Past articles document the media’s bias against Castle Doctrine, insinuating that this enhanced self-defense law impedes investigators and handcuffs prosecutors,1 or that the right of self-defense originated with Castle Doctrine.2
Laura Whitley of ABC Houston affiliate KTRK covering a recent self-defense story where Rodney Shamlin was shot by homeowner Gary Southworth, wrote:
A new law that just went into effect in September allows Texans to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars and work places. The Castle Doctrine removes the requirement that a person must attempt to retreat before using deadly force.3
Whitley’s claim that Castle Doctrine supposedly “allows Texans to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars and work places” is revisionism at its best. But she never addresses a primary criteria for including the above paragraph: Does this incident have anything to do with Castle Doctrine or does prior self-defense law apply?
Self-Defense Law Before Castle Doctrine
(Note: All Texas law referenced below pre-dated Castle Doctrine.)
Texas Penal Code (Section 9.31) restricts the use of force in self-defense “when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.”4 [Emphasis added]
Texas law also states:
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect 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.5 [Emphasis added]
Whitley wrote that Southworth was calling the police when Shamlin saw where Southworth was hiding:
“I cannot believe it,” he told us. “I was trying to dial 911 on my phone and when he saw where I was hiding, he should have turned around and ran or something. Not continue.”6
Watching as Shamlin approached him with a potential weapon in his hand, Southworth feared for his life:
“And when the guy came at me, I had no choice, I thought he was going to Taser me with that thing he had,” he told me [Whitley]. I asked if he thought Shamlin had a Taser in his hand.
“Yeah, that’s what I thought it was,” he replied.7
The weapon turned out to be a saw, but a cutting tool with a sharp edge has the potential for serious injury, especially if wielded against an elderly person. Also, it is unreasonable to expect a person who is already hiding to attempt to flee.
Regarding robbery, Texas law states:
(a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.8 [Emphasis added]
Southworth’s fear of imminent bodily injury or death, combined with Shamlin’s alleged robbery, satisfy Texas’s criteria for the use of deadly force. Gratuitous Choir-Boy Testimony
Biased reporting on self-defense is not complete without including a claim that the deceased was the victim. In a follow-up article, Whitley wrote:
Shamlin’s distraught father wants answers. He does not believe his son was stealing, but admits he wasn’t there. “Why didn’t he tell him to lie down,” asked Lenard Shamlin, Jr. said. “Lie down and call the police, he called the police anyway.”9
Perhaps Shamlin, aged 36 and reportedly on probation for a theft conviction, would not “lie down” because he considered a 60-year-old man easy prey?10
Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with this act of self-defense other than to protect the defender from another robbery via a wrongful death suit filed by “distraught” family members, should the shooting be ruled justifiable homicide. Mentioning Castle Doctrine in this article seems a ploy to distract the reader from ABC’s bias against legal self-defense.
Endnotes
1 Howard Nemerov, Gun Control: Media Myth-Conception, News Busters, August 14, 2007. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/howard-nemerov/2007/08/14/gun-control-media-myth-conception
2 Howard Nemerov, Coming to a Media Outlet New You!!! TSRA Sportsman, September/October 2007.
3 Laura Whitley, Homeowner shoots and kills suspects burglar in Porter, KTRK, November 29, 2007. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=5793118
4 Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9. Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility, Subchapter C. Protection of Persons, Section 9.31: Self-Defense. http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
5 Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9. Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility, Subchapter C. Protection of Persons, Section 9.32: Deadly Force in Defense of Person. http://tlo2.tlc.stat...
