TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... crook.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From an article on MySa.com

I guess the "Castle Doctrine" doesn't apply to apartments...that Sucks...guy was protecting his property and is getting kicked out....

Yes it is unfortunate that he will likely get kicked out but it will be because of a violation of his lease and not for defending his home. There is also an article about a couple just getting ready to go to work at 6am and found 2 people attempting to break into their car. The thieves shot at the couple and took off. Burning hatred for these pukes who leach off of folks that are trying to earn a day's honest
pay.

This is the famous free market that some people are so find of. A landlord can prohibit weapons, pets, smoking, barbecue grills, or just about any legal activity.

P.S.: A lot of people don't read their leases, and find out the hard way what the small print says.

- Jim

Well ummmm...... maybe if the apartment complex had tighter security, like a secure gate, or even hire a security guard, the guy wouldn't have to be shooting at people. I can see him being fed up after getting his car broken into that many times. Obviously the apartment management would rather have criminals with guns versus a law abiding citizen with a gun in their complex. Same ol' liberal mind set.

The apartment building owner(s) are more concerned with fostering a feeling of safety than allowing its tenants to take steps in order to be safe.

Hopefully his new residence will be near a range. He needs more practice.

Rokyudai wrote:There is also an article about a couple just getting ready to go to work at 6am and found 2 people attempting to break into their car. The thieves shot at the couple and took off.

I don't believe that justifies the use of deadly force...

My wife and I were just talking about (the soccer dad and) this exact scenario over lunch today.

I believe "attempting to break into a vehicle" does not justify the use of deadly force, but it does justify the use of force according to PC §9.41(a).

Now if they had stolen belongings already in their possession, then yes, deadly force is justified under PC §9.42(a).

I think the same might go for arson, like if you see someone with a gas can standing next to your vehicle, you aren't really justified to use force against them unless they are pouring it on the vehicle or property.

CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM WHAT I'M SAYING HERE??

LCP_Dogg wrote:

Rokyudai wrote:There is also an article about a couple just getting ready to go to work at 6am and found 2 people attempting to break into their car. The thieves shot at the couple and took off.

I don't believe that justifies the use of deadly force...

My wife and I were just talking about (the soccer dad and) this exact scenario over lunch today.

I believe "attempting to break into a vehicle" does not justify the use of deadly force, but it does justify the use of force according to PC §9.41(a).

Now if they had stolen belongings already in their possession, then yes, deadly force is justified under PC §9.42(a).

I think the same might go for arson, like if you see someone with a gas can standing next to your vehicle, you aren't really justified to use force against them unless they are pouring it on the vehicle or property.

CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM WHAT I'M SAYING HERE??

What part of "The THIEVES SHOT AT THE COUPLE" do you think did not warrant the use of deadly force?

Anygunanywhere

*DOH* I totally spaced the "shot at the couple and took off".. WHOOPS!!

OK, let's assume they did NOT pull out a gun and shoot at the couple. THEN am I right?

hmmmm, this has got me to thinking... I live in an apartment complex and I am one of those that just signed the dotted line and did not read the fine print. Oh well, I just hope no one decides to break in, because I will probably be having to move.

-geo

We had a guy in Odessa that shot at a guy attempting to break into his car. His car was across the street, and under a street light. Killed him. The grand jury no billed him.
I honestly think our D.A. is a real big part of these no bills. He's really been good for us.

bryang wrote:hmmmm, this has got me to thinking... I live in an apartment complex and I am one of those that just signed the dotted line and did not read the fine print. Oh well, I just hope no one decides to break in, because I will probably be having to move.

-geo

Sue the apartments for forcing you to have to defend yourself. If they say no guns, then they have assumed liability (in my thinking). It would also be their fault that you had become hopeless. Since youy were forced into action via necessity.

LCP_Dogg wrote:

Rokyudai wrote:I believe "attempting to break into a vehicle" does not justify the use of deadly force, but it does justify the use of force according to PC §9.41(a).

Going back to the original story, if you read it carefully, it sounds like the guy shot at thieves who were breaking into his car in the nighttime.

Deadly force is justified "when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary ... to prevent the other's imminent commission of ... theft during the nighttime ..."

In the original story, the car owner was not arrested.

We could argue all day about what you are legally or morally obligated to do to stop the theft before using deadly force. If you verbally tell the thief or thieves to stop, you run the risk that they might attack you.

Grand juries in Texas tend to come down on the side of the property owner in these cases.

bryang wrote:hmmmm, this has got me to thinking... I live in an apartment complex and I am one of those that just signed the dotted line and did not read the fine print.

I don't know how common these no-firearms clauses are in privately owned apartments.

I would think not too common, because at least half the households in Texas have firearms, and you don't want to cut off half your market.

I suspect they are found mostly in low-rent places where the landlord has had problems with criminally inclined clients.

- Jim

LCP_Dogg wrote:

Rokyudai wrote:There is also an article about a couple just getting ready to go to work at 6am and found 2 people attempting to break into their car. The thieves shot at the couple and took off.

I don't believe that justifies the use of deadly force...

My wife and I were just talking about (the soccer dad and) this exact scenario over lunch today.

I believe "attempting to break into a vehicle" does not justify the use of deadly force, but it does justify the use of force according to PC §9.41(a).

Now if they had stolen belongings already in their possession, then yes, deadly force is justified under PC §9.42(a).

I think the same might go for arson, like if you see someone with a gas can standing next to your vehicle, you aren't really justified to use force against them unless they are pouring it on the vehicle or property.

CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM WHAT I'M SAYING HERE??

If someone comes up to my van a shatters my window, that person will be ..... stopped. That is justified.

If there is someone just standing next to my van and acting suspiciously, then no.

I know my lease specifically says I'll be evicted if I discharge a firearm on the property. But it's kind of a no brainer if you have to choose between finding a new place to live or not being alive at all.