Lets find out where we all stand.

Personally, I prefer "Duty to Retreat" over the Castle Doctrine. People should tend to De-escalate if they can before they do something stupid. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Castle doctrine doesn't take away your ability to de-escalate it just gives you more options.
The biggest difference in duty to retreat and castle doctrine is where the burden of proof lies.

Castle doctrine doesn't take away your ability to de-escalate it just gives you more options.
The biggest difference in duty to retreat and castle doctrine is where the burden of proof lies. Originally Posted by boardman

Castle Doctrine takes away the duty to retreat. I really want the other party to have that duty when I'm not the homeowner. Under the Castle Doctrine, conceivably any shooting could be claimed as a defense of castle, even when the other party (the poor bastard getting shot) was running away. If my grandkid kicks his soccer ball into my neighbor's yard, I knock on the door and get no answer, so I go back there and get the ball and he shoots me, under Castle, it is possibly justifiable. Under duty to retreat, usually not.

Castle Doctrine takes away the duty to retreat. I really want the other party to have that duty when I'm not the homeowner. Under the Castle Doctrine, conceivably any shooting could be claimed as a defense of castle, even when the other party (the poor bastard getting shot) was running away. If my grandkid kicks his soccer ball into my neighbor's yard, I knock on the door and get no answer, so I go back there and get the ball and he shoots me, under Castle, it is possibly justifiable. Under duty to retreat, usually not. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Of course, anything is possible.
Again, it just changes the burden of proof. Not whether the act itself is criminal or self defense.
If I shoot someone in the back or retrieving a ball from my back yard I can still be brought to a Grand Jury. The difference is I don't have to prove I was in fear of my life. The prosecution has to prove I wasn't. If I shoot someone in the back chances are it should pretty easy to convince a jury that I acted out of malice not self defense.

I know you can point to Joe Horn but I think that is the exception and most people didn't understand how the law changed things at that time and felt vigilantism was justified by the law. Prosecutors today would have a much better chance at getting a conviction because they know how to approach it.

Castle Doctrine takes away the duty to retreat. I really want the other party to have that duty when I'm not the homeowner. Under the Castle Doctrine, conceivably any shooting could be claimed as a defense of castle, even when the other party (the poor bastard getting shot) was running away. If my grandkid kicks his soccer ball into my neighbor's yard, I knock on the door and get no answer, so I go back there and get the ball and he shoots me, under Castle, it is possibly justifiable. Under duty to retreat, usually not. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Your scenario is definitely not true in the state of Texas. Inside the home the Castle Doctrine applies. Outside the home, the Castle Doctrine does NOT apply. If you shoot somebody who is simply on your property, you better make sure that your life was in danger. I cited this article earlier in which Fred Yazdi was sentenced to 20 years in jail for shooting an unarmed person on his property.

http://austin.twcnews.com/content/ne...y-ranch-murder

I've spent more time around people with guns than most of you put together...and I can say that most of you have no business owning a firearm...

I like the "A Gun is a Tool" line. Because really (exempting Military grade Firearms) that is all they are meant to be. A tool for Protection & Survival that is designed for the sole purpose of inflicting harm on another living being. The problem is that we have far too many people with access (legally and illegally) to Firearms that seem to feel the solution to their problem with another person (or Society) is to take that Firearm out and start shooting people with it with no regard for the harm they are inflicting. Originally Posted by RochBob

That's right, and that's called criminal behavior and they can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Remember that.


Jim

Castle Doctrine takes away the duty to retreat. I really want the other party to have that duty when I'm not the homeowner. Under the Castle Doctrine, conceivably any shooting could be claimed as a defense of castle, even when the other party (the poor bastard getting shot) was running away. If my grandkid kicks his soccer ball into my neighbor's yard, I knock on the door and get no answer, so I go back there and get the ball and he shoots me, under Castle, it is possibly justifiable. Under duty to retreat, usually not. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I am afraid that's not exactly right. If you go into someone's back yard to get a ball, like you described an innocent act in other words, and the homeowner shoots you. The homeowner still has to facilitate that you were an imminent threat to him. Just the fact that you jumped his fence to get a ball isn't going to be enough to satisfy either the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Laws. In both cases you must show where there was a threat and the threat must be obvious enough to incline any reasonable person to fear for his life or receiving great bodily harm.

