As a peace officer, what is your opinion of the new "Castle Doctrine" law in Texas?

Answer 1

Lot of folks misunderstand what the law allows. Some seem to think that the law allows you to strap on a gun and go hunting for bad guys. It doesn't.

Basically the law does three things:

1. It establishes, in law, the PRESUMPTION that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or OCCUPIED vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force against that intruder.

2. It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you REASONABLY believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

3. It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.

As a cop I have no problem with this law. The problem is the people who misinterpet it. One person, answering a simlar question, said he could shoot someone trying to steal his car and he would be protected under this law. Wrong! It must be an OCCUPIED vehicle. If he comes out of the local Wal Mart and sees some guy trying to steal his car and he pulls out is trusty .44 mag. and kills him, he is going to jail. Only if he or another person is actually in the car, can he fire on that person.

The duty to retreat is another misconception. Granted you do not have to run from an attack. But that does not mean you have the right to kill EVERYONE who attacks you. Say you are a 25 year old, prime of your life, healthy dude, and an 80 year old demented man attacks you with his walker. You are not going to get away with shooting him to death. No one is going to accept that you REASONABLY believed that killing an 80 man was necessary to save your life. You can take away the walker; and if the old guy falls down and breaks a hip, that is acceptable. It is a reasonable response to the attack. You can meet force with force, but deadly force is not necessary all the time.

The last misconception is that the law protects you against prosecution and civil suits. It doesn't. It is a DEFENSE against a charge but does not prohibit a prosecutor from charging you with a murder by saying your killing was outside the castle doctrine. A judge and jury decide that.

These kinds of laws need to be fully understood by folks who are going to depend on them.

Answer 2

You know here in Texas even in central Texas it may take an officer up to 45 mins to get to the scene of a crime or ect.
So why would anyone have a problem with the idea of one defending his personal property with out having to take a cowering roll.
It's really no big deal with the laws we have now
I was in fear of serious bodily harm or the fear of an others life being threatened.
Let me put it to you this way, If I am driving my truck down the road with a rifle in it like most of the time, and I see you fighting with a man that you have pulled over and he has taken procession of your pistol. Now clearly he is no threat to me because I am to far away, so would you rather I-
A- keep driving and watch you get plugged with your own gun
B- Stop pull out my rifle and drop the man in his tracks
C- pull out a video camera and video it to sell to the networks
well what will it be
Now I know just about all of the PD,SO,DPS, and other officer in our county and I don't think a one of them would say a word for me or someone else defending their home, life, or property. I will not back off and let some dirt bag do that to me.

Answer 3

1A. you would be unable to shoot him,yet whacking the crap out of him with the shotgun to make a electorate Arrest (And to quit him for doubtlessly achieving a weapon) is actual criminal. 1B. Shoot away. Shoot to kill. 1C. See 1B. 2A. Nope. carry your hearth. 2B. NOW shoot him. 2C. What the hell are you waiting for,an invitation? Blast away. via the way,I see not something in 1C that asserts the owner of a house grew to become into overpowered. you will desire to not probably be from Texas,everyone is conscious a gun of ANY variety is a stand-off weapon. You stand way off and enable 'em have it,the two barrels. Or,in my case,all 13 rounds in the clip.

Answer 4

You mean shoot first and ask questions later?

I don't have a big problem with it other that immediate confrontation is probably not the best answer.That is how people get killed! It seems few people are presented with that type of situation. It would seem that the killing of innocent people could be higher than those of perpetrators!

Doesn't also allow anyone to carry a concealed weapon! If it does, I have big issues with that as you have no idea who is carrying them. If licensed at least they have had a police check!

Answer 5

Sounds fair to me. There is usually no good reason to be someplace that you don't own and trying to get in. If you know the consequences before you act you are 100% liable for the result you receive.

Answer 6

A damn good idea. Allows people to protect themselves and, if they're a good enough shot, saves the tax-payers a lot of money by eliminating the need for a trial.