I don't understand these squatter situations

[rp_photo]

In Texas and other right-minded states, Castle Doctrine grants us the right to use deadly force or the threat of it against those who have broken into our property,

However, the best "window" to exercise those rights is upon first encounter and before reporting anything to police or the courts, which in essence would be a "retreat" and reduction of a potential threat to a legal issue.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/top-news/w ... ince-1931/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[victory]

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce the judge is an accomplice.

[C-dub]

The problem, at least in the cases I've heard of, is that the squatters don't come in while you're at work or the grocery store. They come in while you're away on vacation or some long period of time where they can sorta establish residency and then due to some local or state laws become the residents instead of the invaders. I may not have a firm grasp on all that, but that's how I understand it so far.

If this were my house and I came home from vacation, I would be armed, to find someone squatting in my home for some reason I think it would still be bad "legally" for me to shoot them as if they had come in while I was asleep at night or sitting eating my breakfast at the kitchen table.

[jmorris]

Actually it does happen in Texas. I don't believe (IANAL) that Castle Doctrine applies in such cases.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/06/16 ... squatting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In one case, an Arlington travel nurse came home in September to find her locks changed and two TVs missing, according to a police report. Authorities say Anthony Brown came to the front door and told her that he had claimed the home and she was trespassing."

Don't know of such a case where the squatters weren't eventually removed but people certainly lost use of their home for a while, court time, etc.

[rp_photo]

Actually it does happen in Texas. I don't believe (IANAL) that Castle Doctrine applies in such cases.

I don't see why not. If they don't belong in you home and they were never authorized to be there earlier (which is very important), the home owner should be allowed to order them out under threat of deadly force and use deadly force if they resist. It should be legally equivalent to walking in on a burglary.

[jmorris]

Actually it does happen in Texas. I don't believe (IANAL) that Castle Doctrine applies in such cases.

I don't see why not. If they don't belong in you home and they were never authorized to be there earlier (which is very important), the home owner should be allowed to order them out under threat of deadly force and use deadly force if they resist. It should be legally equivalent to walking in on a burglary.

See C-Dub's post. Problem is, that at least until the lawyers are done, they have established residency by filing the adverse procession paperwork. So now it's them protecting their home against *you*. This is not done when you step out for a couple hours. In this case (http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/20086802/ ... atter-case) the couple watched the home for weeks to insure no one was there* before moving in. At least this couple is facing life sentences.

*Homeowner was actually in the hospital receiving chemo.

[The Annoyed Man]

A thief is a thief is a thief. In approximately 33 AD (depending on whose calendar you're using), a thief was executed by crucifixion on a cross next to the one Jesus of Nazareth was being crucified upon. Jesus forgave the man for his sins, but He did not release the thief from his punishment. Rendering unto Caesar, and all that.

I think that crucifixion is an adequate penalty for anyone who tries to evict me from my own home by means of an adverse possession filing...... ESPECIALLY if the reason for my absence was that I was in hospital, getting chemotherapy. There is an especially hot, prickly, and putrid place in hades for such scum.

[EEllis]

Actually it does happen in Texas. I don't believe (IANAL) that Castle Doctrine applies in such cases.

I don't see why not. If they don't belong in you home and they were never authorized to be there earlier (which is very important), the home owner should be allowed to order them out under threat of deadly force and use deadly force if they resist. It should be legally equivalent to walking in on a burglary.

Because among other things we are talking about taking someones life. What if it was a fraudulent real estate deal where someone did sell a house to these people? Where someone really thought they were buying a house legitimately and then the true owners show up and shoot them while they are sleeping? After all it's really their house so they should be able to kill anyone inside right? Come on. It isn't a burglary. If you want to use deadly force it's because you want to control everything, engage in "self help" to solve the problem yourself but such things are why there are courts.

[EEllis]

Also lets understand that the original case referenced by the OP was in housing court and just dealt with the eviction of someone who claimed that they had a legal right to be in the house. There was a separate criminal investigation also.

Beatty, who’d allegedly been living in the home with his two sons and a pit bull, is charged with grand larceny, criminal possession of a forged instrument, falsifying business records and scheme to defraud.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc ... -1.1974364" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[StewNTexas]

If I found someone in my home, I would not wait for the court to take action. Either way, there would only be one of us left to offer evidence in a trial.