6 Laura Whitley, Man explains deadly shooting in Porter, KTRK, November 30, 2007. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=5804740
7 Ibid.
8 Texas Penal Code, Chapter 29, Robbery, Paragraph 29.02. http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000029.00.htm#29.02.00
9 Laura Whitley, Man explains deadly shooting in Porter, KTRK, November 30, 2007.
10 Reneé C. Lee, Man shot by resident had criminal past, Houston Chronicle, November 30, 2007. http://www.chron.com...




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Texas Tested the Right to carry law using deadly force
December 3, 2007 - 18:04 ET by JayTeeI think in the Ft. worth/Dallas area an Auto Accident was the first Grand Jury test of the Texas Right to carry and subsequent use of Deadly force.
Some fender bender resulted in a Guy reaching thru the open window NOT to get Insurance info, but to Beat on the guy who banged up his car. The "Beatee" reached into his glove Compartment and Shot 'em dead. He was No billed. Road rage incidents decrease shortly there after (just guessing)
Lots of right to carry law Tests have stood the Rights of the "Robbee" in the use of Deadly Force. Doesn't mean there cannot be a Civil Suit to follow....but hey, just ask for a JURY Trial, and re-imbursement of Court Expenses. The Lawyer will run away from the dummy pursuing the Suit.
This Gal must be from NY and recently moved to Texas. I'd bet my boots she was from out of State.
In Texas it has long been
December 3, 2007 - 18:49 ET by Dan The Man 2In Texas it has long been held if ya kill someone drag him inside your house. Because usually they would nobill ya if he was inside the house. This has been the norm for at least 50 years here in Texas.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Same in Arizona
December 3, 2007 - 20:59 ET by DEVILDOCMOMSince my whole family has CCW permits it would be a real BAD idea to try this in our houses.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Senate Bill 1145, the "Castle Doctrine" legislation sponsored by Senator Timothy Bee (D-30) and Representative Jonathan Paton (R-30), was signed by Governor Janet Napolitano Monday, April 24.
Senate Bill 1145 has two components. One is Castle Doctrine, which presumes you are justified in the use of force if you believe you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death within your home or occupied vehicle. The second and most significant component is the return of the burden of proof in self-defense cases to the state, so law-abiding citizens who are forced to actually use their firearms or other means of protection for self-defense will not be wrongfully imprisoned or financially devastated by costs associated with their legal defense. They will once again be presumed innocent – consistent with the American system of justice.
2nd Amendment has a safe haven in Texas
December 3, 2007 - 21:32 ET by tpmintxMy personal experience with the doctine now called "castle" goes back to when I lived in CA.
Greatly condensed: There was someone trying to get into my home at midnight and the police were too busy to come by. The 911 operator asked if I was armed.
As the owner of an unregistered gun in CA, how was I to answer?
God bless Texas!
KHOU
December 3, 2007 - 23:35 ET by UnsaneNot to be outdone! Within the past week, KHOU, the Houston CBS affiliate, aired a feature on the 10 pm news broadcast which highlighted the “legal, mental, and financial” consequences of defending your home from an intruder. (I did not see this story but heard it advertised enough on local Houston radio stations.) Seems that there are plenty in the Houston media who don’t think people here should be able to defend themselves from break-ins and other crimes. I suppose their faith in the HPD is boundless (well, mine isn’t)!
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Police Protection
December 4, 2007 - 03:05 ET by TBARWhen seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Life is too short to be serious
When I was taking my CCW
December 4, 2007 - 07:51 ET by USA4freedomWhen I was taking my CCW class, the instructor was telling us that in Charlotte N.C. some years ago, there was a rash of car jackings. One night an elderly woman shot a car jacker. Car jacking almost completely stopped for a year.
I read a survey a few years ago ( I wish I could remember where it was) but it stated that the criminal feared a citizen with a gun more..then the police because, the citizen will.. shoot you.
A story that happened 3 weeks ago to me:
I dropped my car off at the local garage, about 10 blocks from my home. Walking back home through the grave yard (I know it sounds like a bad B rated film)..and (“what was I thinking”), three older kids age 15 to maybe 18 road their bikes past me. The first time they just looked me over,they turned around and came back for a second look. I lifted my shirt upshowing that I had a gun. I heard one of them say: F. that he’s got a gun, and they took off. Now this happened in the historic area of New Bern. One of the nicest areas here. Now, here is the kicker, across the street from the grave yard is the police station!! I could see the police station from where these kids were going to try to roll me..
