Waiting for an attack to happen :( dogs

[whillo]

Well, that makes more sense Noodleroo

I imagine that there would have to be proof that there was a problem with the intruder. I imagine there is a law on the books in many states just like that. My Dad always said, shoot 'em and drag 'em inside... then it's legal. I used to cringe when he would say that. Funny coming from a man who never owned a gun in his life.

 

[Boyd]

Quote:
No, this is not the law in Texas. This is either a county or city law or the deputy was wrong in saying that.
I just know that it is not a state law.
I don't believe it is a county or city law either. Lawmakers do pass some strange laws, but this is just wrong.

Texas state law is that you can shoot an animal that is harassing, attacking, or worrying your livestock.
You can't shoot a dog for just being on your property, or a person either.

I would find out where that information came from, and document it.
If he told that to the man, then he thinks he has the right to do this. I would be very scared about that.
Kids don't always think before they act, especially if they are young. If one of "their" chickens happen to get on his property, they might just have to "save" it from the neighbor and I shudder to think what might happen. There are these kinds of people all over the world, and I'm sorry you have one next to you.


Jean

Look up your Castle Doctrine's for the state of Texas.. Texas has the strongest in the Union, with Michigan following closely behind....

 

[Boyd]

Quote:
No, this is not the law in Texas. This is either a county or city law or the deputy was wrong in saying that.
I just know that it is not a state law.
I don't believe it is a county or city law either. Lawmakers do pass some strange laws, but this is just wrong.

Texas state law is that you can shoot an animal that is harassing, attacking, or worrying your livestock.
You can't shoot a dog for just being on your property, or a person either.

I would find out where that information came from, and document it.
If he told that to the man, then he thinks he has the right to do this. I would be very scared about that.
Kids don't always think before they act, especially if they are young. If one of "their" chickens happen to get on his property, they might just have to "save" it from the neighbor and I shudder to think what might happen. There are these kinds of people all over the world, and I'm sorry you have one next to you.
Jean

I think the deputy was CONFUSED about the Texas Penal Code. There is a very strongly worded statute about defending your property. Basically, it says that if it is night time, you can use deadly force to recover your stolen property, and, you can chase someone down that is fleeing with your property and use deadly force to get it back. It is the law but I don't particularly think its a good idea. Here's the code:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec.A9.41.AAPROTECTION OF ONE ’S OWN PROPERTY.A (a)A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other ’s trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b)A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1)the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2)the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Sec.9.42.AADEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1)if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2)when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)to prevent the other ’s imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B)to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(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.

actually the bolded portions are exactly what the sheriff/deputy were talking about... PS, Criminal Mischief is also known as trespassing......

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Perhaps, but nighttime was not mentioned (at least not in the information posted here), and that seems to make a big difference in the statute.