tvc184

I read that on Klein’s website or if not here, somewhere on Facebook. I was personally against those when they were looking into it. It was not the police department that had them installed but the city of Port Arthur, I think through the recommendation of the Pleasure Island Commission. I might be able to find out if they are working.

That is what I thought when she said she was looking to make them and example. Uhhhh….. why not just enforce the law? Like I said in one of my comments above, if they have appropriate laws to cover the situation and they absolutely should apply. Now I’m thinking there are none and she is trying to stretch it for political reasons. But… maybe they have some thing that covers it. Hopefully the truth will come out. In the Ahmaud Aubery case, I think the indictments did not come immediately because of corruption and friendships. The Rittenhouse indictments did come because of politics. I saw one of her videos where she said something like, I’m a mother so I had to do something. I think that is a pretty stupid statement by prosecutor but she probably has to run for office so she’s a politician also. Now it looks like we’re back to politics again.

In Mayfield‘s case, were the parents involved at all? I don’t think so. Of course I think they also fell into the, not my kid when it first happened. So much depends on the way to state law is written however. for about the last 25 years Texas has had a law that a child under 17 cannot have access to a loaded firearm without supervision. The key under Texas law however is, if the gun is not loaded then there is no crime at least not for access. So you could leave your guns unloaded but leave the ammo nearby and that particular law in Texas would not be violated. Without looking it up at this moment I think the phrase in Texas is, “readily dischargeable”. (Why not just say loaded?) In my opinion at least the way the laws are intended to work is, for you are charged in the crime then you had to be involved in the actual committing of the crime. That does not necessarily mean driving to getaway car in a robbery or pulling the trigger but maybe a friend said that he was going to rob a bank and you went and got a gun for him. There has to be some kind of knowledge that a crime was being committed or something intended to be committed and the person being charged in the crime took some kind of action. Like always, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I will use conspiracy to commit a crime as an example. There is no such crime as conspiracy by itself but there is the crime of conspiracy to commit ________ (murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc.). There has to be a felony crime attached to it. So three or more people decide they are going to commit an armed robbery. They get together and plan it and decide that one guy who does not have a felony criminal record, can go to a sporting good store and buy a handgun. At that point the crime of Conspiracy To Commit Aggravated Robbery has not occurred because nobody has done anything other than discuss it. The law requires some overt action on the part of at least one of the conspirators. So the next day the guy goes to Academy sporting goods in buys a handgun. At that moment, the crime of Conspiracy/Aggravated Robbery was completed because a person has now done an overt action to forward the felony. Everybody involved in the planning can now be charged with that conspiracy which is one degree lower than the crime intended. Aggravated robbery is a first-degree felony so the conspiracy to commit the robbery would be a second-degree felony or up to 20 years in prison. Even though the other guys did not take part in the purchase of the gun, they took part in the planning of the robbery. The point of that is however, you cannot charge the guy that sold the gun at Academy. Unless he was one of the people involved in the planning, he is not responsible…. although some states are trying to make it civilly responsible. You can charge everybody who is involved in the planning because they had knowledge and took part in the planning. So using Mayfield as an example, did his parents have knowledge or take part? There is nothing that I am aware of that would indicate that. Using that as a comparison, what are the laws in Michigan? Do they have a law that allows you to be charged with a felony committed by someone else when you had no knowledge and did not take part in the planning or the conspiracy? Do they have a law similar to Texas saying it is a crime to allow access to a firearm by juvenile but for the penalty, if a juvenile commits a crime then you are also responsible? Maybe that is true and if that is true, they should be charged. We don’t have to agree with the law but if that is the way it is written, that is within the state’s right. If no such laws exist in Michigan, I think the DA is making the political statement. Her comments in the one article that I read said that she wanted to make an example out of them. That makes me question what she is thinking. Oh yeah, and 17 your son would be an adult and he’s responsible for himself anyway. Even the law on making a firearm accessible to a child is a person who is under 17.

AND…. When I read the OP and the single word comment”thoughts?”, I started to say something like, there is really not enough information. Looking back at my typical long winded response, I am now thinking… There really is not enough information.

