at the EXACT text of the law.
The concept of 'every man is entitled to his day on court' is deeply embedded in our legal system.
A court will make the decision.
Laws that flat out prohibit the filing of civil actions are almost always struck down for denying due process.
The way this is handled is by making the person who files the suite directly responsible for costs if the suit is found to fall under the law.
You would then have to collect the costs from the plaintiff.
The clerk of the court is not going to refuse filing, only a judge can quash the suit.
Quote:
All the 'castle laws' are not going to prevent someone from filling a civil suit.
NOT TRUE! In Indiana our laws (Castle Doctrine) protect someone who lawfully used lethal force from ALL LIABILITY both criminal AND civil.
So essentially, if they choose to not file charges... no civil suits allowed. If they file charges and the lethal force is found to be lawful... no civil suits allowed."
You had better look at the EXACT text of the law.
The concept of 'every man is entitled to his day on court' is deeply embedded in our legal system.
A court will make the decision.
Laws that flat out prohibit the filing of civil actions are almost always struck down for denying due process.
The way this is handled is by making the person who files the suite directly responsible for costs if the suit is found to fall under the law.
You would then have to collect the costs from the plaintiff.
The clerk of the court is not going to refuse filing, only a judge can quash the suit.