I see lots of talk on here about use of force with some questionable advice and some obvious lack of knowledge of the law in Texas. So, passing this information on fwiw. This is not legal advice, just one part of the law for everyone to consider. Hope it helps everyone make informed decisions and avoid any problems.

Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated
Penal Code
Title 2. General Principles of Criminal Responsibility
Chapter 9. Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility
Subchapter A. General Provisions
§ 9.01. Definitions


In this chapter:

(1) “Custody” has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(2) “Escape” has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(3) “Deadly force” means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

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

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30. 01.

§ 9.02. Justification as a Defense


It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

§ 9.03. Confinement as Justifiable Force


Confinement is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor takes reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested for an offense.

§ 9.04. Threats as Justifiable Force


The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

§ 9.05. Reckless Injury of Innocent Third Person


Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

§ 9.06. Civil Remedies Unaffected


The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

Subchapter B. Justification Generally


§ 9.21. Public Duty


(a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.

(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), [FN1] to protect property (Subchapter D), [FN2] for law enforcement (Subchapter E), [FN3] or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F). [FN4]

(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.

(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:

(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or

(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.

[FN1] V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 9.31 et seq.

[FN2] V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 9.41 et seq.

[FN3] V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 9.51 et seq.

[FN4] V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 9.61 et seq.

§ 9.22. Necessity


Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Subchapter C. Protection of Persons


§ 9.31. Self-Defense


(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.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(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.

§ 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

(2) 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.

§ 9.33. Defense of Third Person


A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

§ 9.34. Protection of Life or Health


(a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

Subchapter D. Protection of Property


§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property


(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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property


The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

Can somebody make a translation please...

The laws are written so you can not understand them!! Do you want my lawyers number?

Cliff notes anyone?

Take a section at a time and it actually is pretty understandable.

Given how important of a legal issue it could be, for those who think they might need or consider the use force, some focused attention and study is worthwhile.

I'll be offline for a couple of days.

Hope it helps everyone avoid any unnecessary problems.

Jeff

the people who spout off on here saying they would shoot a tresspasser are talking out of their rear end anyway. just big talk.

I agree. Once you pull that trigger, it's a done deal. I "think" I could if someone was in my home. I know I couldn't have time to think about, or I may back out.

yes, your home with your family in danger is one thing, but attempting to take a life because someone crosses a fence is crazy.

Oh, okay, where do you think I get my Halloween decorations from?

How about this..
Use some common sense. Stop the person from perpetrating a crime or bodily injury aginst you or a third person by placing a double tap to the chest followed by one to the head.
Just saying......

Ditto. If someone wants to simply rob my house, take my big screen TV and DVD player, stereo, margarita machine, whatever, (OK, I may draw the line at the margarita machine) I'll help him load the friggin' van as long as he makes me do it at gunpoint so I can still file an insurance claim. No earthly posession I have is worth a human life. If he takes one step into the hallways towards my wife or kids, I will Mozambique him.

Agreed...unless that person has a gun in their hands. Then it gets a lot more dicey. My thought is this - that person has already demonstrated a willingness to break one law. How many others are they willing to break?

And in NO WAY should anyone take this next statement to mean I endorse this behavior but; if you meet an armed trespasser in the woods and the trespasser ends up dead, there isn't a jury in Texas that will ever convict you. After all, the trespasser pointed his weapon at you first and clearly stated his intentions to use it. Just sayin...

If they have you at gunpoint, you have no clue what they are going to do next. They may take your stuff, then shoot you and leave you for dead...you gotta do what you gotta do in a situation like that to prevent that...in my case in May, it was to run out of the house and down the street 3/4 of a mile barefooted....not one gun in the house at the time. But, to sit here and analyze a situation like that from behind your computer screen....that just won't be how it works out when you really have a barrel stickin into your temple.

And, for the record, I am one of those people that says I will shoot someone thats in my house no matter what, and also if theyre outside breaking into my car and give ANY kind of suspicious motion when I confront them...and I wholeheartedly, 100% mean it...you never know what a person will do next

I'm sorry you went through that. It's terrible that it happened, and I do not dispute the fact that anyone who breaks into another's house deserves whatever they find.

I don't even know what the he&& he is asking or wanting to know

My attitude in a break in is it is either me or them. I was taught growing up to never point a gun at another person unless I intended to use it on them and that is how I would react if someone were in my house. I'll be asking (answering) questions later. And we all know the other part of that phrase.