It is really hard to tell. The article is not exactly well written and not exactly well researched or thought out by the author. Maybe it is like a lot of articles, very little substance but a lot of emotion. I mean at one point they cite some official saying that they followed the kid on video surveillance (after the shooting) and knew everything he did but then followed up with, he had a gun on his person or he had it in a backpack or he had a secreted somewhere else away from the campus. Wow, awesome conclusion… the gun was somewhere. Passages like this leave questions in my mind. “McDonald said James Crumbley bought the gun four days before it was used in the shooting. His son, sophomore Ethan Crumbley, 15, was with him and later posted on social media about the gun, calling it "my new beauty." Jennifer Crumbley also posted about the gun on social media, calling it "his new Christmas present," McDonald said” Did they buy the gun for their son for Christmas present? Did the father post the comment about my new baby or did his son? Was the mother referring to her son when she said it was his new Christmas present? Along the lines of poor reporting, what law are they using to get the warrant? Are they simply using the involuntary manslaughter statute to say they were an accessory? To be an accessory it seems like they would have to have at least some knowledge that the crime was going to be committed. Texas by the way, has no accessory to a crime. Under Texas law you could not be charged as an accessory to a crime. You either took part in it or part in its planning for conspiracy in order to have charges filed. As far as allowing a child access to a weapon, Texas for example has a law that makes it a crime to recklessly allow a person under 17 to get their hands on a loaded weapon. If someone gets injured because of that, it becomes up to a year in jail. Does Michigan have such a law? If they do then I can see charges as a no brainer because it simply fits the statute. That is especially true after the parents were warned of his strange behavior. But if that kind of law does not exist, how are they adding culpability to the parents? This is especially true about me questioning the charges when the prosecutor said something about wanting to make them an example out of the parents. So is she referring to an actual law or she is using a law to try to make a political statement? Again, by reading the article we really can’t tell. This is how CNN cited prosecutor about wanting to make an example… “Addressing reporters, McDonald said she was charging the parents in part to make a point about the responsibility of gun ownership….”. So she is charging them “to make a point”? If I read the article correctly, the mother was sent text messages about her son searching for ammo while at school and she did not respond to the school but responded to her sign with an LOL and you need to learn not to get caught. On another side note, why do people put LOL so much? About 28 years ago when I learned that phrase in an AOL chat room, I understood the need but it. It was a means of showing emotion on the Internet that at the time had no emoji‘s, GIF, memes, etc. It was a way to laugh at your own joke or let everybody know that you were not serious. I swear there are people now that cannot post something or send a text without adding lol. I have seen conversations that goes something like… Honey are you on the way home lol… yes, I just got off work and will stop for gas lol… OK, I have dinner for you when you get here lol… great, I’m hungry lol…. It is like people have been dumbed down by text messaging… roflmao But back to the shooting. It is really hard to tell about the charges because it gives no explanation other than their mother does not have much mentality. Being goofy hardly seems the reason to charge someone with a felony however they might be very specific state laws that absolutely apply to the situation. The long article by CNN naturally does not go into that. Also not anything in particular to do with the shooting but the mother‘s comment to her son after being informed about him looking at purchasing ammo while at school made me think of something else. I have seen it so many times at work, we have all seen it so many times on Internet forums and Facebook threads and some people who may read this comment may also fit in that category. That is the, “not my son” or “not my friend” syndrome.

It is standard Nancy Pelosi. She is either intoxicated, has a bad case of old age forgetfulness, suffering from dementia or some kind of a combination of the three. The Democrats are absolutely better than the Republicans publicly being in lockstep. I don’t know what goes on in the back room and I cannot imagine they are like robots but once they come out of the back room, they are robots. They are given their marching orders from their Speaker and they toe the line in public. For some reason Nancy Pelosi hold the cards. I can’t believe if you got an honest opinion from the little over 200 Democrats in the House, that they would think she is the best spokesman for the party. Of course her job to her party is to get to votes and she has most of the time been able to do that. Technically the third or fourth most powerful person in the government and some people claim it was the most powerful person, as Speaker being able to control all legislation, she cannot string a sentence together. Democrats were worried about mean tweets from Donald Trump and they are de facto leader is almost always incoherent.

