If someone is trespassing on your land, they are in season! This is Texas! You have the right to shoot trespassers.
Careful with the rhetoric guys -
These postings WILL be retrieved from this forum and entered in as evidence against you in court by any competent liberal DA if you are ever involved in a shooting incident, creating doubt about your character (?) and what otherwise might be a clean shoot.
It's trouble that you don't need.
Best regards
I see your point. It's impossible for readers to receive the meaning entirely clearly through typed text when they can't hear the tone of voice or see the body language or other subtle features. Would it be correct to say, "You have the right to defend your property against trespassers"? Perhaps there are simply good people who are unreasonably afraid("sympathy for the devil") what could happen if they just defend themselves. Maybe I should have just stated the law, but I did't realize people would take offense to comments implying lawfully defending themselves. I suppose it can be a touchy issue for some people to realize there are bad people in the world from whom our loved ones must be protected by any means necessary. Protecting people can have a gruesome interpretation, but can also have a greatful one. I suppose there are two sides to most coins.
You cant just shoot somebody for trespassing! They have to be doing other crap while trespassing before you can shoot em!
actually I have had plenty of opportunities to shoot SOB's "legally", but chose not to. As long as I can keep the SOB's detained untill the law's show up, I see no need to shoot em. I haven't been in fear for my life either, so that make a big difference. Althow I have had some of them threaten me with harm, but I let the cops deal with their attitude. " But If They Come Back????????"
20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits anDetained? There was a rancher over in AZ or NM that did that and next time the mailman came by it was the trespasser's name on the box. The rancher was
arrested for forcably detaining the illegal immigrants he found on their property. And then they sued him and won. I wonder how them jury members came up with that?
20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14
years of age;
(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and
(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful
control of the child.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor,
except that the offense is:
(1) a state jail felony if the person restrained was a
child younger than 17 years of age; or
(2) a felony of the third degree if:
(A) the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a
substantial risk of serious bodily injury;
(B) the actor restrains an individual the actor
knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully
discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an
exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a
public servant; or
(C) the actor while in custody restrains any
other person.
(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this
section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or
detaining an individual lawfully arrested.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child who is 14 years
of age or older and younger than 17 years of age;
(2) the actor does not restrain the child by force,
intimidation, or deception; and
(3) the actor is not more than three years older than
the child.
Huh? This has nothing to do with opinion, and it isn't debatable. In Texas there is no justification for the use of deadly force to stop trespassing.I didn't mean to imply I had already been replied to judgingly, rather that I just don't want a debate to ensue at a future point, as this issue seems like a hotter topic than I thought. Now it seems I'm getting responses as though I just made light of choices regarding something as loaded as abortion. LOL. I think we are all on the same page now. It was a good review.
Huh? This has nothing to do with opinion, and it isn't debatable. In Texas there is no justification for the use of deadly force to stop trespassing.
No qualification necessary. In your scenario deadly force would be justified because the attacker is using unlawful deadly force against you (ie advancing on you with a shovel). Your deadly force would be used to stop the shovel attack, not the trespass.Ummmm.....best qualify that. If, for example, in the process of attempting to stop a trespass the actor picks up a shovel and advances on me (and is "in range" to strike or very close to being so) after having been advised to leave, deadly force would be justified.
It's like so many other things - no "right" or "wrong" answer to this - a LOT depends on just what is happening at the time.
True - but the underlying cause of the force would be the trespass. Like I said - no right or wrong, it's all contingent on the events themselves. An elderly person could well be justified even if the trespasser were unarmed, and simply continuing to advance if he could show a reasonable fear for his life/safety.