Shooting a dog thief?

[Circle C]

This crossed my mind the other day...

Let's say I am out hunting on some property that I own, or lease, and someone steals my dogs. I happen to catch them in the act of loading them up.  Can I shoot them and cite the Castle Doctrine? For discussions sake, let's say they are unarmed, except for a hunting knife on their side. It is dark outside. I have told them that the dogs belong to me, yet they continue to load them up, and make an attempt to leave with my stolen dogs...

 Are my dogs "property", I feel certain that if they were stealing a saddle, I could shoot them, but what about a dog?

 Change this scenario to witnessing someone stealing dogs from your kennel, at your residence?  Can you shoot them then?

Texas Castle Doctrine or Texas Castle Bill or Texas Castle Law
     

Below is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine also known as Texas Castle Law or as Texas Castle Bill
______________________________________

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] 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:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(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 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.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(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 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 an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(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 [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

[Miller Lite]

Sir i come from a military family and thats when i was told to put two in the chest in one in the head its worse to shoot someone and not kill them these days as it is to kill them i've heard my grandpa talk about cases where people got caught breaking into someones house gettin shot then sueing them i personally think that is just ridiculous and im with you 100% shoot em i can't stand a theif they are like snaked to me only good one is a dead one

[Rockin-P-Ranch]

Dead men tell no lies

[Rockin-P-Ranch]

I have been sitting here thinking about what you have just posted Chris, and I feel it all comes down to this. Is a dog,saddle,horse,or big screne tv worth a persons life.Not only that but can YOU live with the thought of taking a life for any material thing. I know that the law gives use the wright to protect what is ours.But stop and think if you can live with what you have done.Now please dont think of me as a person that would not protect and keep what is mine because believe me I will. And protecting your life and your family is somthing completly different.All Im saying is be prepared to deal with the thought of it.

[Circle C]

Mr P.

    My question has more to do with, is a dog "property" that can be protected citing the castle doctrine.  

With regards to dealing with the consequences of taking a life. I hope I never have to deal with that, but if the time comes that I fear for my life, and I am armed. You can bet I will soon know what it feels like to take a life.  I don't know the answer to if a saddle or dog is worth a persons life, but I would like to know if there is any legal backing, should the situation ever arise.

  As I sit here typing this, there is a loaded lever gun about 6 feet from me, and a loaded pistol less than 2 feet from me. Additionally, each vehicle has a loaded gun, as does my Mule, my house, and my barn.  BTW, I also have a fire extinguisher in each vehicle, house, barn, and office   Call it being prepared....  

[DangerZone]

Hey circle I ask your ? to a former law officer and now constable freind of mine for a long time now. and he said that castle only portect you from prosecution from the thief or his family. the interpetation of porperty would be up to the judge more than likely, there fore pretty much in the state of texas the only way your NOT gonna get prosecuted for shooting someone is for you or your family's live to be in danger.  he has allways said if something like that happens, be the victme, be remorsefull ,and be sick, say's even seasoned officers sometimes get ill after a shooting. and none of that-- sob deserved it, or i'd doit again. 

[Derek]

What if you kill him and the court decides you're wrong?

[USHOG]

then you go to jail

[Circle C]

a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] 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:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(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 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;

The bold print is what I think applies here.  If I catch someone stealing from my home, I can shoot, and be protected from criminal and civil prosecution. Same as in my vehicle, or place of business.   

[Circle C]

After additional reading, I don't think Castle doctrine would apply to protecting your property on a hunting lease for example.

I still wonder if a dog is property, as applies to Castle doctrine.

[Bump]

Fill them full of holes. My dogs life is worth more than a thiefs. Guess I may be different than some people....but just like dogs....some individuals need to be culled as well.

Everyone is different. If you can handle the thought of taking the life.....think that depends on the person. It wouldnt bother me.

I think this all depends on the situation and how the law enforcement see the situation. I would make sure the guy had some sort of weapon lieing next tim him though. 

