Anyone familiar with law here?

[Death In June]

I came into a situation recently where I was threatened by a 17 year old kid. I'm going on 23 and I sort of mulled over my options. I decided that it was obviously not a good idea to put my career at risk, or risk doing any jail time on account of some little shit, but it got me thinking. Under what circumstances can I punch this kid in the face. Does simple assault (let's say he threw a punch) give me the right? Can I physically restrain him if he damages my property?

[mookie2001]

of course, if he hits you, you can beat him within an inch of his life


i always thought that 17 was adult when it came to law enforcement

[eyeh8u]

I came into a situation recently where I was threatened by a 17 year old kid. I'm going on 23 and I sort of mulled over my options. I decided that it was obviously not a good idea to put my career at risk, or risk doing any jail time on account of some little shit, but it got me thinking. Under what circumstances can I punch this kid in the face. Does simple assault (let's say he threw a punch) give me the right? Can I physically restrain him if he damages my property?

Citizens arrest

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/theremoteisland/2009/04/Dog-Bounty-Hunter-tv-12.jpg
http://content5.videojug.com/2d/2d2f4bd1-b116-d9a3-a7bc-ff0008c9de36/new-film-8.jpg

[Bukefal]

You can only punch him when you are in a position where you must use self-defence. So if he does something to you, you can use your right of self defence.

Or if the situation is so tense you can punch him and that is intensive right of self defence, when the other does not do you any harm, but because you were afraid for him doing something, you stepped up and punched him even though he has not attacked you.

But the latter is very hard to prove in law, so if you do not have a real reason for your self defence, you should not appeal on that.

If he assaulted you, than it could be a right of selfdefence if you punched him. But, in law judges will also look at 'what could you have done other than punching him?' and 'where there any other options for you left, instead of punching him, even though he attacked you?' .

They will say, when you were feeling that you were in a dangerous situation, you had to look first for other options to escape the situation then imediatelly punch him and use your right of self defence. You could also go away escape from the guy and call the police. Because the right of self defence is seen as the last option a person has to protect himself, or his dignity.

As for your last question, if he damages your property, I dont know about the USA, but in European law, you really can't, but this also depends on what kind of property. If he breaks into your home and smashes everything up and breaks your right of peaceful living (trespass), you will have better chances than if he only enters your garden and smashes a fence or something.

Of course its up to the judge and with help of jurisprudence to decide, but I dont think you will have any ground. You can sue him for damaging your property though.

Anyway, I wont punch the kid, it could get you in alot of trouble, law wise. Only if he really gets you in a dangerous situation you could consider.

[whottt]

I'm not a lawyer but...

First things you should not do(IMVHO):


A. Go on a message board stating you know he is a minor.
B. Ask under what conditions it's ok to punch him.

[boutons_deux]

Whott "VH" ? :lol

Punch him, he can get lawyer, too, it goes to trial, and all bets are off (even trial lawyers don't want to go to trial, too much work, way too much risk).

[Death In June]

I'm not a lawyer but...

First things you should not do(IMVHO):


A. Go on a message board stating you know he is a minor.
B. Ask under what conditions it's ok to punch him.I'm never going to see this kid again. I didn't know who he was, or the people he was with. I was just wondering how fucked I would be if I actually hit him. I mean, the law's got to have some sort of stipulation in regards to self defense and age. I'm sure if a 12 year old attacked me, I couldn't just bash his skull in. Likewise, if some kid busted my tail light, I don't think I could throw him to the ground and restrain him.

[exstatic]

I'm never going to see this kid again. I didn't know who he was, or the people he was with. I was just wondering how fucked I would be if I actually hit him. I mean, the law's got to have some sort of stipulation in regards to self defense and age. I'm sure if a 12 year old attacked me, I couldn't just bash his skull in.

If he doesn't hit you first, you'd have no leg to stand on.

That aside, a seventeen year old punk goes full diaper on you, and you want to get into the shit with him? Be the bigger man, or perhaps the only man.

