Sometimes

one eyed fatman · Post by **one eyed fatman** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:23 pm

Sometime I'm not to good at explaining my view of the law in other threads so I thought I might try explaining it in my own thread. I'm going to post a law here (cut and paste) and then tell you my thoughts on what it means to me. Then you guys can go at it and tell me if you think I'm crazy or not. OK here goes...

(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

Well there's the law. Now how would I interpret this? After reading it my first thoughts are this was written by someone fresh off the funny farm. But I guess a lot of other people think this as well or they wouldn't keep coming here to try and figure the law out. Basically what this law tells me is that this is the first part of a very large jigsaw puzzle (to be solved in court). Figuring out what it means is just the first part of figuring out the rest of the puzzle. It's not the whole law just the basis for the rest of the law which has not been decided yet. In other words I could read this law to ten people and ask them what it means to them and I would get ten different answers. It really wasn't written to be understood it was written to be debated. That's how I interpret this law. So am I crazy?

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:41 pm

It was not written to be debated. It is clear to me.

It is from the use of force statutes regarding deadly force in defense of a person.

One of the requirements imposed by the law is that you can only use deadly force is a reasonable preson in the same situation would not have retreated, (as evidenced in the examples I gave in the prior thread) which is what (a)(2) says.

so the section you quoted simply means that the requirement to retreat does not apply to you if the person you were defending yourself from had unlawfully entered your habitation.

bauerdj · Post by **bauerdj** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:47 pm

If the BG broke into your house you are not required to retreat - whats so hard about that? Note that all other DF requirements still exist which is not the same as a "castle" law (which we need).

Dave B.

one eyed fatman · Post by **one eyed fatman** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:19 pm

You guys are missing the point. I'm not talking about just that law but the laws as a whole. Sure you can understand some of the laws but as a rule we usually hire a lawyer because they debate the law in court where people can end up in prison. Here on the forum if you make a mistake the most that can happen is somebody gets mad. I'm never going to think I know the law. I could end up in prison if I do.

Now I ask you this. You shoot and wound a BG that broke into your house. He hires the best lawyer he can find. What's that lawyers strategy going to be?

The best defense lawyers are going to take you to court and attack you just the way the BG did. He's going to make the whole thing look like it's your fault and he's going to use the law, tricky and deceit to do it because they know the law alone won't win the case.

Photoman · Post by **Photoman** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:33 pm

We have to make our estimation and hope for the best. Even if you think you know what it means, a judge and jury will be the ones who decide.

And when the cops show up...please...don't say anything until you have your lawyer with you!

one eyed fatman · Post by **one eyed fatman** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:41 pm

Very true Photoman.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:56 pm

one eyed fatman wrote:You guys are missing the point. I'm not talking about just that law but the laws as a whole. Sure you can understand some of the laws but as a rule we usually hire a lawyer because they debate the law in court where people can end up in prison. Here on the forum if you make a mistake the most that can happen is somebody gets mad. I'm never going to think I know the law. I could end up in prison if I do.

NO, YOU MISS THE POINT. Most of the law is quite simple. I still don't get how I can understand this stuff, yet you insist OTHERS don't "get it".

Now I ask you this. You shoot and wound a BG that broke into your house. He hires the best lawyer he can find. What's that lawyers strategy going to be?

Depends upon the circumstances, doesn't it? If HE hires an attorney, its civil, and I am not really worried about it. The law says that EVEN if you are justified under chapter 9, you can be sued and LOSE. Criminal and civil are different.

The best defense lawyers are going to take you to court and attack you just the way the BG did.

Umm, no I hire the defense lawyer. If I am charged criminally, I hire a defense lawyer. If He sues me, he is the plaintiff, and I hire a defense lawyer. You CLEARLY don't understand this stuff.

He's going to make the whole thing look like it's your fault and he's going to use the law, tricky and deceit to do it because they know the law alone won't win the case.

And the boogeyman is real.

KRM45 · Post by **KRM45** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:19 am

txinvestigator wrote: NO, YOU MISS THE POINT. Most of the law is quite simple. I still don't get how I can understand this stuff, yet you insist OTHERS don't "get it".

I'm not sure how he can miss the point of his own post...

I agree that knowing as much about the law as possible is a good thing, but the application of the law is something different entirely. In the end a jury will decide if what you did was criminal or not.

It's my opinion that if you come off as a know-it-all jerk in front of them you will not score any points.

kw5kw · Post by **kw5kw** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:47 am

I am not al lawyer, yet I understand it.

(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor This will not apply to me if I am the one... who uses force against a person (a.k.a. Bad Guy who is breaking into my home) who is at the time of the use of force (I am using force against the BG who's breaking into my home) committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor. ... I am the actor who used force against a BG who has broken into my home!

