Will Someone Please Explain - Texas Castle Law

[Dougmyers5]

Fear is emotional, therefore something could be misconstrued as your emotions effected how "reasonable" you reacted to a threat...

Yes, but it is a NORMAL emotion for someone to experience if they are threatened with an actual danger to life and limb.

So if you do NOT experience it in the situation in question, you could be considered to be "abnormal", which could create a perception that your reaction to the situation was possibly "unreasonable". Or possibly, the situation might be judged as not rising to the point where deadly force was necessary, in which case you're in trouble.

That's why I think the best policy is to tell the truth. If the situation put you in fear for your life, say so. That, in combination with a full description of what happened is most likely to produce a correct outcome, IMO.

===========================

+1

This person has a good understanding of what my post means!

In fear for my life means just that if confronted by a bad person!

I would never fear a five year old in my home that I don't know or an 85 year old lost person.

Some common sense comes into play for obvious reasons when in fear for ones life.

If ones Sister in-laws driving scares you then don't ride with her it would be common sense that you would not shoot her over being scared of how she drives.

Some times I think some people on this board try a little to hard to get the scenario to fit the way they want so they can call others wrong. JMHO

[TX Rancher]

I would never fear a five year old in my home that I don't know or an 85 year old lost person.

Some common sense comes into play for obvious reasons when in fear for ones life.

I don’t think anything I said disagrees with your comments, or Frankie’s, or TXI, or Charles. I was not addressing whether “I was in fear for my life� is a valid defense, or whether it applied to a 5 or 85 year old. I was simply addressing if I would shoot someone who was in my house uninvited, and justifying that how they got there may not matter.

Have the discussion about fear if you so choose…new folks join the forum everyday and it’s probably valuable for them to hear it since a lot of discussion revolves around the legal definitions, code, and opinions on intent…All good things to help folks make up their mind.

But don't assume I'm involved...

[John R. Fuller]

This is something of interest to me. Wouln't one try to get away from any type of deadly situation if it is at all possible?

Take for instance; you are in a car stopped in traffic and some attempts a carjacking. YOu noticed when you stopped that the shoulder is open before the car jacker. In my opinion, I would attempt to use the open lane to avoid a confrontation. What some people might do is forget all of the common sense wev'e learned about situational awareness. We should be free to go anywhere in public at any time, yet common sense pulls me to not go to certain areas at certain times if within my power to choose.

If a weapon is presented, and you are not able to reasonably or safely retreat then one should immediately make the decision to either comply or return the foul greeting with lead. Either you are afraid for your life or not.

[seamusTX]

Wouln't one try to get away from any type of deadly situation if it is at all possible?

Take for instance; you are in a car stopped in traffic and some attempts a carjacking. YOu noticed when you stopped that the shoulder is open before the car jacker. In my opinion, I would attempt to use the open lane to avoid a confrontation.

This scenario is perfectly sensible and it is what I would do.

Try this: You drive to your wife's place of work to pick her up. While you're waiting, someone tries to break into your car with you in it. You could drive away, but your wife would come out of the building in the presence of a violent felon.

Decisions, decisions, ...

- Jim

[propellerhead]

This is something of interest to me. Wouln't one try to get away from any type of deadly situation if it is at all possible?

The new law doesn't say "Don't retreat". It says you do not *have to* retreat and be cornered before you can reasonably use force. It says the use of force is presumed reasonable if the conditions are met, without having to retreat.