Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
Metspitzer wrote:

I've always wanted to have some signs printed up saying
"Trespassers will be eaten."

On the serious side:

In many (most) areas of the U.S., the Castle Doctrine only applies
to the inside of your house/trailer/car, not all of your property.

In many areas, you can legally shoot someone trespassing on your
property, but ONLY if you have very specifically worded signs at
minimum intervals around your property. Using your creatively
worded signs won't cut it legally.
Use of deadly force against a simple trespasser alone is never
justified.

You should read a little about Joe Horn. I wish I had him for a
neighbor.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...q=f&oq=&aq i=

Robbery, Breaking and Entering, or whatever the perpetrators would
have been charged with if they had lived is *not* an offense
punishable by death.
I find it difficult to believe that even if the *cops* had been called
and had witnessed the break-in or saw the perps exiting the building
carrying the loot, they would have shot to kill.


You are correct in that the penalty imposed by the state for robbery or
burglary does not include the death penalty. However, here we're talking
about the prevention or apprehension done by non-governmental citizens.


Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.42. DEADLY 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.

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the
circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be
justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes
attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible,
movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly
force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the
actor, or is under the actor's care.

Remember, this is TEXAS, not some pussy-whipped, left-coast, malfunctioning
state.