Jim

I am afraid that's not exactly right. If you go into someone's back yard to get a ball, like you described an innocent act in other words, and the homeowner shoots you. The homeowner still has to facilitate that you were an imminent threat to him. Just the fact that you jumped his fence to get a ball isn't going to be enough to satisfy either the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Laws. In both cases you must show where there was a threat and the threat must be obvious enough to incline any reasonable person to fear for his life or receiving great bodily harm.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Remember that things change after it gets dark. In Texas, there are misdemeanors that turn into felonies after dark. I don't fully agree with the shift in severity but it's a moot point to me. I don't go on someone's property, day or night, without permission.

I am afraid that's not exactly right. If you go into someone's back yard to get a ball, like you described an innocent act in other words, and the homeowner shoots you. The homeowner still has to facilitate that you were an imminent threat to him. Just the fact that you jumped his fence to get a ball isn't going to be enough to satisfy either the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Laws. In both cases you must show where there was a threat and the threat must be obvious enough to incline any reasonable person to fear for his life or receiving great bodily harm.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I agree, but as a practical matter and with deference to the Castle Doctrine, the custom and tradition in Texas is so heavily weighted to the homeowner that if I'm hunting (or other similar, innocent circumstance such as retrieving my family property) and even inadvertently stumble on some irritable old codger's land, he could shoot me under Castle and probably prevail rather easily. That is the reason I prefer "duty to retreat".

Your scenario is definitely not true in the state of Texas. Inside the home the Castle Doctrine applies. Outside the home, the Castle Doctrine does NOT apply. If you shoot somebody who is simply on your property, you better make sure that your life was in danger. I cited this article earlier in which Fred Yazdi was sentenced to 20 years in jail for shooting an unarmed person on his property.

http://austin.twcnews.com/content/ne...y-ranch-murder Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It probably says that you should "think" your life is in danger as in a reasonable person. It is difficult to prove that you were in danger without letting the other guy get off the first shot.

I've decided to do a video project. I am going to load a pistol, cock it, and place it on a table. For five years I will film it doing nothing until I come back and fire it.

Remember that things change after it gets dark. In Texas, there are misdemeanors that turn into felonies after dark. I don't fully agree with the shift in severity but it's a moot point to me. I don't go on someone's property, day or night, without permission. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I don't always go on people's property without permission either, but when I do, I always leave the homeowner a six pack of Dos Equis, lol.


Jim

I've decided to do a video project. I am going to load a pistol, cock it, and place it on a table. For five years I will film it doing nothing until I come back and fire it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Guns don't kill. People with handguns kill. Straight from the NRA 101 handbook. And handguns make killing MUCH easier than any other alternative currently available today.

It probably says that you should "think" your life is in danger as in a reasonable person. It is difficult to prove that you were in danger without letting the other guy get off the first shot. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Fred Yazdi thought the guy he killed had a gun. Truth was the guy only had a cell phone in his hand. Incorrect thought cost Fred up to 20 years of his life.

I certainly agree with you that if someone else has a gun and you have a gun, it is much better to be the one firing first than second. The best thing to do is NOT challenge someone OUTSIDE your home, even if you are armed. My opinion.

.

Armed Doctor Saved Lives in Hospital Shooting Near Philadelphia, Police Chief Says

"Without that firearm, this guy [the patient] could have went out in the hallway and just walked down the offices until he ran out of ammunition," the chief said.

http://www.people.com/article/armed-...pital-shooting

Psychiatrist Lee Silverman worked in a gun-free hospital, but pulled out a gun in his desk to subdue an armed patient, who had just shot his caseworker.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/07...s-case-is-born