TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: NO, no no. Being in fear of your life means nothing. (didn't we JUST have a thread about it?)

Actually, if you review the other thread, we established that being in reasonable fear for your (or another innocent) life was more or less a brief way of expressing that the requirements for deadly force had been met without quoting the full verbiage of the statute.

No, WE didn't. There was a lot of random postings, but that "fact" was never established, nor should it be acceptable around here. There are too many newbies and lurkers that could take action on wrong information. And it is clear to me that many new posters think "being in fear of your life" IS a legal justification.

I would refer you especially to the comments of APD Chief Acevedo as he describes the circumstances of a recent officer-involved shooting.

So what? DA Rosenthal in Houston says that the traveling presumption means nothing. Just because someone said it don't make it so.

Dougmyers5 wrote:If someone comes after you in your house, car, boat, garage, and you fear for your life because of them you are good to take them down without having to back away.

That is my understanding of it.

NO, no no. Being in fear of your life means nothing. (didn't we JUST have a thread about it?)

The Castle law is really misnamed. In Texas, there was a general duty to retreat before using deadly force IF a reasonable person would have done so in the same situation, and IF you were anywhere but your habitation.

The "Castle Doctrine" law, basically removes the requirement to retreat from ANY place you legally have a right to be.

It also gives a presumption that your belief that FORCE was reasonable if the person "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;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used."

The rest of the use of force and deadly force statutes stand.

You must reasonably believe that the deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.


It does not lower the standard for use of force or deadly force, it clarifies reasonableness and removes the duty to retreat.

It also offers some civil immunity.