Posted on 04/05/2022 12:09:13 PM PDT by Red Badger
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4052546/posts?page=52#52
Please stay in Pennsylvania. We don’t need your opinions of Texas property defense law here.
No, it isn’t. It’s someone who is too stupid to realize that when a homeowner in Texas tells you to leave, LEAVE. IMMEDIATELY.
I think you need to review your Texas Penal Code, then. Sections 9.41 and 9.42. He was ordered to leave, he didn’t, he assaulted the homeowner instead, he found out why when a Texas homeowner orders you to leave, you do.
The first year of my divorce was like what you described. I bid my time knowing the ex would soon be dating again and need my help with the kids to have the time to do it.
I sucked it up and waited until I had a year of having them near 50% of the time before I filed for change of circumstance to redefine visitation and secure access for the kids so she couldn’t arbitrarily screw with it like she had.
It helped that she remarried and the new husband wasn’t enthusiastic about the turmoil her pettiness caused in their household.
If the father acted like that all the time... maybe not.
must be nice to be a mind reader, from the video the victim seems to go out of his way to not be violent (never raises his hands, but simply gets up in the guys face)
I’m not in Texas. Here he has to be inside.
All I was saying is the fact that the dad was agitated did not make him a “worthless, violent punk”. He wasn’t smart and should have backed off when confronted with a gun, but his anger is understandable if you have ever been in that position.
That was self defense...pure and simple.
So to my point even the laws of self defense were not relevant, much less the laws of protecting property. It is possible perhaps that no charges are applicable under the property law you cite independent of whether charges are applicable under self defense laws.
However, taking your advice I read what you posted carefully. My layman's analysis of it, for what its worth it seems that the protection of property clause would not apply to the shooter. Specifically because the criteria in 9.42 (3) (B) was not met. It doesn't even seem close.
he had zero rights to remain on the property when asked to leave.
***He had the right to life.
I have to wonder about the family dynamic when the wife marries the man who killed your father. Meals must be awkward.
had a right to fear for his life if he was disarmed.
***Not at the moment of the shots. He was several feet away.
Watching that video I'd wager a fair amount of $$$ that the dead guy was the type who represented a genuine threat to her and/or the kids. But even if I'm wrong you don't counter a court order against you with the behavior we see here.
And as noted in a previous post in this thread Texas law allows the use of force to stop an individual who's trespassing on his/her property.
Perhaps, not in those words. He *was* angry and agitated, and unfortunately he then reverted to the angry meathead jock stereotype. He bowed up on the much smaller and slighter homeowner, attempted to intimidate him, physically assaulted him with provocative chest slams and then laid hands on him. His anger and lack of anger management skills instantly qualifies him as “too stupid to live” in Texas and he got what was legally coming to him.
I am not a small man, but were I in the same situation with a proportionally sized assailant, I am going to let him hit me once so I have both property defense and self defense law on my side, then speed rock, mag dump and then we’ll see how much he wants to continue being a blind meathead with most of his guts and torso missing thanks to fourteen .45 ACP hollow points.
Sure, I can understand the anger - but if this is what the guy did all the time when angered, him getting blasted may have been to the benefit of his kids.
Agree 1000%.
Sorry, no. Unless the homeowner was a trained martial artist of some prowess, Texas courts would look at the obvious discrepancies between the musculature, frame and overall build between the two and determine that the much smaller and slighter homeowner would reasonably expect that if he engaged in hand to hand he would die or suffer grievous bodily harm. This has been case law for longer than I have been alive.
Texas law is *not* fond of adults who indulge in juvenile physical intimidation of smaller adults.
It’s a legal shoot. You don’t come on to someone else’s property and try to take a gun from their hands. That is assault. Especially, after the defender has fired a warning shot at your feet. A question similar to this has been brought up to my local DA. He had the same opinion. The castle doctrine applied.
9.42 (3) (B) was not met.
***The standard is a “reasonable person” standard. That would be what passes for a reasonable person in Texas, so there are no charges even filed, not even for misdemeanor stuff like reckless endangerment.
Having thought about this, a reasonable person who had already fired a warning shot which was ignored might think the guy’s gonna go for your gun and succeed. All the defending attorney has to do is bring that up, he’ll be found not guilty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.