Im a victim of an ILLEGAL

[Texan2]

1st step is to stop the bleeding. close the border. some of those illegals will leave on their own. some will need to be arrested. but we cant do ANYTHING until we stop the inbound flow.

 

[RetArmySgt]

Two Words: Public Executions.

That will send the message needed.

 

[Texan2]

If someone is trespassing on your land, they are in season! This is Texas! You have the right to shoot trespassers.

You are kidding, right?

 

[Kingsnake]

RE: Shooting trespassers/Public executions

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

 

[TrooperKbC]

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.

 

[Bithabus]

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.

Do you believe Texas law allows you to shoot trespassers?

 

[MR Redneck]

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????????"

 

[texdot]

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????????"

Detained? 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?

 

[Texan2]

Detained? 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.

 

[texdot]

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.

Sounds right,but in what state? And maybe he urged them a little not to come back before the deputies showed up.

 

[Texan2]

The law I posted is Texas law....now if he beat the shit out of them while LE was on the way, the result may be different.

 

[texdot]

I used to say close the borders! But in the last year I think that as long as employers hire them it won't matter what is done. Why have I changed mt mind. I see a large const. company building a high school here employing illegals and I know they are aware of it.

 

[TrooperKbC]

I shouldn't have been having a discussion. Here is the law to which I was referring:

TEXAS PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY


Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

==============================================================

We all should really know our rights as Texans. I am not advocating any possible actions on your parts, but I am advocating that you know our rights under the law. Please don't tell me your interpretations or judge me without stating facts and I will try to do the same for you in return.

 

[Texan2]

I looked back but didn't see any reference to you being judged. The question was merely "do you think you can shoot someone for trespassing?". I am as familiar with the law you quoted as you are and if you think it gives you a green light to shoot someone for trespassing you would mistaken.

 

[TrooperKbC]

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.

 

[Bithabus]

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.

 

[TexasRedneck]

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.

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.

 

[Bithabus]

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.

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.

 

[TexasRedneck]

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.

 

[Bithabus]

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.

Again, you are wrong. The "underlying cause" of the justifiable deadly force in your example is the assault with a shovel (unlawful deadly force). "Fear for life/safety" has nothing to do with a justification. Read chapter 9.