TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:Hey Stupid,

Here's my take:
If the construction company attempts to illegally destroy your home, let them and then sue their pants off. My bet is the company (regardless of hypothetical conjecture) feels they're on pretty solid legal ground if they actually roll in equipment which means they have consulted their legal representation. You should do the same before taking any deadly action.
I guess what I'm saying is don't do anything stu..., anything you might regret.

BTW, love your user name.

Of course I know what to do. :-) Just a hypothetical question as I am curious how this statue would apply.

Stupid wrote:

jmra wrote:Hey Stupid,

Here's my take:
If the construction company attempts to illegally destroy your home, let them and then sue their pants off. My bet is the company (regardless of hypothetical conjecture) feels they're on pretty solid legal ground if they actually roll in equipment which means they have consulted their legal representation. You should do the same before taking any deadly action.
I guess what I'm saying is don't do anything stu..., anything you might regret.

BTW, love your user name.

Of course I know what to do. :-) Just a hypothetical question as I am curious how this statue would apply.

In that case I believe some very wise people have already answered your question.

jmra wrote:

Stupid wrote:

jmra wrote:Hey Stupid,

Here's my take:
If the construction company attempts to illegally destroy your home, let them and then sue their pants off. My bet is the company (regardless of hypothetical conjecture) feels they're on pretty solid legal ground if they actually roll in equipment which means they have consulted their legal representation. You should do the same before taking any deadly action.
I guess what I'm saying is don't do anything stu..., anything you might regret.

BTW, love your user name.

Of course I know what to do. :-) Just a hypothetical question as I am curious how this statue would apply.

In that case I believe some very wise people have already answered your question.

Still don't know how this law would apply. :-(

Stupid wrote:
Still don't know how this law would apply. :-(

It really wouldn't. There are too many other options for this. You would be able to call police and have them intervene. No construction company employee is stupid enough to break into your house and try to forcibly remove you from it without justification.

Stupid wrote:

jmra wrote:

Stupid wrote:

jmra wrote:Hey Stupid,

Here's my take:
If the construction company attempts to illegally destroy your home, let them and then sue their pants off. My bet is the company (regardless of hypothetical conjecture) feels they're on pretty solid legal ground if they actually roll in equipment which means they have consulted their legal representation. You should do the same before taking any deadly action.
I guess what I'm saying is don't do anything stu..., anything you might regret.

BTW, love your user name.

Of course I know what to do. :-) Just a hypothetical question as I am curious how this statue would apply.

In that case I believe some very wise people have already answered your question.

Still don't know how this law would apply. :-(

Because with the info you gave it wouldn't apply.

that law is referring to a kidnapping, isn't it?

SewTexas wrote:that law is referring to a kidnapping, isn't it?

No if someone started to tear your house down with heavy equipment out of the Blue, you could theoretically shoot them if there were no other way to stop them. That just isn't the case as described here.

I would tread very carefully in this thread, there is more here than meets the eye.

Three scenarios come to mind:

Scenario 1: Lawful eviction. If the homeowner has received the legal papers showing lawful eviction, then self defense would not apply because PC §9.31 includes the phrase "immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force". If the eviction was lawful, then attempting to tear down the property is not the use of "unlawful force" and self defense is not justified. Second, if the homeowner has received the legal papers for the eviction and has not complied, then the homeowner is the one trespassing. Armed trespass is a Misdemeanor A, which makes the statute language for deadly force applicable: "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."

Scenario 2: Mistake. I am aware of instances where a construction company shows up to tear down the wrong house. In this circumstance, I believe ordinary force under PC §9.41 may be justified in the sense of openly carrying a firearm and telling them to wait until the police arrive. Certainly deadly force would not be justified because it fails this test:

PC §9.42(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.

If a construction company mistakenly tears down the wrong house, any reasonable person knows they are going to be liable in court for the damages caused and the monetary damages allows one to recover the value of the property. This isn't some punk stealing your heirlooms at night and fleeing never to be found.

Scenario 3: Obstinacy. The homeowner receives the eviction notice but disagrees. It violates "his rights". The remedy here is to pursue one's options in court, not create a sniper hide inside his house and starts shooting people like some overblown sovereign-citizen whackjob. This scenario is equivalent to an evicted apartment dweller deciding to resist eviction with deadly force. Not going to go well for the person.

Since you refer to negotiations with the company, this is not the beginning of the relationship.