Now, that will never make the paper but if they killed me or robbed me “that” would make the paper. This has happened 4 times in the past year and a half, in our neighborhood, to other people. The victims are mostly elderly (easy pray).
My point is, no one knows how much crime is reduced by people owing or carrying guns. You can’t prove a negative.
Criminals or killers will if they can, will pick the easy target.
For example: schools (gun free zone)
Quick marts, person all alone.
Elderly women, or women in parking lots.
Notice they never try to rob a gun shop? Wonder why.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
No doubt, USA4, those
December 4, 2007 - 10:32 ET by JerNo doubt, USA4, those punks were dissuaded by the sudden realization that they might make your day. Good. But they also might just move on to more opportunistic targets...such as elderly women or others less likely to be armed. [Maybe a "Glocks for Grannies" campaign should be launched.]
Let me make one thing clear: I believe anyone should be able to own and keep, at the very least, a shotgun on his or her property. Beyond that, for me anyway, the matter gets complicated. And many years of thought and analysis haven't advanced or clarified my position one whit.
So what are your views USA4? Let me ask a few questions:
--Do you support any restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms, or do you consider the Second Amendment to be absolute in its protection of the citizenry from governmental gun control?
--Would you favor universal arming of the public? In other words, would we have a safer society if every man woman and child not only possessed the legal right to own and carry firearms, but all individuals as a matter of fact carried guns? Would we be a more stable, more gentile nation?
--Should there be any limitations on where firearms could be carried? To restaurants, bars, churches, concerts, schools, the garden club, birthday parties, on planes, buses, to places of employment? Or are some locale restrictions legitimate.
--What about types of weapons? The Second Amendment specifies the right to bear arms. Arms include a heck of a lot more than just my twelve gauge shotgun. An AK-47 is certainly an "arm". For that mattter, so is a bazooka, a tank and a Patriot missile. Why wouldn't those arms be within the purview of constitutional protection? I once read a statement in one of Wayne LaPierre's books that those weapons weren't consistent with the traditional muskets possessed by colonial era Americans. Well, Mr. LaPierre, that's an interesting anecdote--and it has nothing to do with the unmodified word "arms" contained in the Second Amendment. So how about it...why prohibit a fully automatic M-16?
It seems to me that LaPierre's philosophy--and that of the NRA--employs the theory that the level of public safety within American society exists in direct proportion to the degree to which the citizenry is armed. That is, the more people with more guns equals more safety. I just don't know that I can buy the argument. There will always be criminals. If the natural and consistent presumption of the criminal is that his target is armed, he will simply use more stealth and greater--and more frequently lethal--force to make sure he maintains the advantage over his victim.
[By the way, I hear of pawn shops getting hit from time to time, and they gernerally are well stocked with various firearms.]
Anyway, you needn't respond to every single question I've crammed into this post, but I would be interested in reading some more of your general thoughts on the topic.
Thanks, Jer
I know the questions aren't for me but...
December 4, 2007 - 10:45 ET by MightyMouth...since this is a public forum I'll give my answers...
No.
Yes and mandatory if you please.
No.
Most types but draw the line at "tanks and missiles" except on the 4th of July and Perl Harbor Day.
What's wrong with bringing back a little of the Wild Wild West?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM...even the Wild West
December 4, 2007 - 10:55 ET by JerMM...even the Wild West implemented some gun regulations...that's what made it safer for the town folk, school marms, and such.
And I think I'll just stick with sparklers to celebrate the Fourth of July.
