TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...the law doesn't say a word about the door jamb...it even says "...or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force..." so someone just opening the door and walking in would not be automatically covered under 9.31, and someone who had not yet gotten in could very well be...

That's not my understanding of how the law is applied. From what my son was told in the police academy, they don't have to break a lock or window or kick in a door, just turning the knob on a closed door --when that person is uninvited and has no right to enter the property-- is considered "force."

...it makes sense that if they came in a window or pried a door...it'd be unlawfully...and with force...but I don't know if the effort to come in a door in a normal manner (turning the knob) is considered "force" in the law...effort is expended, yes...but that's a physics lesson...not law...I'd say it's really important for us to know the correct answer...and the law or court precedent to back it up...would your son be able/willing to dig out his notes for all our benefit??? I've dug around the net and looked in the PC definition list...haven't found it explained...
...if it couldn't be done unlawfully WITHOUT force, the law wouldn't read "...unlawfully and with force..."...needs some clarifying...maybe a Texas LEO can chime in and help us...

PC §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;
...........incomplete citation..............

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force
was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is
presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the deadly 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 an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
..............Incomplete citation.........

stroguy wrote:Door jam law. Individual passes the door jam is a trespasser and will receive maximum threat control. I'm not waiting to see if they have a weapon in their belt.

RoyGBiv wrote:Burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime do not require a broken door jamb.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: During the debate on SB378, one of the Senators stated that he too didn't like the "with force" requirement and he too gave the example of a burglar opening an unlocked door and coming in. Quite by accident, one of the ADA's gave testimony that was helpful. He testified that, for purposes of unlawful entry, burglary, etc., pushing a door open constitutes the use of force. When he said this, I looked around the room and all of the criminal attorneys (prosecutors and defense lawyers) were nodding their heads in agreement. Even Sen. Henajosa, a criminal defense attorney, agreed. This went a long way toward easing my concern about the "with force" requirement.

speedsix wrote:...and ELB has just nailed that for us...thanks much!!!

remington79 wrote:Speedsix, to muddle the issue further (it's been a few years since I lived in Texas) but in Idaho if someone goes into a store with the intent to steal (during open business hours) they are charged with Burglary. There is even a section of the code that states this.

tboesche wrote:All I have to say on the matter is, "Don't be the guy that enters my house uninvited. You WON"T like my type of hospitality"