IOW: "If the BG breaks into my house I can use force against said BG."

kw5kw · Post by **kw5kw** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:48 am

KRM45 wrote: In the end a jury will decide if what you did was criminal or not.

It's my opinion that if you come off as a know-it-all jerk in front of them you will not score any points.

Have you ever served on a jury?

Post by **Crossfire** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:25 am

txinvestigator wrote: And the boogeyman is real.

Give it up Tx. You can't argue with a weiner dog. Just like you can''t wrestle with a pig.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:49 am

KRM45 wrote:
txinvestigator wrote: NO, YOU MISS THE POINT. Most of the law is quite simple. I still don't get how I can understand this stuff, yet you insist OTHERS don't "get it".
I'm not sure how he can miss the point of his own post...

I agree that knowing as much about the law as possible is a good thing, but the application of the law is something different entirely. In the end a jury will decide if what you did was criminal or not.

It's my opinion that if you come off as a know-it-all jerk in front of them you will not score any points.

Did you just call me a know-it-all-jerk?

My wife HAS said that when she met me, she thought I was Mr. Right, but now after all of these years she realizes it was actually "Mr. Always Right"

Application is not different or difficult.

Your statement about the jury, in the context of this thread, cearly shows you don't know how trials work, or you just made a goofy statement to allow you to throw an insult at me.

However, I am not offended.

If you know the law you can apply it and behave in a manner that could keep you from goung to a jury. If you HAVE to use deadly force and the person dies, acting within the law will mean the Grand Jury can no-bill you and you will never get to trial.

To just throw up your arms and decry, "well, a jury is going to decide anyway, so what the heck!" is defeatist.

Have a great day!!

GrillKing · Post by **GrillKing** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:07 pm

kw5kw wrote: Have you ever served on a jury?

I have served on a jury where we convicted a person who was subsequently made a guest of the state of Texas for the rest of his life. I can assure you that I and every one on that jury took our job seriously. We weighed the evidence, followed the instructions of the court and convicted a person because the evidence indicated their guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. (We were also amazed after the trial when the prosecutors showed us the even more compelling evidence they couldn't use for technical, legal reasons.)

I think most people will do the same. I try to learn and understand the law as it pertains to the use of deadly force, visualize in my mind what I would do in various scenarios, when I would draw and fire and when I would not. I believe that I will do the right thing and will prevail if I'm ever criminally charged or sued in civil court.

KRM45 · Post by **KRM45** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:28 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
KRM45 wrote:
txinvestigator wrote: NO, YOU MISS THE POINT. Most of the law is quite simple. I still don't get how I can understand this stuff, yet you insist OTHERS don't "get it".
I'm not sure how he can miss the point of his own post...

I agree that knowing as much about the law as possible is a good thing, but the application of the law is something different entirely. In the end a jury will decide if what you did was criminal or not.

It's my opinion that if you come off as a know-it-all jerk in front of them you will not score any points.
Did you just call me a know-it-all-jerk? My wife HAS said that when she met me, she thought I was Mr. Right, but now after all of these years she realizes it was actually "Mr. Always Right"

Application is not different or difficult.

Your statement about the jury, in the context of this thread, cearly shows you don't know how trials work, or you just made a goofy statement to allow you to throw an insult at me.

However, I am not offended.

If you know the law you can apply it and behave in a manner that could keep you from goung to a jury. If you HAVE to use deadly force and the person dies, acting within the law will mean the Grand Jury can no-bill you and you will never get to trial.

To just throw up your arms and decry, "well, a jury is going to decide anyway, so what the heck!" is defeatist.

Have a great day!!

I had no intention of offending you... I just think that it is very likely that when this BG goes to trial for breaking into your house his defense attorney will call you as a witness and try to attack you just like the original poster suggested.

No, I have never served on a jury, but I have seen juries acquit people that were probably guilty (OJ? Micheal Jackson?). I was not suggesting they will fabricate a crime to convict you of, my thought was the other side of the coin.

That's the point I thought the poster was referring to. That's why I thought it was odd that you would be so adamant that he missed the point of his own post...

one eyed fatman · Post by **one eyed fatman** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:09 pm

It's totally OK to read and understand the law but I doubt a jury or grand jury is really going to care. The BG's lawyer isn't going to be impressed either. Nor a judge. After all they have read the law too and they may have a different opinion of the laws than you do. A jury is also going to get a set of instructions from the judge. At no time are they going to ask your opinion of the law. Oh ya, your own lawyer isn't going to care about your outlook on the law either, that's his job.