Gun-toting Texans aim for a 'shoot thy neighbour' law

[Doondoo]

Sponsors of a new bill in the state legislature call it the Castle Doctrine - the idea that anyone invading your home or threatening your safety deserves everything they have coming to them. Critics are already calling it the "shoot thy neighbour" law and questioning whether Texas, of all places, really needs to give its citizens further encouragement to take matters of crime and punishment into their own hands.

"I believe Texans who are attacked in their homes, their businesses, their vehicles or anywhere else have a right to defend themselves from attack without fear of being prosecuted and face possible civil suits alleging wrongful injury or death," Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio - home to The Alamo - said recently in support of the bill.

"You've got to assume a criminal's not there to buy girl scout cookies; you could be harmed," the bill's other sponsor, Texas Representative Joe Driver told The Los Angeles Times. "You should be able to meet force with force without getting in trouble."

.......

This is a state where businesses and home owners have signs that read "We don't call 911" next to a large picture of a rifle. A few years ago, when ranch owners along the Rio Grande became upset at the number of Mexican immigrants on their land, they started shooting at them, and won the overwhelming support of their neighbours, even as they created a major international incident.

Still, the bill shows every sign of being passed into law. In the State Senate, 27 of the 31 members have signed on as co-sponsors. In the House, two-thirds of the 150 members have indicated their support for it.



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2283918.ece

[BlooInBloo]

1. I wouldn't expect anything more of Texans.

[Paladin]

13. And I Wouldn't Expect Anything More.....

...than a blanket trashing of Texas statement like yours on a thread like this.

More than 2.8 million Texans voted for John Kerry in 2004. And yet you don't even have the decency to utilize the "There are some good people in Texas, BUT..." cop-out line that turns up with some frequency on the large number of Texas-slagging threads here at DU. I guess it's just a lot more satisfying to dump on the whole state, isn't it?

[BlooInBloo]

21. I don't believe in cop-out lines - either with TX or CT.

[LondonReign2]

26. Texans always get pissed off

when the stupid things Texans do, or stupid things Texans propose to do, are pointed out.

Yes, there are lots of good folks in Texas; doesn't make all the stupid things people do in Texas -- and there are plenty-- untrue, however.

And for the record, I live in Texas.

[hlthe2b]

27. Agree.. As a Coloradoan, we were trashed (and still are) by some

because of the loonies in the Springs.. Despite our sharp turn to the blue, some Duers continue to disparage the state indiscriminately... It is hard not to hold Texas (or Coloradoans) somewhat responsible for producing the Bushes, Delays, and Kay Baily Hutchinsons, Allards and Tancredos (CO), but this is ridiculous of course... Because DUers and other progressives can point to the late great Ann Richards, and Molly and Barbara Jordan, and Sheila Jackson Lee, and.... on and on..

[derby378]

17. Them's fightin' words

Paladin and I will have our disagreements, but this is Texas. It's a beautiful, complex, and enchanting state - and it's also the one state you better not write off if you want a Democrat in the White House come 2009.

[BlooInBloo]

24. Good thing fighitng doesn't bother me....

And I'm more than happy to not pander to TX and the South. If they ever want to join humanity, however, they'll be welcome. They do THEMSELVES a far greater disservice than they could EVER do me. They only hurt themselves with their you-can't-tell-us-we're-wrong crap. Makes my professional prospects much better, having so little competition.

[derby378]

50. The Democrats cannot win the White House in 2008 without Texas

Gore couldn't get the job done, and neither could Kerry - and I voted for both of them. Just keep that in mind, and when you decide to stop insulting your fellow Democrats, we can talk shop.

[GoneOffShore]

34. What would Molly Ivins have made of this?

Maybe, just maybe, when we non-Texans decide to take off on Texas, we should ask ourselves:

"What would Molly say?"

[cosmik debris]

2. Florida already passed this law

As did several other states. Texas is just trying to jump on the bandwagon.

[hlthe2b]

3. So, on Halloween..

Do they just line up on their front porches and blast all the little costumed kiddies to hell? :mad:

[itsmesgd]

5. if they pose a threat

but there needs to be responsibility. A law that says you can shoot, does not mean that you "have to shoot".

[hlthe2b]

8. So you like this law? How does one decide for sure that

someone poses a threat... I remember some idiot in Louisiana who shot/killed a foreign exchange student merely knocking on his door at Halloween several years ago and HE was acquited.