If you were hunting or fishing they can check your game bag, ice chest, etc. To go into your house (or tent, etc.) they need a warrant or your consent. I think most of the time they get it with consent because the people feel like they will go in anyway. When you take a confession from someone who is in custody, you have to read the Miranda warning to make sure they know their right to refuse. Currently when you ask for consent, you do not have to inform the person he has a right to refuse. It cannot be coerced however it is pretty much ends at that point. Sometimes there is no different than a police officer asking for consent to search a vehicle on a traffic stop in a person has illegal drugs, weapons or something like that. It’s almost like the people think if they give consent, the officer will go easy on them or won’t search as hard. We have had cases where we knock on someone’s door and say several people have called us and said you’re dealing drugs out of your house. The person can simply shut the door but will usually say, no I am not. Then, do you mind if we search then. No, I don’t mind….

I was reading the comments in another forum. There was a lot of sympathy for the father and it was a tragic accident and so on. The bottom line is the father assumed that the gun was unloaded from the latest explanation. His negligence in not checking the gun, then pointing it at his daughter and trying to let the hammer down (I think he just pulled the trigger), caused the death of a small child. it seems like people thought that it was unbelievable, horrible and nothing but a tragic accident. Absolutely….. And this was likely from a very experienced hunter and person who had been around guns for 25 or 30 years. Most of those same people want to hang Alec Baldwin for…. not checking the gun, pointing it at someone else……. And this from a guy who probably knows nothing about guns and trusted another person who was supposed to be an expert they said it was empty. Apparently if you’re you are very experienced with firearms but related to the person you killed by doing almost exactly the same thing, it is acceptable, even if it is a small child. Hypocrisy? I am not claiming that everybody feels that way. I just find it odd that some people think that one situation is a horrible tragedy and there is no need for further action. The same person will turn around in another horrible tragedy and be adamant that somebody needs life in prison for the other similar situation.

Game wardens basically have no more authority than any other police officer. They have maybe what some people would consider a detention without reasonable suspicion in that the law says if they see you fishing, they can check your fishing license and your catch. If they see you hunting, they can check your hunting license and what you killed. To that extent they can check your stringer, your ice chest, etc. Maybe some people think that is extraordinary powers. Generally speaking the courts allow this as a highly regulated outdoor activity and not merely going about your business. We often hear that the Game wardens can go into your home and search without a warrant and other such nonsense. In fact the Parks and Wildlife Code specifically states that they do not have such an authority. Here are a couple of pretty important definitions in the authority to search. They are residence and temporary residence. Sec. 12.102. INSPECTION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES. (a) In this section: (1) "Residence" means a person's principal or ordinary home or dwelling place.(2) "Temporary residence" means a place where a person temporarily dwells or seeks shelter. The term does not include a hunting blind. The term does include a: (A) hunting club or lodge; (B) clubhouse; (C) cabin; (D) tent. (E) manufactured home used as a hunting club or lodge; and (F) hotel room, motel room, or room in a boardinghouse used during a hunting trip. These definitions are important in a following subsection that shows the prohibition in reference to these locations and particularly note temporary residence. (d) Nothing in this section authorizes a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department to conduct a search otherwise authorized by this section: (1) in a person's residence or temporary residence; or (2) on a publicly maintained road or way that is. (A) improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic; (B) open to the public; and (C) distinguishable from a shoulder, berm, or other area not intended for vehicular traffic. Note that they cannot go into a temporary residence to search and that it would includes as specifically listed, a tent. You’ll hear people say that they can go into your Home without a warrant yet here is there a code saying they cannot even go into your tent, hotel room, cabin or anywhere else you used to stay while you were on a hunting trip. I have seen on hunting forums going back many years people saying, the police should just bring a game warden with them because they can do anything. The premise is that if we think there are drugs in a house, simply bring a game warden and we could go in without a warrant. That is pretty laughable. As far as the 14 days, he was doing more than just mouthing off. He was getting in my way by reaching across from n front of my chest with his arm and kind of pushing me back out of the way so I could not make an inspection. He always did it under the guise of trying to hand somebody a mixed drink or a beer. I even told him that if you need a hand this person that is 3 feet to my left a beer, go around me and hand it to him. He made a point of being on the wrong side and having to push me out of the way to make a sale. I gave him warnings that he could not do that and he continued. I even brought him over and showed him his alcohol license which he claimed forbid me from searching but I pointed out the text that said any peace officer can make an inspection. Although we all know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I used what is called confirmation. Although I could have simply made a criminal charge the first time he interfered with me, I wanted to give him a chance to correct his actions and also to explain the law to him and in the case of the alcohol license, actually showed him the wording. Doing so two or three times was not good enough for him and he kept telling me that I was wrong and I had no authority. THAT it would cost his bar 14 days of profits and him time in the county jail.