Would then try to find any assets they had, sue for costs due to damage to the home such as carpet replacement to get rid of the blood stains or ambulance tracks across the lawn.

[EEllis]

If I found someone in my home, I would not wait for the court to take action. Either way, there would only be one of us left to offer evidence in a trial.

Would then try to find any assets they had, sue for costs due to damage to the home such as carpet replacement to get rid of the blood stains or ambulance tracks across the lawn.

So if you found someone in a home no one has lived in for 10 years who said that he legally bought said home and had a deed to that home you wouldn't wait to see if the other person had simply been defrauded, because that does happen quite a bit, you would instead use force to enter the home and kill whomever was there? Are kids and women fair target to? And you then think that your big concern would be finding assets to attempt to recover what you think your loses are? Somehow I think that would be your smallest legal bill.

[Vol Texan]

If I found someone in my home, I would not wait for the court to take action. Either way, there would only be one of us left to offer evidence in a trial.

Would then try to find any assets they had, sue for costs due to damage to the home such as carpet replacement to get rid of the blood stains or ambulance tracks across the lawn.

So if you found someone in a home no one has lived in for 10 years who said that he legally bought said home and had a deed to that home you wouldn't wait to see if the other person had simply been defrauded, because that does happen quite a bit, you would instead use force to enter the home and kill whomever was there? Are kids and women fair target to? And you then think that your big concern would be finding assets to attempt to recover what you think your loses are? Somehow I think that would be your smallest legal bill.

eellis,

I don't think that's what he's saying. I'm pretty sure he said, "If I found someone living in my home," which is different than some third-party situation or a 10-year gap that you seem to be referencing above.

Quite simply, if I come home to MY HOUSE and find someone in inside (even if I've been gone for a month on vacation in Europe), that person is nothing more than a target for me if they approach me in any way.

Your approach is simply a red herring argument to lump StewNTexas into some category that he is simply not advocating.

[StewNTexas]

Vol Texan - THANKS. You expressed my thoughts better than I did.

I cannot imagine leaving a house empty for ten years and expect it to still be there when I returned. That would make it a miracle, not just a bad situation.

[EEllis]

If I found someone in my home, I would not wait for the court to take action. Either way, there would only be one of us left to offer evidence in a trial.

Would then try to find any assets they had, sue for costs due to damage to the home such as carpet replacement to get rid of the blood stains or ambulance tracks across the lawn.

So if you found someone in a home no one has lived in for 10 years who said that he legally bought said home and had a deed to that home you wouldn't wait to see if the other person had simply been defrauded, because that does happen quite a bit, you would instead use force to enter the home and kill whomever was there? Are kids and women fair target to? And you then think that your big concern would be finding assets to attempt to recover what you think your loses are? Somehow I think that would be your smallest legal bill.

eellis,

I don't think that's what he's saying. I'm pretty sure he said, "If I found someone living in my home," which is different than some third-party situation or a 10-year gap that you seem to be referencing above.

Quite simply, if I come home to MY HOUSE and find someone in inside (even if I've been gone for a month on vacation in Europe), that person is nothing more than a target for me if they approach me in any way.

Your approach is simply a red herring argument to lump StewNTexas into some category that he is simply not advocating.

OK. I see what you're saying. The issue I had is that situation has little to do with the example of the op but I get coming home to finding your house occupied but legally you guys are still wrong. You have a situation where you are in zero danger. Locks have been changed and no one is threatening anyone. To use violence in a situation where you are in no danger of violence to yourself or your family is just unnecessary. Basically it seems to be advocating killing someone to limit your inconvenience. For the most part I take it as internet bravado and wouldn't care but there are those who would read this type of thing and come to the conclusion that violence would be the correct and legal path to take. It wouldn't be correct in either a legal or moral way. IMO

[tacticool]

Actually it does happen in Texas. I don't believe (IANAL) that Castle Doctrine applies in such cases.

I don't see why not. If they don't belong in you home and they were never authorized to be there earlier (which is very important), the home owner should be allowed to order them out under threat of deadly force and use deadly force if they resist. It should be legally equivalent to walking in on a burglary.

In Texas, I wonder what would happen if the owner called 911 and pleaded for help because strange men are in her house RIGHT NOW!