[itsmesgd]

9. I would not shoot a Halloweener, I can asses what "is" a real threat and what is not.

As with anything and everything, you cannot legislate common sense and personal responsibility. I'm not a proponent of everybody shooting their guns with no justification. I wish that more people would THINK about their actions, be it while they drive with one hand and shave or read or eat with the other.
It's about personal reposnsibility. I have had people knock on my door by mistake at night. I knew that they were not a threat to me, SO I DIDNT SHOOT THEM. I've also got out of sitations where I probably had the "right" to defend myself, but I still did not shoot.

[hlthe2b]

10. This law is not just for you... You feel comfortable with the fact

that the same idiots who show no personal responsibility in the car, on the phone, out hunting, or whatever will be able to avoid responsibility for "shooting first and thinking later?" 'Hope it isn't a loved one of yours mistaken as a "threat" by some "drunk a a skunk" gun toter.

[itsmesgd]

14. I'm not advocating more "shoot first" gun laws

I'm advocating responsibility.
I hope that your loved one is not killed by a drunk driver or any other person who is not exercising the propper responsibility.
By the way, being "drunk as a skunk" and shooting a gun is illegal. While in Georgia you can apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you cannot carry it into any restaurant that serves alcohol. If you are in your house and are drunk when you shoot someone in your yard, the police will carry you away for illegally discharging a firearm. If as the result of this crime (illegal discharge or illegal posession of a firearm) you kill someone, you will be charged with "felony murder" and go to jail. If you committ any felony that ends up with someone getting killed, you go to jail.

[hlthe2b]

18. Sounds like GA has at least tried to put some rationality in the law

Apparently FLA missed the mark? I don't hold out hope for the RW in Texas that run the legilature on that score, but hopefully they will surprise me.

[itsmesgd]

20. Georgia has not put rationality in the law

The concept of "felony murder" exists in every state and is not directly connected to gun laws.

Here's another example of the "felony murder doctrine"
If you walk into a gas station and are in the process of holding up the clerk (regardless of if you have a real gun or just your finger in your jacket pocket pretending to be a gun), you have initiated a felony. If a shopper in the store is legally carrying a firearm, and he draws his weapon and shoots at you but hits the clerk and kills him, you go to jail because as a result of the felony that you initiated someone died.

Many opponents to gun carry laws do not mention that there are "felony murder laws" that cover illegal gun ownership or possesion. There are tons of "independent incidents" that each side can use to illustrate their argument. The bigger picture and laws need to be taken into account.

[hlthe2b]

22. Those same felony murder laws sometimes get ignored

when the community is overwhelmingly made up of gun advocates-- the LA foreign exchange student being just one of many examples... But whatever...

I'm not anti-gun, but I do believe in limits and, as you say, resposibility.

[itsmesgd]

25. People I know always want me to help them buy and learn to shoot, but

I dont recomend guns for 99% of people. I dont claim to be better than 99%, but guns are not right for most people. A person has to be prepared and responsible to use a firearm. Training and a proper mindset are crucial to keep the operator from getting their own weapon used on themselves.

[Kagemusha]

11. This is from the article; posting it for relevance to your good quesiton

Because this is disturbing:

"Over the past two years, the NRA has inspired similar shoot-first laws in 15 other states, including Florida where legislators are now having serious second thoughts after the killing of a nine-year-old girl who was an innocent bystander caught in a shoot-out in a gang-ridden neighbourhood of Miami.

The Florida law theoretically offers immunity to both sides in the shoot-out on the grounds that they were firing in self-defence."

That's an unpleasant thought.

[derby378]

12. That's a pretty damn big "theoretically"

You are the eyes, the mind, and the will of every bullet you fire. That defense will be shot down in court (pun intended), and rightfully so.

[Kagemusha]

37. I simply hope you are correct.

The writer of the article didn't elaborate but, I imagine the theory would be, the guy who fired first was in fear of the imminent loss of his life, even though he hadn't been shot at first, and then the guy targeted by the first shot was in fear of his life, so, mutual self defense. Someone got hit by accident? Too bad.

Under normal laws this defense would have no chance of success. Under these, I'm not sure.. although I would not make a wild assumption that the defense stands a chance without knowing better. Guess we'll see.

