Is an apt. a castle?

jag2 · February 26, 2019, 04:54 PM

I heard part of a report on the radio, I think it was here in Dallas. A man living in an apartment heard a noise outside and went out to find someone stealing his rims and tires. He shot and killed the man. I guess the question is, is that parking lot part of his castle. The point was the the "castle doctrine" may not be a defense. I would think that this situation has come up before but perhaps not in a state that had the castle doctrine defense available. Comments?

Schlitz 45 · February 26, 2019, 05:05 PM

Can’t speak for Texas but in Colorado it would be a murder charge. Inside the apartment or car you’re in your “castle”, outside in a public parking lot theft alone is not a reason to use deadly force.

jag2 · February 26, 2019, 05:13 PM

If it was his house and the car was in his driveway would your answer be the same? If it was his house and someone broke into his attached garage to get at his car would your answer be the same?

**44 AMP** · February 26, 2019, 05:51 PM

First, you need to be clear what the "Castle Doctrine" defense is, and what it is not. It is one of the most MISUNDERSTOOD phrases thrown around today.

In most general terms, the castle doctrine does not turn a bad shoot into a good shoot, it does not authorize you to shoot or anything like that.

The point of "a man's home is his castle" in this case is about your "duty to retreat". Before "castle doctrine" became established in modern law, many places had a legally required duty to retreat, even in your own home.

The castle doctrine protects defensive shooters from being charged with "failing to retreat". Castle doctrine refers to your home, your "castle" be it a house, a tent, or even if you're living in your car.

"Stand your ground" laws, often confused with the castle doctrine are very similar, but cover you anywhere you have a lawful right to be. And again, they don't empower or authorize you to shoot, what they do is protect you from being prosecuted for not retreating.

Retreating from a confrontation, if possible is nearly always the prudent course. What Castle doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws intended to fix is people being prosecuted even when retreat was not possible or practical.

They have NOTHING to do with whether or not you are justified shooting, though many think they do.

In the case mentioned, going OUT of you home, into the parking lot seems to me to be a key point. One is allowed to use deadly force defending oneself, and others, but usually not defending property.

If you're trying to stop a guy who's stealing your tires, and he attacks you, it gets tricksy in the legal sense, because its possible that it could be ruled that YOU were the aggressor and instigated the incident, and if so, self defense isn't an allowed defense.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 26, 2019, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44_AMP

In the case mentioned, going OUT of you home, into the parking lot seems to me to be a key point. One is allowed to use deadly force defending oneself, and others, but usually not defending property.

Except that in Texas, at night, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent the theft of property. I'm pretty certain that Texas is unique in that.

5whiskey · February 26, 2019, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Except that in Texas, at night, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent the theft of property. I'm pretty certain that Texas is unique in that.

Correct that is legal in Texas, and that Texas is unique in that. This conversation likely has no bearing anywhere but Texas. Even expanded castle doctrine wouldn't cover someone stealing rims in your driveway unless you confronted them and then felt threatened in response. I doubt expanded castle doctrine would recognize an apartment parking lot, which is much more like a public vehicular area than a private property (depending on circumstance, controlled access gated communities would be different).

Even in Texas, this is not a circumstance I would place myself in. I don't see any wrong in confronting someone trying to steal rims from your car, but not automatically with deadly force. If you say "scram or I'm calling the cops," and they turn to you with tire tools and mean looks, well then you do what you gotta do. Still wouldn't want to have to defend myself against it.

TXAZ · February 27, 2019, 12:02 AM

“Even if it’s (your shooting someone to protect life or property) a good shoot, it’s stull going to cost you thousands in legal fees. If it’s a bad shoot...”

Sage advice from a gun use defense lawyer.

Be careful the criteria of pulling the trigger.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 27, 2019, 07:59 AM

Regarding the use of lethal force to defend property in Texas (and vehicle burglary):
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=588091

One of the legal concepts in using lethal force to defend yourself is that you must have a reasonable, immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury to use lethal force in
self defense. In many places, this used to include a requirement that you retreat if you can do so safely.

Castle doctrine says when someone who is not an invited guest or resident tries to forcibly enter your home (and in Texas, also your vehicle), we are just going to presume that you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury from that person absent other evidence to the contrary.

