I found this on a MyFoxAustin blog written by Mike Rosen:
Notes on Castle Doctrine
Mar 27, 2007 | 5:56 PM
Category: News
So many questions surround the “Castle Doctrine” that Gov. Perry signed into law today (see Will Jensen’s story on our news page).
One of the most ambiguous parts of it is under what circumstances it applies. State Rep Joe Driver (R-Garland) says the intent is to give you protection under the law if you are in harm’s way, and you couldn’t avoid it. Essentially, you have to be inside the home or business at the time someone breaks in, not go in after them.
A recent example occured early this morning in Dallas. These are the facts, loosely. An auto body shop owner got a call from his alarm company that someone had broken in. If he goes inside, finds and shoots the intruder, will he be backed by the new law? Driver says in this case probably not, with one exception. He says some cities, including Dallas, require someone to positively find out whether someone has broken in before police will respond to an alarm at a business.
This one will be fun for the lawyers to figure out.
******************************************************************************
As a follow up response, I responded by stating:
“I am glad you blogged a bit more about it. I am in a stunned phase, I guess and not too sure what I feel exactly about it.
On the news there was a lady that brought out some good points. I believe she was an advocate for the Brady bill, which was so for better gun controls. I didn’t find it on FOX7’s website though for clarification.
Of course there will be more gun sales as the law has been signed, which is good for the gun retailers; however, I am not sure if this is also making it easier for people to get away with murder.
In domestic violence situations, for instance, what is going to prevent the alledged defender to claim that he/she thought that their spouse or partner was an intruder. What steps are going to be done to prove otherwise?
Of course, some of the thought process could have been due to all the turmoil at the borders with the cartels fighting and killing some innocent residents that had no real part in their battles, scruffs, etc. At least, some of these residents could defend themselves at their homes (and, in accordance with the new law I believe, at their workplace and in protection of their vehicle).
We do need to be able to defend ourselves and our property; however, the opponents say that having the guns available could also create more danger and violence.
Only time will tell. Just some outward thoughts and notes myself. Just not knowing exactly what to think about it all at the moment.
In the end, you are right. While it does provide for a good jumping off point, it will be interesting to see how the attorneys “duke” it out in the courtrooms to better define the Castle Doctrine through supportive caselaw on point.”
What do you think about the new law??????
Leave a comment