[charles]

 i hav pondered the same ? that u r askn C. since i dont hav a child that lives with me, i think of my dogs as my children but wondern if the law would see it the same way. i wouldnt hesitate agin to shoot some1, let along stealn somethin that i hold dear to myself. u could always plant a throw down knife and claim self defence, as lnog as there is only 1 side to the story and that be,u the shooter.

[DangerZone]

it's the ( with force )= gun,knife,crowbar.bat,ect...  he's armed and your if fear for your life if you donot let him do any of line (c) or else...     real life example --he knocks on the door ,you answer, he pushes his way in yall fight, he runs out and you tell the wife to call the law, you run after him with a bat, you catch him half way out the driveway and knock him on the head, police come take you both to jail,. both get aggivated assult because when he fled you went after him,..and became the aggesore....had a freind in just this situation with his wifes stepdad.  the police were appoligising to him while they were cuffing him saying ( if you would have just stayed in the house and called us got your gun and protected you family )

[dub]

It is simple you can use deadly force when you are in fear of your or someone else's life. But there is no way to know what you thinking. So would a reasonable person in the same situation be in fear of their life? It is a very long discussion but only use deadly force if you really are in fear of your life and then protect innocent life.

But you can detain a person for law enforcement. You can use force necessary to detain them. That does not include deadly force! But you can flip em and hog tie em. I detained one individual and law enforcement took their time giving him any attention or putting him in a comfortable back seat. They thought it was really funny. But do not get yourself in trouble. You can be rough after all you have not been trained and do not have handcuffs. I was very inventive but effective. Oops did I break his nose?

[Maver!ck]

....some individuals need to be culled as well.

now that is just funny right there!

I'm with you Chris, it would be interesting to know how they would interpret 'property'.  Another angle to look at it, if they did interpret your dog as 'property' then how does that play out in all the other laws regarding your pets?  something to ponder.  Once they classify it as one thing, it could affect so many other laws that contradict how a pet is classified, as livestock? as means of income? and so on.

Now as to how i'd handle it, i would fire a couple of warning shots, most likely, unless they were just plain ignorant, they wouldn't continue loading up my dogs, if they were, i'd start taking out tires lol, then if they were dumb enough to fire back, i wouldn't be warning anything with the next shots    it would fall under that self defense one 

Maver!ck

[Monteria]

It is important to note that the Castle Doctrine provides a defense to prosecution, not a guarantee of autonomy. It may provide the protections required to secure a no-bill decision at grand jury, or it may result in indictment, depending upon the circumstance. If an indictment were handed down, the doctrines interpretation by a judge or jury may or may not provide for successful defense.

Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons.

The doctrine gives no consideration to the value of property being protected, that I am aware of, so lets look at the individual scenarios that you gave.

1) I think that there are far too many variables and circumstances to expect a no-bill based only upon the rights provided by the doctrine. That being said, and assuming that malice intent were not a factor, I would assume it to provide you with a stable defense in court.

2) The dogs are not only your property, but also on your homestead. I would like to think that in such a scenario, the doctrine would provide strong enough protection from prosecution to guarantee a no-bill from Grand Jury. The type of property being threatened or stolen should be of no bearing on the facts of the case, or interpretation of the law.

Steve

[Derek]

then you go to jail

That's my point.

[sgt.davis]

Before you can shoot someone your life has to be in danger and they have to have 3 things. Intent,ability and action. As much as I agree with shooting any kind of thief ecspecialy a dog thief. I dont think a judge would see it the same way we see it. I think a good country ass whoopn would make a good statement and I think it would be a lot easier to justify. 

[Monteria]

Before you can shoot someone your life has to be in danger and they have to have 3 things. Intent,ability and action. As much as I agree with shooting any kind of thief ecspecialy a dog thief. I dont think a judge would see it the same way we see it. I think a good country ass whoopn would make a good statement and I think it would be a lot easier to justify. 

I am sure that this could be easily confused if you are not in Texas. But if you are in Texas, you should read and familiarize yourself with the Castle Doctrine.

[sgt.davis]

Ya im in Oklahoma.I forgot yalls laws are different.