I would think the construction company would never do something like this, but I handled 3 cases in my career where construction companies built entire houses on the wrong lots, so I guess anything is possible.

The first thing you do is go out and discuss what they are doing, calmly. Point out that, while negotiations are ongoing, the company has not acquired any rights to what remains your property. If that doesn't stop it while they investigate, then you call your lawyer. Your lawyer likely will contact the company and demand the trespass be stopped immediately. Failing that, he will invite the company's lawyer to meet him in court very soon where he will apply for a temporary restraining order, and go from there. I don't know court procedures in Texas but in California where I practiced, I could have a TRO the next morning, and once, I was able to get one in place the same afternoon.

If as you say, you remain the owner of the property, there is no way the entry on your land is justified, and you can expect reimbursement for all damages to the property. I foresee their apparently unjustified self help attempt might well impact further negotiations as well.

Don't run out there and start shooting. There are a lot of dead drivers who had the right of way, and were worse off for insisting on it.

I had a flying instructor, an old guy whose flying license was signed by Orville Wright. He was a fount of witty advice, one of which was "don't do nuttin stupid." I've always wondered if there was a comma in between "nuttin" and "stupid!"

Jumping Frog wrote:Three scenarios come to mind:

Scenario 1: Lawful eviction. If the homeowner has received the legal papers showing lawful eviction, then self defense would not apply because PC §9.31 includes the phrase "immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force". If the eviction was lawful, then attempting to tear down the property is not the use of "unlawful force" and self defense is not justified. Second, if the homeowner has received the legal papers for the eviction and has not complied, then the homeowner is the one trespassing. Armed trespass is a Misdemeanor A, which makes the statute language for deadly force applicable: "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."

Scenario 2: Mistake. I am aware of instances where a construction company shows up to tear down the wrong house. In this circumstance, I believe ordinary force under PC §9.41 may be justified in the sense of openly carrying a firearm and telling them to wait until the police arrive. Certainly deadly force would not be justified because it fails this test:

PC §9.42(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.

If a construction company mistakenly tears down the wrong house, any reasonable person knows they are going to be liable in court for the damages caused and the monetary damages allows one to recover the value of the property. This isn't some punk stealing your heirlooms at night and fleeing never to be found.

Scenario 3: Obstinacy. The homeowner receives the eviction notice but disagrees. It violates "his rights". The remedy here is to pursue one's options in court, not create a sniper hide inside his house and starts shooting people like some overblown sovereign-citizen whackjob. This scenario is equivalent to an evicted apartment dweller deciding to resist eviction with deadly force. Not going to go well for the person.

Scenario 4: the construction company deliberately ignored the fact that the eviction is still in dispute and tries to tear down the house. No notice was given and the company men just show up with bulldozers. Assuming the homeowner is not inside the house and has called the police who doesn't show up in time.

i apologize that I should be more clear with my first post. This scenario that actually happened in another country. I was asked how this scenario would play out in U.S. In the real case, the homeowner went on killing two workers and ended with first degree murder. The people in that country think it's injustice and think they have the right to defend their property using deadly force. As it's mentioned, that's the Americans would do.

That would be a hard scenario to occur here. Our notions of ownership, courts processes, are much more definite and certain than in some other countries.

You use the term "evicted," but an owner cannot be evicted as that term is used. A court can award title to another, but as long as the judgment is not final, it ordinarily would not be effective to vest title in the new owner.

In condemnation, also referred to as eminent domain, proceedings, often the court will order the property to the public agency bringing the action, while the "just compensation" is still being argued over. This can lead to a situation where the property owner tries to hold up proceedings, unhappy with the yet to be decided cimpensation. In that situation once the condemnation judgment is entered, the owner is no longer in title. I strongly suspect a murder charge would result if the now former owner attempted to defend his possession with force.

Am I the only one that thinks tearing down your house with you still in it would be at least aggravated assault, if not attempted murder? I guess you could plop yourself down in the house with a rifle and call the police. If the backhoe starts knocking down the house with you in it, you'd seem to be justified in shooting the operator.

ScottDLS wrote:Am I the only one that thinks tearing down your house with you still in it would be at least aggravated assault, if not attempted murder? I guess you could plop yourself down in the house with a rifle and call the police. If the backhoe starts knocking down the house with you in it, you'd seem to be justified in shooting the operator.

Somehow we are in the minority.

Contrary to the advice above, you could shoot one or two of 'em and see what happens.