[MiamiHeat]

I came into a situation recently where I was threatened by a 17 year old kid. I'm going on 23 and I sort of mulled over my options. I decided that it was obviously not a good idea to put my career at risk, or risk doing any jail time on account of some little shit, but it got me thinking. Under what circumstances can I punch this kid in the face. Does simple assault (let's say he threw a punch) give me the right? Can I physically restrain him if he damages my property?

Are you going to let every fool and stranger that walks on this earth that insults you with meaningless and uninformed words get you angry?

[MiamiHeat]

If he doesn't hit you first, you'd have no leg to stand on.

That aside, a seventeen year old punk goes full diaper on you, and you want to get into the shit with him? Be the bigger man, or perhaps the only man.

Castle doctrine.

It doesn't matter if he is hit first, if anyone trespasses onto someone's property, under the Castle Doctrine, which is law in most states INCLUDING TEXAS,.... you can assume he is there to do you harm, therefore you can shoot him dead and call the cops after.

If he threatened you verbally, and came over to violently break your property, you can easily assume he is there to do you harm.


I wouldn't recommend doing that though. The kid is 17.

[MiamiHeat]

Internet shits aren't solid enough to use in the court of law imho, since there hasn't been any law launched to rule the virtual world. I mean it's terminally inexcusable to talk trash on radio show but on Spurstalk we can talk as much as we want without worrying about getting arrested, a ban is the worst punishment possibly received here imho.

lol uninformed opinion.

If you were to say something the FBI is interested in, they WILL come knocking on your door and interrogate you. Depending on what you said, you can even get charged with crimes.

[exstatic]

Castle doctrine.

It doesn't matter if he is hit first, if anyone trespasses onto someone's property, under the Castle Doctrine, which is law in most states INCLUDING TEXAS,.... you can assume he is there to do you harm, therefore you can shoot him dead and call the cops after.

If he threatened you verbally, and came over to violently break your property, you can easily assume he is there to do you harm.


I wouldn't recommend doing that though. The kid is 17.

He was unclear as to what kind of property he was talking about. Castle only applies to your domicile.

Castle is very specific, but it wouldn't matter, legally, if he were 17. There was a guy here in SA that lay in wait on his roof, and basically executed two juveniles for some repeat vandalism. Legally? In bounds. Morally? On quicksand. I'm thinking that's a family with few or no friends now.

If you're thinking Castle option, you'd better fucking be right, or you could wind up with a needle in your arm in Huntsville.

[MiamiHeat]

I don't care if it's legal or not, I would not recommend using Castle Doctrine on a 17 year old.

He's just a kid.

and even if you were wrong when using Castle Doctrine, you won't receive a death penalty. That's some imagination you got there.

[Bukefal]

As for castle doctrine, the kid had to make a attempt to illegally enter your occupied home/property. The kid had to act illegally.

While you had to reasonably believe that the kid wanted to inflict serious harm to you or someone else in your home.
Or you had to reasonably believe that the kid wanted to commit other felonies, burglary for example.
You must not have been a part of provocation for the reason the kid acted illegaly.
And if there werent any other possible options, instead of using your defence as your last chance. If you could have go away and call the police for example.

Then you can appeal on castle

But the by the defender impaired interest must be in a reasonable relation to the protected interest. You as the defender must take into account the interest of the assailant.

[spursncowboys]

17 is an adult in every way. if he is in your yard-anything goes. besides that, you'd probably get a traffic ticket class c misdermeanor.
The texas law used to be that in a fight the loser got arrested but you can blame the damn libs on that one.

[spursncowboys]

As for castle doctrine, the kid had to make a attempt to illegally enter your occupied home/property. The kid had to act illegally.

While you had to reasonably believe that the kid wanted to inflict serious harm to you or someone else in your home.
Or you had to reasonably believe that the kid wanted to commit other felonies, burglary for example.
You must not have been a part of provocation for the reason the kid acted illegaly.
And if there werent any other possible options, instead of using your defence as your last chance. If you could have go away and call the police for example.

Then you can appeal on castle
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.


SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor 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.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.


SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.


SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

[spursncowboys]

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
(b) [non-substantive amendment 9/1/97] An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is:
(1) a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; or
(2) a state jail felony if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the offense was committed against a family member and that the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense against a family member under this section two or more times.
(c) [amended 9/1/95] An offense under Subsection (a)(2) or (3) is a Class C misdemeanor, except that an offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a Class A misdemeanor if the offense was committed against an elderly individual or disabled individual, as those terms are defined by Section 22.04.
(d) [added 9/1/95] For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant.
(e) [added 9/1/95] In this section, "family" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.01, Family Code.
Before 9/1/97 (b) provided:
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant unless it is shown on the trial of the offense that the offense was committed against a family member and that the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense against a family member under this section two or more times, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.
Before 9/1/95 (b) and (c) provided:
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) or (3) is a Class C misdemeanor.

[Bukefal]

Yeah, there you have it.

In European law we also have proportionality; Because the by the defender impaired interest must be in a reasonable relation to the protected interest. You as the defender must take into account the interest of the assailant.

But I dont know if that also counts in USA or then Texas, every state has its seperate laws. In some states there isnt even a castle doctrine rule.

[bus driver]

invite him over to smoke some weed

tell him the sack is in your car, and ask him to get it while you prepare the blunt wrap

when he walks out, go get your shotty or rifle

when he's digging around in your car, step outside and shoot his ass dead

castle doctrine! scoreboard!

this is the best advice here!
and when the medical examiner does a toxicology report it will show he was on drugs.

You should take 4cc advice.

[I. Hustle]

You can only punch him when you are in a position where you must use self-defence. So if he does something to you, you can use your right of self defence.

Or if the situation is so tense you can punch him and that is intensive right of self defence, when the other does not do you any harm, but because you were afraid for him doing something, you stepped up and punched him even though he has not attacked you.

But the latter is very hard to prove in law, so if you do not have a real reason for your self defence, you should not appeal on that.

If he assaulted you, than it could be a right of selfdefence if you punched him. But, in law judges will also look at 'what could you have done other than punching him?' and 'where there any other options for you left, instead of punching him, even though he attacked you?' .

They will say, when you were feeling that you were in a dangerous situation, you had to look first for other options to escape the situation then imediatelly punch him and use your right of self defence. You could also go away escape from the guy and call the police. Because the right of self defence is seen as the last option a person has to protect himself, or his dignity.

As for your last question, if he damages your property, I dont know about the USA, but in European law, you really can't, but this also depends on what kind of property. If he breaks into your home and smashes everything up and breaks your right of peaceful living (trespass), you will have better chances than if he only enters your garden and smashes a fence or something.

Of course its up to the judge and with help of jurisprudence to decide, but I dont think you will have any ground. You can sue him for damaging your property though.

Anyway, I wont punch the kid, it could get you in alot of trouble, law wise. Only if he really gets you in a dangerous situation you could consider.

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/Image/D-fence.jpglol

[nkdlunch]

Do it the way Anthony Hopkins deals with these ppl. Invite him over for dinner and them make him dinner

[austN Spur]

you only live once. probably should of hit him. in san antonio sometimes the cops can be very leniant. once i was involved in a domestic disturbance and the neighbor mustve called the cops cuz of the noise. the cops told me "thats what you get for giving them good dick" and they made jokes about my lady. then split.

also a mavs fan was jumping and dancing yelling go mavs go in my face after last years early playoff exit. after i was keeping my brother calm, i was the one who snapped and threw the last of my beer in his face. he didnt do a damm thing to me, and i got a way with it which felt good. the next day i felt like i made the wrong choice but that night it felt good. damm good

[EmptyMan]

Think it all out bro.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tvsquad.com/media/2009/10/dexter-takes-a-holiday-1.jpg

[Blake]

I came into a situation recently where I was threatened by a 17 year old kid. I'm going on 23 and I sort of mulled over my options. I decided that it was obviously not a good idea to put my career at risk, or risk doing any jail time on account of some little shit, but it got me thinking. Under what circumstances can I punch this kid in the face. Does simple assault (let's say he threw a punch) give me the right? Can I physically restrain him if he damages my property?

how exactly were you threatened?