Bills filed in Austin to shoot first, retreat later in self-defense

[leobold1]

Bills filed in Austin to shoot first, retreat later in self-defense | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

By JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press

AUSTIN — Castle Doctrine sounds like a medieval warning to invaders: Cross this moat and suffer the consequences.

A pair of Republican state lawmakers now want to use it to revise Texas' modern-day self-defense laws.

Sen. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio and Rep. Joe Driver of Garland have sponsored bills to have Texas join more than a dozen states with the so-called "Castle Doctrine," a sort of shoot-first, retreat-later approach to defending hearth, home, truck and business.

Essentially, the Castle Doctrine is born out of the common-law theory that a man's home is his castle and he has a right to defend it.

And although

It would create a legal presumption that an intruder is there to cause death or great bodily harm and that victims have the right to use deadly force. He says current law in some instances imposes a duty to retreat before using potentially deadly force on an intruder.

"I believe Texans who are attacked in their homes, their businesses, their vehicles or Texas already has some of the broadest self-defense laws in the country, Wentworth says his bill would expand the legal rights of crime victims to protect themselves, their relatives and their property from intruders in their home, occupied vehicles or business.anywhere else have a right to defend themselves from attack without fear of being prosecuted and face possible civil suits alleging wrongful injury or death," Wentworth said.

More than a dozen other states have written the Castle Doctrine into law and the National Rifle Association is among those pushing for Texas to join them.

"It is fundamental that honest, law-abiding citizens know the law is on their side if ever they are faced with danger from criminal attack," said Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist in Washington, D.C.

But critics deride it as a "shoot-to-kill" bill that allows for more violence and removes a tool from prosecutors.

"It's not Castle Doctrine. That's in the home and you have a right to defend the home," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is the Kingdom Doctrine and you can kill someone anywhere in public. That's a far cry from the home."

Legal experts wonder if they change is really needed.

Jerry Dowling, a criminal justice professor at Sam Houston State University, said state law already protects self-defense of life and property, particularly in one's home, or castle.

"I've lived in Texas 30-plus years and I would be astounded to hear of a Texas jury that convicted someone who blasted a guy who was in his house," Dowling said. "It would just be anathema to the culture down here."

Prosecutors have had mixed reactions to the bill, said Shannon Edmonds, spokesman for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.

District Attorneys are waiting for proponents of the change to produce an example of someone wrongfully convicted and imprisoned in Texas for an act of self-defense.

"Is this a solution in search of a problem?" Edmonds said.

Hamm said the courts are quite capable of deciding what is justifiable force.

"The police, prosecutors and juries decide whether you acted in legitimate self-defense," Hamm said. "That system works."

But the bills already have broad support. Wentworth's office said nearly all of the 31 state senators have signed onto his bill and more than 100 house members have signed Driver's bill in that chamber.

According to a 2006 report by the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, Texas law was based on the castle doctrine until 1973, when it was changed to make use of force justifiable only if a reasonable person would not have retreated.

Dowling, the professor, said it's reasonable in Texas to expect the use of deadly force in a home invasion.

"That's what I tell my students," Dowling said. "By God, the reasonable Texan never retreats."

[herbstin]

Here in Texas, we've already had pretty much of the provisions of the "Castle Doctrine" in place in our Penal Code. I've read the Penal Code many times, and haven't found anywhere in it the requirement to retreat. The biggest problem is that the Code describes most of the provisions as "a defense to prosecution". It doesn't mean that you cannot be prosecuted, just that you have a legal defense for your action. It also doesn't mean that you can't be sued out of existance by relatives and friends of the ne'er-do-well you capped, or leftwing nutjobs and greedy lawyers trying to make a point (and a bunch of bucks). It also doesn't prevent politically correct mayors & city councils from passing feel-good ordinances preventing citizens from doing anything but complying with criminal demands (not common in Texas, but some of the bigger cities have some).
The goal of the "Castle" Bill (here in Texas) is to: a) change defensive actions to non-prosecutable, b) remove the ability for anyone to sue you for the death or injury of a perpetrator shot while defending yourself, other people or your property, c) remove the ability for local agencies to pre-empt state laws.
It's not going to create a "Wild West" war zone (just like the Concealed Carry Law didn't). It's not going to make any really radical changes for law-abiding citizens.
For criminals and liberals, it may be the end of the world as they know it. Good! The rest of us don't like their world.

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by herbstin

Here in Texas, we've already had pretty much of the provisions of the "Castle Doctrine" in place in our Penal Code. I've read the Penal Code many times, and haven't found anywhere in it the requirement to retreat. The biggest problem is that the Code describes most of the provisions as "a defense to prosecution". It doesn't mean that you cannot be prosecuted, just that you have a legal defense for your action. It also doesn't mean that you can't be sued out of existance by relatives and friends of the ne'er-do-well you capped, or leftwing nutjobs and greedy lawyers trying to make a point (and a bunch of bucks). It also doesn't prevent politically correct mayors & city councils from passing feel-good ordinances preventing citizens from doing anything but complying with criminal demands (not common in Texas, but some of the bigger cities have some).
The goal of the "Castle" Bill (here in Texas) is to: a) change defensive actions to non-prosecutable, b) remove the ability for anyone to sue you for the death or injury of a perpetrator shot while defending yourself, other people or your property, c) remove the ability for local agencies to pre-empt state laws.
It's not going to create a "Wild West" war zone (just like the Concealed Carry Law didn't). It's not going to make any really radical changes for law-abiding citizens.
For criminals and liberals, it may be the end of the world as they know it. Good! The rest of us don't like their world.

Well said, herb.

[BonnieBlue]

Originally Posted by Shooterman

Well said, herb.

DITTO! I for one am not going to stop and think about the results of my actions if me or one of my loved ones is threatened.....on my property, in my home. If someone is stupid enough to try........they better say their prayers. I do love Dowling's line.......the reasonable Texan never retreats.

[Woodmonkey]

"It is fundamental that honest, law-abiding citizens know the law is on their side if ever they are faced with danger from criminal attack," said Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist in Washington, D.C.

It should be fundamental, but isn't in a lot of states.

But critics deride it as a "shoot-to-kill" bill that allows for more violence and removes a tool from prosecutors.

< snip >

Jerry Dowling, a criminal justice professor at Sam Houston State University, said state law already protects self-defense of life and property, particularly in one's home, or castle.

Are people protected from defending their businesses?

Hamm said the courts are quite capable of deciding what is justifiable force.

"The police, prosecutors and juries decide whether you acted in legitimate self-defense," Hamm said. "That system works."

That's a problem right there, at least for me. Why should a law-abiding person who defended themselves from criminals have to bear the expense of getting a lawyer and going to trial?

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by herbstin

The goal of the "Castle" Bill (here in Texas) is to: a) change defensive actions to non-prosecutable, b) remove the ability for anyone to sue you for the death or injury of a perpetrator shot while defending yourself, other people or your property, c) remove the ability for local agencies to pre-empt state laws.

< snip >

For criminals and liberals, it may be the end of the world as they know it. Good! The rest of us don't like their world.

That's the way things should be.

[BonnieBlue]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

That's the way things should be.

Yeppers