[hlthe2b]

15. Law of unintended consequences..

If it can happen, it will...leaving the family of the innocent bystanders with no recourse. Shoot first and damn the consequences, seems to be the motto.

[piedmont]

23. The law only applies if someone forces their way into your house.

Trick-or-treaters just ring the doorbell, you know.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Actually I do not think that is true.

As I understand it the proposed law applies to your house (already true in Texas anyway from what I read, you have no obligation to retreat from your home) your car and your place of business: in short everywhere except sidewalks and other public spaces. There is no obligation to retreat and no force needs to have been applied. You are allowed to use deadly force under this law if you think that your life is threatened.

[piedmont]

36. I haven't read the law, but that description goes way beyond most Castle Doctrine laws I've seen.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Thats because this new generation of laws is not castle doctrine.

That is the point. Texas already (from my understanding) has castle doctrine in effect FOR YOUR HOUSE (thus 'castle'). These new laws expand the concept to your person just about anywhere. Very bad idea, in my opinion. The obligation to retreat is a much better idea, making it clear that the use of deadly force is a last resort, not the first.

[piedmont]

46. Then the sponsors ought not call it a Castle Doctrine law!

I think we both agree this law has nothing to do with "Castle Doctrine." The sponsors call it "castle Doctrine," and the article doesn't try to counter that claim. It's a big damn difference.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. I agree, as usual the intention is to confuse. nt.

[benEzra]

56. That's certainly not the case for the Florida law.

The new Florida law only applies a presumption of self-defense to actual home invasions or carjackings. All other incidents must pass the "reasonable fear" test, i.e. the same rule that every state has always applied. You cannot shoot someone because you merely "feel threatened," in Florida or anywhere else.

Florida did eliminate its quirky "duty to retreat" statute, which allowed self-defense against an actual violent attack to be charged as murder if the victim didn't try to outrun the attacker first, but Florida's duty-to-retreat statute was always something of an oddball.

[tammywammy]

52. Considering that "Castle Laws"

have been passed in other states and that has yet to happen, I don't think it would happen in Texas either.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. The poster was referring to a real incident in Louisianna

The fatal shooting of the lost Japanese visitor who dared to ring a doorbell is simply a fact, as was the successful use of self defense in the case. Google Yoshihiro Hattori. Have fun with that case.

[itsmesgd]

4. We have a Castle Law here in Georgia as well as a law that says that we can shoot first

insteading for trying to avoid a fight. If someone gets in your face, instead of trying to walk away, we can just blast them. I think that the Castle Laws are fair but the laws that go above that are asking for trouble.
Just because the state says that you can shoot someone who you feel is posing a threat to you, I believe that you still need to exercise "shooter responsibility" and be prepared to take responsibility for anyone or anything that you might shoot.

[KansDem]

6. You also want to protect yourself from confused Halloween party-goers...

Yoshihiro Hattori

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yoshihiro Hattori (服部剛丈 Hattori Yoshihiro) (November 22, 1975 - October 17, 1992) was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, La, United States at the time of his death. Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party when he erred on the address and entered the wrong suburban property. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, mortally wounded Hattori with gunfire, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. The controversial homicide, and Peairs subsequently being acquitted in the state court of Louisiana, received worldwide attention.

--more--
Wikipedia

[TX-RAT]

38. Wasn't he in the mans garage, when he was shot?

[KansDem]

40. Well, not according to this account provided by the link to Wikipedia...

Hattori and Haymaker rang the front doorbell but began to return to the street where Haymaker had parked after no one responded to the ring. Inside the house, however, Mrs. Bonnie Peairs had opened and peered out the side door and saw two boys whom she did not recognize. Mrs. Peairs, startled, backed up inside, locking the door, and then turned to tell her husband, "Rodney, get your gun". Hattori and Haymaker were still pondering the situation as they neared their car when the carport door was opened again, this time by Mr. Peairs, armed with a stainless steel revolver, yelling "Freeze." Simultaneously, Hattori stepped towards him saying "We're here for the party," unaware of the imminent danger. Haymaker, seeing the weapon, shouted after Hattori, but his warning was futile as Peairs had already fired his weapon and run back inside locking the door again. (Kernodle 2002; Fujio 2004; Harper n.d.) Hattori had been shot in the chest at close range and was still alive as Haymaker rushed to him. Haymaker ran to the home next door to the Peairs' house for help and to call for an ambulance. Neither Mr. Peairs nor his wife came out of the locked-up house until the police arrived, about 40 minutes after the shooting, and Mrs. Peairs shouted to a neighbor to "go away" when the neighbor called for help. One of Peairs' children later told police that her mother asked, "Why did you shoot him?".