Stand your ground says that when you are in a public place where you have a legal right to be, you don’t have to attempt to retreat first to establish that reasonable fear. This came about because juries were deciding things after the fact with all the evidence and hours to discuss that the person had to decide in fractions of a second based on what they knew - and second guessing whether otherwise obvious victims could retreat safely was happening.

dogtown tom · February 27, 2019, 11:01 AM

Quote:

jag2 I heard part of a report on the radio, I think it was here in Dallas. A man living in an apartment heard a noise outside and went out to find someone stealing his rims and tires. He shot and killed the man. I guess the question is, is that parking lot part of his castle. The point was the the "castle doctrine" may not be a defense. I would think that this situation has come up before but perhaps not in a state that had the castle doctrine defense available. Comments?

Here's one news story on the incident the OP is referring to:https://www.dallasnews.com/news/gran...eal-rims-tires
Some DFW media have reported the story differently....that the shooter was not not stopping the theft of HIS property, but that of his neighbors.
Radio reports cited an "expert" saying that this is may not be protected under "Castle Doctrine" laws in Texas.

For a similar case Google "Joe Horn". A man in Houston who shot two scumbags burglarizing his neighbors home.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 27, 2019, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

Some DFW media have reported the story differently....that the shooter was not not stopping the theft of HIS property, but that of his neighbors.
Radio reports cited an "expert" saying that this is may not be protected under "Castle Doctrine" laws in Texas.

The use of deadly force to protect property would not be covered by a "castle doctrine" law anyway. That said, the Texas law (which Bartholomew Roberts provided a link to) does seem to stipulate that the property you are protecting must be your own. I'll reproduce BR's citation of the actual text of the law from the discussion to which he linked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Penal Code

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.

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.

**4V50 Gary** · February 27, 2019, 11:49 AM

Years ago in recent memory Nevada allowed deadly force to protect chattel. Not any more.

I like the common law, but it's been pushed aside in favor of statutory law.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 27, 2019, 01:07 PM

Texas law does allow the use of lethal force to protect a third person’s property. I didn’t get into that as it is more complex and I was trying to keep the post digestible. The use of lethal force to protect a third person’s property is section 9.43 of the Penal Code. You must still meet the requirements of 9.41 and 9.42, as well as the additional limitations in 9.43. Suffice it to say, you are undertaking substantial legal risk in using deadly force to protect your OWN property, let alone a third person’s.

To give one example, use of force to protect property from burglary can be done at any time. Use of force to protect property against theft is only legal during nighttime. So the legal classification of how your property is being stolen is an important detail.

While castle doctrine is extended to vehicles in Texas, you’d have to be occupying the vehicle for the doctrine to be an issue. Road rager tries to forcibly enter your vehicle at a red light? There may be a castle doctrine issue. Guy smashes the window of your unoccupied vehicle and steals the stereo? No castle doctrine issue.

For some reason, the media likes to focus on these irrelevancies in discussing shooting stories. The guy will be on the ground with his attacker on top of him smashing his head into the concrete and they’ll breathlessly discuss “Stand your ground” laws even though the person couldn’t retreat period, let alone safely.

On Joe Horn, he was super fortunate to have a plainclothes detective parked across the street who witnessed the whole thing and testified in front of the grand jury that the men charged Horn and veered away at the last minute. That gave the grand jury a reason to consider self-defense instead of defense of a third person’s property (which would have been a much stickier question).

dogtown tom · February 27, 2019, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Aguila Blanca Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Some DFW media have reported the story differently....that the shooter was not not stopping the theft of HIS property, but that of his neighbors.
Radio reports cited an "expert" saying that this is may not be protected under "Castle Doctrine" laws in Texas.

The use of deadly force to protect property would not be covered by a "castle doctrine" law anyway.

No kidding.

February 26, 2019, 04:54 PM	#1
jag2 Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 2009 Location: dallas Posts: 773	Is an apt. a castle? I heard part of a report on the radio, I think it was here in Dallas. A man living in an apartment heard a noise outside and went out to find someone stealing his rims and tires. He shot and killed the man. I guess the question is, is that parking lot part of his castle. The point was the the "castle doctrine" may not be a defense. I would think that this situation has come up before but perhaps not in a state that had the castle doctrine defense available. Comments?

February 26, 2019, 05:05 PM	#2
Schlitz 45 Senior Member Join Date: January 14, 2018 Location: Colorado Posts: 384	Can’t speak for Texas but in Colorado it would be a murder charge. Inside the apartment or car you’re in your “castle”, outside in a public parking lot theft alone is not a reason to use deadly force. Last edited by Schlitz 45; February 26, 2019 at 05:12 PM.

