DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#31

Post by seamusTX »

pt145ss wrote:Why is it a civil matter?
That's my understanding of the issue. I didn't go to law school and can't explain it.

I'll say as a practical matter that if you threatened to use force on protesters, they would not do what you wanted (particularly in the case of PETA, their sanity is in doubt). If you actually used force, it would be a public relations disaster.

How about those morons who protest at soldiers' funerals? Are they interfering with church or cemetary property?

- Jim

pt145ss
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Austin, TX

#32

Post by pt145ss »

seamusTX wrote:
pt145ss wrote:Why is it a civil matter?
That's my understanding of the issue. I didn't go to law school and can't explain it.

I'll say as a practical matter that if you threatened to use force on protesters, they would not do what you wanted (particularly in the case of PETA, their sanity is in doubt). If you actually used force, it would be a public relations disaster.

How about those morons who protest at soldiers' funerals? Are they interfering with church or cemetary property?

- Jim
I would agree that it would be a nightmare and I would not suggest using force in that situation.

As for the protesters at the church or cemetary. I would just be a patron and not an owner and therefore I do not think TPC 9.41 would apply at all. If I owned the cemetary, it may be a different story.

I guess the point being/or question being is that in certain situations is it plausable that TPC 9.04 could be applied in the scope of TCP 9.41 instead of just applying to TPC 9.31 and if so, does the castle doctrine affect TCP 9.04 as it is applied to TCP 9.41.
User avatar

flb_78
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:17 am
Location: Gravel Switch, KY
Contact:

#33

Post by flb_78 »

seamusTX wrote:
I own property and a medical testing facility that test new medications on animals. PETA decides they are going to protest outside my property possibly chaining their selves together and not allowing anyone to enter the property. At that point, I assume it would be considered interference with the property and force is justified.
I think not. They are probably committing disorderly conduct and the police could arrest them for it, but you cannot.

Interference with the enjoyment of property is a civil issue, and you cannot resolve it by force. You could probably get a restraining order, and they could be arrested and held in contempt later for violating the restraining order.
- Jim
What if they were blocking an exit to the property and you could not leave even after you had asked them to move? Could that be construed as kidnapping?

pt145ss
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Austin, TX

#34

Post by pt145ss »

flb_78 wrote:
seamusTX wrote:
I own property and a medical testing facility that test new medications on animals. PETA decides they are going to protest outside my property possibly chaining their selves together and not allowing anyone to enter the property. At that point, I assume it would be considered interference with the property and force is justified.
I think not. They are probably committing disorderly conduct and the police could arrest them for it, but you cannot.

Interference with the enjoyment of property is a civil issue, and you cannot resolve it by force. You could probably get a restraining order, and they could be arrested and held in contempt later for violating the restraining order.
- Jim
What if they were blocking an exit to the property and you could not leave even after you had asked them to move? Could that be construed as kidnapping?
Might be unlawful confinement but i'm not a lawyer and don't know.
User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#35

Post by seamusTX »

pt145ss wrote:I guess the point being/or question being is that in certain situations is it plausable that TPC 9.04 could be applied in the scope of TCP 9.41 instead of just applying to TPC 9.31 and if so, does the castle doctrine affect TCP 9.04 as it is applied to TCP 9.41.
Since 9.41 allows the use of force to protect property, I think 9.04 allows displaying a weapon when 9.41 allows the use of force.

The question in my mind is what interfering means. Does it mean preventing access to or use of land or buildings? How about creating a nuisance adjacent to my property that makes it impossible for me to use my property?

- Jim

pt145ss
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Austin, TX

#36

Post by pt145ss »

seamusTX wrote:
pt145ss wrote:I guess the point being/or question being is that in certain situations is it plausable that TPC 9.04 could be applied in the scope of TCP 9.41 instead of just applying to TPC 9.31 and if so, does the castle doctrine affect TCP 9.04 as it is applied to TCP 9.41.
Since 9.41 allows the use of force to protect property, I think 9.04 allows displaying a weapon when 9.41 allows the use of force.

The question in my mind is what interfering means. Does it mean preventing access to or use of land or buildings? How about creating a nuisance adjacent to my property that makes it impossible for me to use my property?

- Jim
I do not know what interfering means either. I'm going to have to leave that to someone who is far smarter and more knowledgeable about law than i am to answer that.

frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

#37

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

Just because we carry guns, we shouldn't lose sight of the old adage that, "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail."

To me, if confronted with protesters, whether they are keeping me inside or keeping me outside, the first tool I'm gonna reach for is a telephone.

But note also that when I'm on my own spread I am usually OC'ing. So anyone I approach can see that I am armed without my having to draw on them.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#38

Post by seamusTX »

flb_78 wrote:What if they [protesters] were blocking an exit to the property and you could not leave even after you had asked them to move? Could that be construed as kidnapping?
Sorry I missed this question earlier.

IMHO, that scenario would be unlawful restraint, not kidnapping. Unlawful restraint is a generally a misdemeanor and not by itself a justification for the use of force.

Passive resistance such as chaining oneself to a gate is pretty clever, because it is effective and does not involve the use of force, which would make the action criminal.
PC § 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.

PC § 20.03. KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.

PC § 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person.
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by:
(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found; or
(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.
- Jim

txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

#39

Post by txinvestigator »

seamusTX wrote: IMHO, that scenario would be unlawful restraint, not kidnapping. Unlawful restraint is a generally a misdemeanor and not by itself a justification for the use of force.
Of course it is. Unlawful restraint is force, unlawful force. Deadly force would not be justified, but force is.
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#40

Post by seamusTX »

txinvestigator wrote:Unlawful restraint is force, unlawful force. Deadly force would not be justified, but force is.
Are you saying that blocking someone's path is force? Is the other person then justified in, say, shoving his way past or using pepper spray?

- Jim
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”