Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasProgresive

(12,739 posts)
53. In any case this happened at 5:30AM
Fri Sep 19, 2014, 04:21 PM
Sep 2014

I would call that night, even though I am up at 5AM every morning even when I don't have to.


§ 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,


But 9.31 1A does not seem to restrict to night time if there is forced entry into dwelling, vehicle or place of business. It does say "unlawfully" entered but how is one to know that it is L.E.O. forcing entry-especially if one is awoken by breaking glass or wood?

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

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; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Oh fuck, it's Texas BuelahWitch Sep 2014 #1
Hey, I only live in Texas for Ruben's Homemade Tamales in San Antonio. Rozlee Sep 2014 #61
Come to the Bay Area KamaAina Sep 2014 #65
OMG! I have had those... yuiyoshida Sep 2014 #70
Texas and California have always been frenemies over Mexican food. Rozlee Sep 2014 #76
Tamales Lilianas in East LA DBoon Sep 2014 #101
You can live in WA too marlakay Sep 2014 #106
Sadly because he was SWB, LibertyLover Sep 2014 #85
The picture wasn't neccessary. The decision to prosecute identified a Non-White citizen. nt TheBlackAdder Sep 2014 #104
In a similar Texas case, the homeowner/shooter/cop killer was not indicted. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2014 #2
Even your own property is not sacred for African-Americans malaise Sep 2014 #12
Sad situation.... Zeteticus Sep 2014 #25
Clearly, another marijuana-related death. Damansarajaya Sep 2014 #63
Public Trials billhicks76 Sep 2014 #84
Isnt this the same? hughee99 Sep 2014 #74
Apples to Apples and this person DID have drugs, the man wont walk cause he's black... uponit7771 Sep 2014 #82
Not Similar at ALL: In that case the homeowner was WHITE SorellaLaBefana Sep 2014 #91
Hee hee - he said "peace officer" Elmer S. E. Dump Sep 2014 #96
Gosh I thought Texas was a stand your ground State. gordianot Sep 2014 #3
You mean a Stand Your Ground If You Are White state AZ Progressive Sep 2014 #24
It's pretty clear that that's what they really mean! FiveGoodMen Sep 2014 #54
Great....a new acronym It's A Stand Your Ground If You Are White State. I.A.S.Y.G.I.Y.A.W.S.! VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #78
In spite of living in Texas you do not get to stand your ground. gordianot Sep 2014 #4
But Texans have a right to use lethal force to protect property. TexasProgresive Sep 2014 #16
Lethal force to protect property can only be used at the nighttime while on the property. Dustlawyer Sep 2014 #23
And while white. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #33
+1 uponit7771 Sep 2014 #81
Can you cite the law, please? TexasProgresive Sep 2014 #39
I don't have the statute in front of me but you can Google it. Self defense of immediate serious Dustlawyer Sep 2014 #52
In any case this happened at 5:30AM TexasProgresive Sep 2014 #53
Evidently the nighttime requirement has been dropped. I was quoting the basics from memory Dustlawyer Sep 2014 #69
There's an exception for persons engaged in unlawful activity. Also, there's a cop provision. Shrike47 Sep 2014 #93
My question is: in the wee hours of the night when a person is awoken by a break in TexasProgresive Sep 2014 #97
Sounds like a "good shoot" to me pscot Sep 2014 #5
This happens all the time, often for drugs, and often on faulty evidence. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #6
Why would they want to do a no knock raid in the middle of the night? Maraya1969 Sep 2014 #7
Besides ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #18
That really wouldn't help if the toilet tank was already full. iscooterliberally Sep 2014 #29
You'd only get one flush, and it wouldnt be a full flush either. 7962 Sep 2014 #32
It would prevent more than one flush, though. eom 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #35
You can shut off the sewer too. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #50
Why would they no-knock raid someone for minor drug possession? killbotfactory Sep 2014 #42
because he's........black? heaven05 Sep 2014 #88
Hey! They might flush Feral Child Sep 2014 #46
JIC I wasn't clear Feral Child Sep 2014 #107
If I am on that jury he walks! nt Logical Sep 2014 #8
Yup! nt avebury Sep 2014 #15
I'd vote for him to walk, too. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #37