February 26, 2019, 05:51 PM	#4
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,813	First, you need to be clear what the "Castle Doctrine" defense is, and what it is not. It is one of the most MISUNDERSTOOD phrases thrown around today. In most general terms, the castle doctrine does not turn a bad shoot into a good shoot, it does not authorize you to shoot or anything like that. The point of "a man's home is his castle" in this case is about your "duty to retreat". Before "castle doctrine" became established in modern law, many places had a legally required duty to retreat, even in your own home. The castle doctrine protects defensive shooters from being charged with "failing to retreat". Castle doctrine refers to your home, your "castle" be it a house, a tent, or even if you're living in your car. "Stand your ground" laws, often confused with the castle doctrine are very similar, but cover you anywhere you have a lawful right to be. And again, they don't empower or authorize you to shoot, what they do is protect you from being prosecuted for not retreating. Retreating from a confrontation, if possible is nearly always the prudent course. What Castle doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws intended to fix is people being prosecuted even when retreat was not possible or practical. They have NOTHING to do with whether or not you are justified shooting, though many think they do. In the case mentioned, going OUT of you home, into the parking lot seems to me to be a key point. One is allowed to use deadly force defending oneself, and others, but usually not defending property. If you're trying to stop a guy who's stealing your tires, and he attacks you, it gets tricksy in the legal sense, because its possible that it could be ruled that YOU were the aggressor and instigated the incident, and if so, self defense isn't an allowed defense. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

February 27, 2019, 12:02 AM	#7
TXAZ Senior Member Join Date: September 5, 2010 Location: McMurdo Sound Texas Posts: 4,322	“Even if it’s (your shooting someone to protect life or property) a good shoot, it’s stull going to cost you thousands in legal fees. If it’s a bad shoot...” Sage advice from a gun use defense lawyer. Be careful the criteria of pulling the trigger. __________________ Cave illos in guns et backhoes

February 27, 2019, 11:49 AM	#11
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,831	Years ago in recent memory Nevada allowed deadly force to protect chattel. Not any more. I like the common law, but it's been pushed aside in favor of statutory law. __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

February 26, 2019, 05:13 PM	#3
jag2 Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 2009 Location: dallas Posts: 773	If it was his house and the car was in his driveway would your answer be the same? If it was his house and someone broke into his attached garage to get at his car would your answer be the same?

February 27, 2019, 07:59 AM	#8
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Regarding the use of lethal force to defend property in Texas (and vehicle burglary): https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=588091 One of the legal concepts in using lethal force to defend yourself is that you must have a reasonable, immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury to use lethal force in self defense. In many places, this used to include a requirement that you retreat if you can do so safely. Castle doctrine says when someone who is not an invited guest or resident tries to forcibly enter your home (and in Texas, also your vehicle), we are just going to presume that you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury from that person absent other evidence to the contrary. Stand your ground says that when you are in a public place where you have a legal right to be, you don’t have to attempt to retreat first to establish that reasonable fear. This came about because juries were deciding things after the fact with all the evidence and hours to discuss that the person had to decide in fractions of a second based on what they knew - and second guessing whether otherwise obvious victims could retreat safely was happening.

February 27, 2019, 01:07 PM	#12
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Texas law does allow the use of lethal force to protect a third person’s property. I didn’t get into that as it is more complex and I was trying to keep the post digestible. The use of lethal force to protect a third person’s property is section 9.43 of the Penal Code. You must still meet the requirements of 9.41 and 9.42, as well as the additional limitations in 9.43. Suffice it to say, you are undertaking substantial legal risk in using deadly force to protect your OWN property, let alone a third person’s. To give one example, use of force to protect property from burglary can be done at any time. Use of force to protect property against theft is only legal during nighttime. So the legal classification of how your property is being stolen is an important detail. While castle doctrine is extended to vehicles in Texas, you’d have to be occupying the vehicle for the doctrine to be an issue. Road rager tries to forcibly enter your vehicle at a red light? There may be a castle doctrine issue. Guy smashes the window of your unoccupied vehicle and steals the stereo? No castle doctrine issue. For some reason, the media likes to focus on these irrelevancies in discussing shooting stories. The guy will be on the ground with his attacker on top of him smashing his head into the concrete and they’ll breathlessly discuss “Stand your ground” laws even though the person couldn’t retreat period, let alone safely. On Joe Horn, he was super fortunate to have a plainclothes detective parked across the street who witnessed the whole thing and testified in front of the grand jury that the men charged Horn and veered away at the last minute. That gave the grand jury a reason to consider self-defense instead of defense of a third person’s property (which would have been a much stickier question).