Jer
And I think I'll just stick with sparklers to celebrate the Four
December 4, 2007 - 11:04 ET by MightyMouthFine, don't forget to plant a "Guns Free Zone" sign in your front yard. Wouldn't want the neighbors thinking you might be armed! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Great idea, MM. I could
December 4, 2007 - 11:15 ET by JerGreat idea, MM. I could lure the bad guys on to my property with the "Guns Free Zone" sign, and then blast them with the twelve gauge that you apparently failed to note in my original post.
Jer
No I don't think that would be right...
December 4, 2007 - 11:21 ET by MightyMouth... and the Jury would probably through the book at you. You liberals really have a sick way of looking at things. But that's just my opinion of liberals and probably is tainted because I know so many.
<eye roll>
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Care to cite an example of
December 4, 2007 - 11:45 ET by JerCare to cite an example of a "sick" way I look at things?
Jer
Luring someone into your home...
December 4, 2007 - 11:49 ET by MightyMouth...under a false pretense just so you can shoot them?
sounds sick to me... maybe you were just joking?
Nahhh... Liberals never joke... or is that ALL they do? (or are?)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Definitely joking MM...I do
December 4, 2007 - 16:02 ET by JerDefinitely joking MM...I do have a shot gun, and so I was just picking up on your Guns Free Zone reference.
Jer
Now that I look at that sign...
December 4, 2007 - 16:05 ET by MightyMouthOne could think you are giving firearms away for free! bassndude is probably gonna want your address! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Jer, we do that here
December 4, 2007 - 14:05 ET by bassndudeJer, we do that here already. Come on my property and threaten me, either I or one, (or maybe all) of my neighbors will shoot you. D-E-A-D.
Happyness is 6,(or more), in the 10 ring.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
regarding certain wordings in the 2nd Amendment
December 4, 2007 - 13:53 ET by JohnMThis will clarify for you the proper interpretations and intent. It's the DoJ's own position, and details extensive research.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
"The strong have an obligation to protect the weak." (I don't know the source, but I've heard this all my life...)
BTW, those who are not comfortable or trained in the use of firearms should not be forced to use them.
Jer No Yes No,
December 4, 2007 - 14:02 ET by bassndudeJer
No
Yes
No, except intercontinental ballistic missiles. (Tanks, Laws, AT-4s, Dragons and stingers, 7 day waiting period).
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass...what are AT-4s and
December 4, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Jerbass...what are AT-4s and Dragons?
Jer
Jer, In addition
December 5, 2007 - 00:52 ET by JoeBobJer,
In addition to the LAWS, both are man-portable anti-tank weapon systems. The Dragon was retired in the early nineties. The AT-4 can refer to the Russian Spigot anti-tank weapon, but also refers to the Bofors AT4 anti-tank system that is fast replacing the LAWS in the American arsenal.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
Thanks JoeBob...In recent
December 5, 2007 - 02:53 ET by JerThanks JoeBob...In recent years, I haven't stayed as current with weapons development as I was before [although I probably still log more time on the military channel than any other on cable].
Jer
I was on watch at a
December 4, 2007 - 09:12 ET by BruzillaI was on watch at a Sheriff's Office in Maryland, and I got a call from the dispatcher at the Maryland State Police barrack one night. The dispatcher asked how things were going, and I said fine. She told me that things were kinda slow at the barrack, etc., and we made small talk for about five minutes. Wanting to get back to my paperwork, I politely asked her if there was a reason she had called, and she said "oh yes, we got a call from a woman who says she thought someone was trying to break into her home, and we're too busy to send someone. Do you guys have a unit who can respond?"
I about exploded on the phone! I got every unit in the north end of the county rolling, and by the time they got onsite the guy had fled. I tried to report the dispatcher, but was told there was nothing I could do about it. That's why I trust my safety to a personal firearm more so than the police.
It seems that liberals
December 4, 2007 - 08:13 ET by NonanonIt seems that liberals don't want anyone to punish criminals (undocumented visitors) in any way, shape, or form.
How many people have been hurt or killed because of liberalism? We should destroy it 'for the children'.