Perfect time to use jury nullification in this case! The whole community should talk about this! cascadiance Sep 2014 #77
Time to start a petition at Care2. Milliesmom Sep 2014 #9
This was entirely predictable. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #10
YEP dembotoz Sep 2014 #13
If Zimmerman was set free, this guy should be free with no problems. "Stand Your Ground?" kelliekat44 Sep 2014 #11
+1 Enthusiast Sep 2014 #59
"The officers were looking for drugs, yet none were found in the home." valerief Sep 2014 #14
True. nt Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #26
oh god toby jo Sep 2014 #17
80,000 SWAT raids a year Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #19
Right on! Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #38
No-knock raids should be illegal LittleBlue Sep 2014 #20
Totally. 99th_Monkey Sep 2014 #21
My cop "friend" says they DO announce, but at the same time they hit the door. I dont buy it. 7962 Sep 2014 #30
They didn't announce for this poor kid. iscooterliberally Sep 2014 #36
I have never seen that web site before lunasun Sep 2014 #72
it is a war of american citizens noiretextatique Sep 2014 #95
Neighbors claim they did not identify themselves? yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #103
It was a condo, and some of the neighbors where actually outside when it all started. iscooterliberally Sep 2014 #109
That's like turning on your blinker only when you've already started changing lanes. winter is coming Sep 2014 #49
Sort of like this incident... xocet Sep 2014 #79
I agree, and the controlled substances act needs to go. The DEA too. n/t iscooterliberally Sep 2014 #31
Couldn't agree more. malthaussen Sep 2014 #41
As far as I am concerned they are illegal. nm rhett o rick Sep 2014 #56
WTF? SoapBox Sep 2014 #22
Conservatives: "Self-defense is only for white conservatives defending against crimes by minorities" bluestateguy Sep 2014 #27
Even if their only "crime" is having the wrong skin color. nt tblue37 Sep 2014 #48
Coming in thru a WINDOW?? Anyone would suspect a burglar. 7962 Sep 2014 #28
Agreed , my first thought is he probably thought someone was breaking in. cstanleytech Sep 2014 #73
if this goes bad in court, sounds like Presidential Pardon material for sure tomm2thumbs Sep 2014 #34
The president can't pardon people convicted in state court. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2014 #60
Hopefully Separation Sep 2014 #40
When conservative extremes collide: armed citizens vs militarized police n/t Matrosov Sep 2014 #43
You are only permitted to stand your ground onecaliberal Sep 2014 #44
Figures it's Texas. Hulk Sep 2014 #45
Something good happened in Texas today KamaAina Sep 2014 #47
you should have just posted the picture first JI7 Sep 2014 #51
Actually the picture wasn't necessary. nm rhett o rick Sep 2014 #55
the picture explains why he is being charged JI7 Sep 2014 #58
I understand. My point is that we could have guessed w/o the picture. rhett o rick Sep 2014 #67
Reminds me of this... FiveGoodMen Sep 2014 #57
I really liked that show. It was underappreciated and should have been around longer. corkhead Sep 2014 #86
Yeah, it was good. FiveGoodMen Sep 2014 #90
I'm shocked the guy's alive! BobbyBoring Sep 2014 #62
Police are special people, they don't live by the same rules serfs live by. Rex Sep 2014 #64
Do they record these raids in Texas? If so, who would have the video? Could the defense see it? n/t xocet Sep 2014 #80
The cops are required to share with the defense. christx30 Sep 2014 #89
Something similar almost happened in MN: no-knock raid, homeowner with a shotgun NickB79 Sep 2014 #66
This is SOP GETPLANING Sep 2014 #68
I hope the SPLC and the ACLU jen63 Sep 2014 #71
Where is the NRA? DBoon Sep 2014 #102
You would think. jen63 Sep 2014 #105
Sooooo fucking sick of The War on (Some People with Some) Drugs. kath Sep 2014 #75
Cops make up the "rules" as they go. The homeowners were within their right to shoot these intruders blkmusclmachine Sep 2014 #83
Texas, it figures heaven05 Sep 2014 #87
It is imperative that Guy is found innocent. Baitball Blogger Sep 2014 #92
you mean Guy...Dinwiddie was the cop who was killed eom noiretextatique Sep 2014 #98
Sorry! Thanks for the correction. Baitball Blogger Sep 2014 #100
Breathing while black Elmer S. E. Dump Sep 2014 #94
I hope real justice prevails, PumpkinAle Sep 2014 #99
Well, obviously the guy belongs in jail. krispos42 Sep 2014 #108
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Man Shoots at Intruders, ...»Reply #53