a public defender: Texas removes duty to retreat | a public defender
Gritsforbreakfast
· 2 years ago
I haven't focused on this bill, mostly because I don't think it's a significant change from current law the way courts have been interpreting it. I've never heard of anyone prosecuted for shooting a burglar in Texas, so the bill won't affect much and doesn't really bother me in the context of home invasion.
Bottom line: If I wake up in the dark and somebody has broken into my home, they might get shot - how am I to know their intentions or whether they're armed, until it's too late?
Gideon
· 2 years ago
Thanks for the comment. I wasn't expecting outrage or anything, since I had read that the bill didn't change much. I suspected that my opinion of this was ill-informed and I was looking to see if someone had explained it in a concise way.
Given your explanation, I tend to agree. I don't think it's a huge deal. As a defense attorney, I probably should be happy that they have created such an assumption. I'm just wary of assumptions.
AntonK
· 2 years ago
"..now we'll have a free for all.?
Funny how there's been no "free for all" in other places that have adopted similar laws.
I, and most reasonable people agree that avoiding confrontation is always the more preferable and safe route for all. But to attach criminal and civil liability to the victim of a violent crime (home invasion, carjacking, etc...) because they didn't retreat from the violent attack is obscene. Retreat can increase the time you are exposed to the attacker, among other things.
Yes, get to your safe room in the top corner of the house if you can. But, if faced by your attacker before you can do that, stop them with deadly force if necessary.
Steve Smith
· 2 years ago
No sympathy here. Someone breaks into my house and I am there with my family or even alone, I am not going to go hustling out the back into the waiting arms of an accomplice. Any said intruders will and should get immediate lead poisoning. Now that the tough talk is over, I would also point out that in no state that has enacted such laws has had blood run in the streets as predicted. I'm sure someone can point to some tragedy, but no law is warranteed against a perfect outcome in every situation it is designed to address. Finally, in Britain, where the government has gone the furthest down the road to legalizing a regime in which every petty burgler can burgle with impunity because all guns have been taken and the government is actively prosecuting homeowners who do use deadly force, the crime rates have been soaring.
Gideon
· 2 years ago
yes, the use of the phrase "a free for all" may be sensationalist, but I am highlighting the worst case scenario.
Granted, other states (including FL) that have enacted similar laws have not seen an increase in violence, but the potential remains. This law doesn't only remove the duty to retreat from one's house, but also from one's car. So conceivably, you don't have to be "attacked" in the middle of the night.
Yes, my objection is very limited, but I think I'll stick by it for now.
JB from Nashville DUI Guide
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I think "free for all" might push it a little. There may be a change, but I think most people are rational enough and dont want to use deadly force unless they have to.
Im a little behind on this issue, but now that it has been a few months, was has been the result of the removal of the duty to retreat?
All Comments
Bottom line: If I wake up in the dark and somebody has broken into my home, they might get shot - how am I to know their intentions or whether they're armed, until it's too late?
Given your explanation, I tend to agree. I don't think it's a huge deal. As a defense attorney, I probably should be happy that they have created such an assumption. I'm just wary of assumptions.
Funny how there's been no "free for all" in other places that have adopted similar laws.
I, and most reasonable people agree that avoiding confrontation is always the more preferable and safe route for all. But to attach criminal and civil liability to the victim of a violent crime (home invasion, carjacking, etc...) because they didn't retreat from the violent attack is obscene. Retreat can increase the time you are exposed to the attacker, among other things.
Yes, get to your safe room in the top corner of the house if you can. But, if faced by your attacker before you can do that, stop them with deadly force if necessary.
Granted, other states (including FL) that have enacted similar laws have not seen an increase in violence, but the potential remains. This law doesn't only remove the duty to retreat from one's house, but also from one's car. So conceivably, you don't have to be "attacked" in the middle of the night.
Yes, my objection is very limited, but I think I'll stick by it for now.
Im a little behind on this issue, but now that it has been a few months, was has been the result of the removal of the duty to retreat?