Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Texas Gun Law Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Texas Gun Law Question

    Would prefer a Texas LE response. Can I use force or even deadly force to defend my dog from assault when my dog is on leash/in my control or on/in private property?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    #2
    Good question.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


      #3
      You're a grown man, you can do what ever you want

      What is attacking your dog? Person, Cat, another Dog?

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by J Sweet View Post
        Would prefer a Texas LE response. Can I use force or even deadly force to defend my dog from assault when my dog is on leash/in my control or on/in private property?


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Only thing I will respond with is that under texas law a dog is considered livestock (except in the animal cruelty laws) and many of the laws applying to the protection of property and/or livestock will apply.

        Comment


          #5
          Person. Had a road rage altercation with a thug this morning. I had my dogs in the back seat and they were leaning out. He would of had to walk past them to me. It didnt come to that but it made me wonder. If he started hitting or choking one of my dogs what are my rights?


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          Comment


            #6
            I'm gonna say No. But it could depend on the dog. if the dog is capable of harming you, maybe so. but if a yorkie is attacking your yorkie, i would not risk discharging a firearm. i'd save that for when i need it.

            Comment


              #7
              If he puts his hands inside my vehicle as I understand it its the same as him sticking his hands through a house window.


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

              Comment


                #8
                Cant you protect your property (on your private property) with deadly force? I know you can at night in TX.

                Comment


                  #9
                  What did you do to cause the road rage?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

                    Sec. 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:

                    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......



                    SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

                    Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
                    (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
                    (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
                    (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

                    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


                    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
                    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
                    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
                    (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
                    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
                    (3) he reasonably believes that:
                    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
                    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

                    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I would say no. You have to be able to articulate that you were in fear of serious bodily injury or death. And you had better be able to articulate it and it has to be reasonable. The first thing the officer(s) are going to ask is “why didn’t you call 911?”. If you’re road raging back and forth with someone and you shoot them, it’s probably not going to look good for you.
                      Last edited by Daniel75; 04-20-2018, 11:13 AM.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        why cant your dogs defend themselves? get more masculine dogs.
                        if hes walkin to your window, you arent doin road rage right.
                        are you ready to kill a human over your dog getting punched?
                        did he look like a minority? yes it matters apparently.
                        carry some slapyomomma hot sauce in your console... squirt to the eyes makes peeps forget all about you cuttin em off... and when the police come.. you were eatin when he walked by your winder.

                        no charge.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Daniel75 View Post
                          SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

                          Sec. 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:

                          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......



                          SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

                          Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
                          (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
                          (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
                          (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

                          Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


                          Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
                          (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
                          (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
                          (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
                          (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
                          (3) he reasonably believes that:
                          (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
                          (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

                          Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
                          Tyical law created in this country. Full of wording to create loopholes and generate revenue for the legal industry.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I typed out a response but am not going to post it. There's too much going on here. I would suggest that the OP read the Texas Penal Code, including but not limited to Sections 9.31 and 9.41, and 9.42.

                            Originally posted by dbaio1 View Post
                            Tyical law created in this country. Full of wording to create loopholes and generate revenue for the legal industry.
                            I hate how laws always have words in them.

                            Write a better one. We'll wait.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by J Sweet View Post
                              If he puts his hands inside my vehicle as I understand it its the same as him sticking his hands through a house window.
                              Not an apples to apples. And it is in Louisiana. But the guy that shot Joe McKnight got convicted of manslaughter.

                              Gasser, who did not take the witness stand in his own defense, told investigators that he shot McKnight from the driver’s seat of his car as the former NFL player stood at Gasser’s open passenger-side window on Dec. 1, 2016.

                              According to Gasser, he feared for his life when McKnight made an aggressive movement, or lunged in such a way as to attempt to get inside his vehicle. Gasser’s lawyer argued that his client was justified in defending himself with lethal force under Louisiana’s so-called “stand-your-ground” law.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X