I heard part of a report on the radio, I think it was here in Dallas. A man living in an apartment heard a noise outside and went out to find someone stealing his rims and tires. He shot and killed the man. I guess the question is, is that parking lot part of his castle. The point was the the "castle doctrine" may not be a defense. I would think that this situation has come up before but perhaps not in a state that had the castle doctrine defense available. Comments?
Is an apt. a castle?
- Thread starter jag2
- Start date
Schlitz 45
New member
Can’t speak for Texas but in Colorado it would be a murder charge. Inside the apartment or car you’re in your “castle”, outside in a public parking lot theft alone is not a reason to use deadly force.
Last edited:
First, you need to be clear what the "Castle Doctrine" defense is, and what it is not. It is one of the most MISUNDERSTOOD phrases thrown around today.
In most general terms, the castle doctrine does not turn a bad shoot into a good shoot, it does not authorize you to shoot or anything like that.
The point of "a man's home is his castle" in this case is about your "duty to retreat". Before "castle doctrine" became established in modern law, many places had a legally required duty to retreat, even in your own home.
The castle doctrine protects defensive shooters from being charged with "failing to retreat". Castle doctrine refers to your home, your "castle" be it a house, a tent, or even if you're living in your car.
"Stand your ground" laws, often confused with the castle doctrine are very similar, but cover you anywhere you have a lawful right to be. And again, they don't empower or authorize you to shoot, what they do is protect you from being prosecuted for not retreating.
Retreating from a confrontation, if possible is nearly always the prudent course. What Castle doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws intended to fix is people being prosecuted even when retreat was not possible or practical.
They have NOTHING to do with whether or not you are justified shooting, though many think they do.
In the case mentioned, going OUT of you home, into the parking lot seems to me to be a key point. One is allowed to use deadly force defending oneself, and others, but usually not defending property.
If you're trying to stop a guy who's stealing your tires, and he attacks you, it gets tricksy in the legal sense, because its possible that it could be ruled that YOU were the aggressor and instigated the incident, and if so, self defense isn't an allowed defense.
In most general terms, the castle doctrine does not turn a bad shoot into a good shoot, it does not authorize you to shoot or anything like that.
The point of "a man's home is his castle" in this case is about your "duty to retreat". Before "castle doctrine" became established in modern law, many places had a legally required duty to retreat, even in your own home.
The castle doctrine protects defensive shooters from being charged with "failing to retreat". Castle doctrine refers to your home, your "castle" be it a house, a tent, or even if you're living in your car.
"Stand your ground" laws, often confused with the castle doctrine are very similar, but cover you anywhere you have a lawful right to be. And again, they don't empower or authorize you to shoot, what they do is protect you from being prosecuted for not retreating.
Retreating from a confrontation, if possible is nearly always the prudent course. What Castle doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws intended to fix is people being prosecuted even when retreat was not possible or practical.
They have NOTHING to do with whether or not you are justified shooting, though many think they do.
In the case mentioned, going OUT of you home, into the parking lot seems to me to be a key point. One is allowed to use deadly force defending oneself, and others, but usually not defending property.
If you're trying to stop a guy who's stealing your tires, and he attacks you, it gets tricksy in the legal sense, because its possible that it could be ruled that YOU were the aggressor and instigated the incident, and if so, self defense isn't an allowed defense.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Except that in Texas, at night, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent the theft of property. I'm pretty certain that Texas is unique in that.44_AMP said:
Correct that is legal in Texas, and that Texas is unique in that. This conversation likely has no bearing anywhere but Texas. Even expanded castle doctrine wouldn't cover someone stealing rims in your driveway unless you confronted them and then felt threatened in response. I doubt expanded castle doctrine would recognize an apartment parking lot, which is much more like a public vehicular area than a private property (depending on circumstance, controlled access gated communities would be different).
Even in Texas, this is not a circumstance I would place myself in. I don't see any wrong in confronting someone trying to steal rims from your car, but not automatically with deadly force. If you say "scram or I'm calling the cops," and they turn to you with tire tools and mean looks, well then you do what you gotta do. Still wouldn't want to have to defend myself against it.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Regarding the use of lethal force to defend property in Texas (and vehicle burglary):
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=588091
One of the legal concepts in using lethal force to defend yourself is that you must have a reasonable, immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury to use lethal force in
self defense. In many places, this used to include a requirement that you retreat if you can do so safely.