Now, I would have called 911, since the two "suspects" were headed to their car, and let the police handle this. Oh, I do own a handgun (S&W .357) and would have probably went to get it after calling 911 to have it on hand just in case the two "suspects" came back up to the house and attempted to force entry. Otherwise, I would have left the house dark inside, made sure all doors and windows were locked, and kept vigilance until the police arrived.

I don't think I would have gone outside and told these two to "freeze" when they were standing by their car. What would that have accomplished?

[slackmaster]

7. Pure window dressing - Hasn't made any real difference in FL or elsewhere

:nuke:

Castle Doctrine has been in place in Texas since the state was founded. It's the operating principle in MOST states, including California.

In another thread someone quoted a Florida justice department official who said nobody has yet successfully applied their "shoot first" law as a criminal defense.

[Guaranteed]

16. Not there to buy girl scout cookies?

Are people selling girl scout cookies out of their homes now?


I particularly enjoy the way they continually beg the question with their statements. If you're "attacked" in your home, you have a right to defend yourself. Therefore, obviously, you have a right to shoot anyone who knocks on your door.

[Vektor]

19. I thought it was already legal to use deadly force in self defense...

...just about anywhere in America.

There was a case in Oakland, CA a few years back (sorry, I don't have a link, maybe someone remembers it/has a link?) where a 15 year old girl shot and killed an intruder with an unregistered firearm she kept in a shoe box under her bed. It turns out the guy was a rapist whom the police were looking for, and no criminal charges were filed against her or anyone in her home.

You hear about this sort of thing fairly often, people shooting would be assailants and intruders, and usually, the person who shoots the intruder is not convicted of any crime.

Am I missing something? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

28. necessary force

If your neighbor is mad at you because you won't bring your garbage cans in, and bangs on your door and maybe even pushes their way into your house to scream at you - under current law you cannot shoot them. Even if they swing at you, you cannot shoot them. You're expected to use only the force required to subdue the situation, sometimes to the extent of letting a criminal run away instead of shooting. Under these Castle laws, you can supposedly just blast anybody who threatens you in any way. I don't even know how this is going to play out in some of these road rage situations where people feel threatened by reckless drivers. Anyway, I think the self-defense laws were fine the way they were. These Castle Laws are all about it being beneath the dignity of the dick-swinging macho crowd to ask for help from anybody, not even a cop.

[itsmesgd]

29. I have to disagree

"If your neighbor is mad at you..." and "pushes their way into your house to scream at you "

You dont know that your neighbor is only going to scream at you. He has illegally entered your house and is now guilty of breaking and entering. If he takes a swing at you, that is now breaking and entering with a side of assault and battery. I would shoot anyone who breaks into my house and is visibly angry and begins to scream at me. I'm not waiting to see if he is only going to yell, or swing at me, or pull a gun and shoot me. "taking a swing" is a violent physical threat and I can justifiably shoot and kill this INTRUDER into my home.

And exactly when would you shoot the person, after he shot you first, or would you then go try to call the police while he is swinging at you. That is a "non argument".

[slackmaster]

31. Read the California Penal Code sections on justifiable homicide

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and
those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to
the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other
legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting
persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or
resisting such arrest.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

Underlining added for emphasis.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

sandnsea wrote:

Even if they swing at you, you cannot shoot them.

Bullshit. In that situation you can shoot, even in California.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Despite all the bold type face you cite sandnsea did not write bullshit

It depends on the state you live in. Most northeastern states subscribe to the traditional 'obligation to retreat' constraint on the use of deadly force. Many other states have adopted instead the castle defense type of law you cite from California above.

What is new here is the idea of extending this lack of obligation to retreat beyond one's residence. That is in my opinion a stupid idea, one that will protect murderers and make prosecution of serious assault cases very difficult. It is at least passably clear in the home defense case who has invaded who's territory, lending at least some credibility to the self defense claims of the resident. On the street it is an entirely different story.

[TX-RAT]

39. pushes their way into your house to scream at you

That can and will get you shot in TX. That's considered a home invasion, which is a felony. Use of deadly force is justified. Has been for as long as i can remember.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. exactly. This is a new law that expands that right to outside the home.

People are rightly confused, as every state has its own set of laws, and these new laws and proposed laws tend to blur the distinction between what you can do inside your home vs what you can do in the public sphere.

I'm ok with castle doctrine inside your home, but I think that is where it ought to stop. Outside your front door you should have an obligation to retreat, to only use deadly force as a last resort.

[sandnsea]

44. Not even true inside the home

It is simply not true that you EVER had the right to blast someone inside your home. Somebody is visiting and you get into an argument. It doesn't follow that you have the right to shoot them dead just because you might feel momentary anxiety over the situation. That's completely insane. People have always been expected to use reasonable force no matter where they were, including inside their home.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Yes of course.

All of these laws are constrained as you mention. The difference between the northeast 'obligation to retreat' states and the 'castle doctrine' states is that us here in the sane northeast not only have to use reasonable force appropriately, but we have to do so as a last resort. Castle doctrine states do not have an obligation to retreat if you are in your house, and thus deadly force can be used (reasonably of course) even if you could simply walk away.

As the saying goes, dead men tell no tales. If the other party to the conflict cannot tell their side of the story, all sorts of reasonable can be invented to explain why there is a dead person on your living room floor.

[sandnsea]

49. Currently

True. I lived in Montana where most people would have thought you could shoot someone if you were threatened, a castle doctrine state so to speak. But oh no, not true. I was involved in two court cases over excessive force. One was a cop who shot a home burglar in the back and crippled him. The other was a homeowner who shot kids in his front yard, in the middle of the night, with birdshot. Both were found in violation of law. People have traditionally not had the freedom to shoot people that they thought they had, not anywhere. Sadly, we're codifying shooting people willy-nilly instead of educating people to respect life and use deadly force only as a very last resort. It is really no wonder we have the murder rate we have and end up in wars like Iraq with that attitude.

[sandnsea]

43. No it hasn't been

People THINK it has been, which is why they end up on manslaughter charges. Necessary force has been the law for decades, which means you cannot shoot someone if lesser force will diffuse a situation. Somebody standing at your front door and pushing the door open is not a life-threatening situation and one never had the right to kill that person. Law was based on what a RATIONAL person would do in a given situation and it used to be that our society expected RATIONAL people to not pick up a gun as the first response. We can see how wonderful our country has become since TEXAS mentality has replaced RATIONAL thought.

[RB TexLa]

32. Guess my can of oven cleaner by the door is already protected n/t

[piedmont]

35. Geez, is that a report, or an editorial?

If it's supposed to be a report then I won't take their journalism seriously anymore.

[The Cleaner]

45. So...what if I approach a stranger at his car for help with something, and he blows my head off

and gets away with it? Where's the justice? He could just claim I was attacking him and murder me at will.

Or, what if I desperately needed help with my car that has caught on fire and I didn't have my cell phone on me and had to call 9/11 - and I walked up and knocked on somebody's door and they opened up and blew my head off? They could just say they were defending their home against an invader and had to protect their home!

What the hell?

[derby378]

51. Gun-control advocates have a vested interest in keeping you scared

That's why the Brady Campaign warned Florida-bound tourists that they could be shot merely for asking for directions. That's why Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center labelled any semi-automatic rifles with a pistol grip and a polymer handguard as "assault weapons." They can't get their laws passed unless they can make the voters afraid.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Sorry no gun control enthusiast here but these new laws are

STUPID

Extending the castle doctrine to the street, the car, the shop, is idiocy. And of course the fear mongering is going on from both sides. "They can't get their laws passed unless they can make the voters afraid." Out of context it is impossible to decide if that is meant to apply to the pro-gun or anti-gun crowd. They both play that game.

[Redneck Socialist]

55. None of those actions would be legal.

You must reasonably believe yourself to be threatened. If someone shoots you just because you approached their car or knocked on their door I suspect that they'd have a heck of a time convincing a jury that they they had "reason" to feel threatened. In most states all these laws do is remove the duty to retreat. If you are in a place where it is legal for you to be and you are threatened you can defend yourself. That's pretty much all these laws do. The specific wording varies some from state to state but that's the gist of them.