Castle doctrine says when someone who is not an invited guest or resident tries to forcibly enter your home (and in Texas, also your vehicle), we are just going to presume that you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury from that person absent other evidence to the contrary.
Stand your ground says that when you are in a public place where you have a legal right to be, you don’t have to attempt to retreat first to establish that reasonable fear. This came about because juries were deciding things after the fact with all the evidence and hours to discuss that the person had to decide in fractions of a second based on what they knew - and second guessing whether otherwise obvious victims could retreat safely was happening.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=588091
One of the legal concepts in using lethal force to defend yourself is that you must have a reasonable, immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury to use lethal force in
self defense. In many places, this used to include a requirement that you retreat if you can do so safely.
Castle doctrine says when someone who is not an invited guest or resident tries to forcibly enter your home (and in Texas, also your vehicle), we are just going to presume that you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury from that person absent other evidence to the contrary.
Stand your ground says that when you are in a public place where you have a legal right to be, you don’t have to attempt to retreat first to establish that reasonable fear. This came about because juries were deciding things after the fact with all the evidence and hours to discuss that the person had to decide in fractions of a second based on what they knew - and second guessing whether otherwise obvious victims could retreat safely was happening.
dogtown tom
New member
Here's one news story on the incident the OP is referring to:https://www.dallasnews.com/news/grand-prairie/2019/02/26/grand-prairie-police-burglary-suspect-fatally-shot-trying-steal-rims-tires
Some DFW media have reported the story differently....that the shooter was not not stopping the theft of HIS property, but that of his neighbors.
Radio reports cited an "expert" saying that this is may not be protected under "Castle Doctrine" laws in Texas.
For a similar case Google "Joe Horn". A man in Houston who shot two scumbags burglarizing his neighbors home.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The use of deadly force to protect property would not be covered by a "castle doctrine" law anyway. That said, the Texas law (which Bartholomew Roberts provided a link to) does seem to stipulate that the property you are protecting must be your own. I'll reproduce BR's citation of the actual text of the law from the discussion to which he linked:dogtown tom said:
Texas Penal Code said:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Texas law does allow the use of lethal force to protect a third person’s property. I didn’t get into that as it is more complex and I was trying to keep the post digestible. The use of lethal force to protect a third person’s property is section 9.43 of the Penal Code. You must still meet the requirements of 9.41 and 9.42, as well as the additional limitations in 9.43. Suffice it to say, you are undertaking substantial legal risk in using deadly force to protect your OWN property, let alone a third person’s.
To give one example, use of force to protect property from burglary can be done at any time. Use of force to protect property against theft is only legal during nighttime. So the legal classification of how your property is being stolen is an important detail.
While castle doctrine is extended to vehicles in Texas, you’d have to be occupying the vehicle for the doctrine to be an issue. Road rager tries to forcibly enter your vehicle at a red light? There may be a castle doctrine issue. Guy smashes the window of your unoccupied vehicle and steals the stereo? No castle doctrine issue.
For some reason, the media likes to focus on these irrelevancies in discussing shooting stories. The guy will be on the ground with his attacker on top of him smashing his head into the concrete and they’ll breathlessly discuss “Stand your ground” laws even though the person couldn’t retreat period, let alone safely.
On Joe Horn, he was super fortunate to have a plainclothes detective parked across the street who witnessed the whole thing and testified in front of the grand jury that the men charged Horn and veered away at the last minute. That gave the grand jury a reason to consider self-defense instead of defense of a third person’s property (which would have been a much stickier question).
To give one example, use of force to protect property from burglary can be done at any time. Use of force to protect property against theft is only legal during nighttime. So the legal classification of how your property is being stolen is an important detail.
While castle doctrine is extended to vehicles in Texas, you’d have to be occupying the vehicle for the doctrine to be an issue. Road rager tries to forcibly enter your vehicle at a red light? There may be a castle doctrine issue. Guy smashes the window of your unoccupied vehicle and steals the stereo? No castle doctrine issue.
For some reason, the media likes to focus on these irrelevancies in discussing shooting stories. The guy will be on the ground with his attacker on top of him smashing his head into the concrete and they’ll breathlessly discuss “Stand your ground” laws even though the person couldn’t retreat period, let alone safely.
On Joe Horn, he was super fortunate to have a plainclothes detective parked across the street who witnessed the whole thing and testified in front of the grand jury that the men charged Horn and veered away at the last minute. That gave the grand jury a reason to consider self-defense instead of defense of a third person’s property (which would have been a much stickier question).
dogtown tom
New member
No kidding.