That is civil law, not criminal law that has nothing to do with the powers of arrest.

Ah yes, the Obamacare ruling. I do think that he very likely will rule to keep Roe v. Wade in full effect because of stare decisis but I also think there is a chance that he might side with modifying it. The Mississippi law does not exactly go against part of Roe v. Wade anyway. That decision says that the state cannot restrict abortions at all within the first trimester but the current Mississippi law at 15 weeks prohibiting abortion is outside the first trimester. In the second trimester Roe went by viability standard and potentially some other issues. In the last trimester is take it out right now and abortions period. Planned Parenthood v. Casey actually overturned some parts of Roe already. Sotomayor made one of the most stupid comments by saying that people will think the Court is political. Basically you cannot vote against Roe v. Wade because of politics. Apparently she has not read some of her own decisions if she thinks politics does not enter into it. I agree that it should not but she of all people is being hypocritical to the max.

This may or may not be interesting to some people. I thought about this when talking about incidents in Orange County and Port Arthur. It is about police jurisdiction in Texas. Neither the Texas Penal Code nor the Code of Criminal Procedures (CCP) (which lists the authority to arrest) distinguishes between on and off duty peace officers. It states in what situations a peace officer has the authority to make an arrest but makes no other distinction. That is why people often say that Texas peace officers are on duty 24 hours a day. The law is not stated in those words but the Texas law does not note any kind of difference. The authority to make an arrest by a Texas peace officer is continuous. The CCP under authority to arrest without a warrant (Chapter 14) extends to outside the officer’s jurisdiction except class C traffic charges (basic citations like speeding, running stop sign , etc.) which authority is only “if the offense is committed in the county or counties in which the municipality employing the peace officer is located”. So the CCP gives the authority to arrest as anywhere except for traffic citations which is limited to anywhere in the county that the officer works. Port Arthur has jurisdiction then for traffic citations anywhere in Jefferson or Orange County. If a citation (or arrest) is made in those situations, the officer who is outside of his city has to issue the citation to the proper county precinct. For example a Port Arthur officer can issue a traffic citation in Bridge City but has to issue it in the jurisdiction of the Orange County Justice of the Peace for that precinct. An even further distance example is for instance if a Port Arthur officer was driving through Little Cypress to speak with a witness about something and saw somebody run a stop sign. The officer has the authority to issue a citation to that person or even make an arrest and bring the person to the Orange County jail. The CCP also says that if a business serves the public it “may not prohibit or otherwise restrict a peace officer or special investigator from carrying on the establishment's premises a weapon that the peace officer or special investigator is otherwise authorized to carry, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator (a special investigator under Texas law is a federal agent such as FBI, DEA, etc.) is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon”. Note that it is regardless if the officer is engaged to an actual discharge of duty. That is basically saying off duty. The NFL a few years ago made a rule that firearms were prohibited in their stadiums by anyone except for an on duty police officer. But…. that does not apply in Texas as officers have 24 hour arrest authority anywhere in the state and that specific law that I quoted above which says it is against the law to stop them from entering. So off duty Texas peace officers can watch Dallas Cowboys or Houston Texans football games while carrying their off-duty handgun. To my knowledge that is the only NFL stadiums in the country where a police officers can carry their weapons off duty. The stadiums have a special point of entry at one of the entrance gates where on duty officers hired to work the event check the credentials of the off duty officer and note where the officer will be sitting. I have also done that at Minute Maid stadium for MLB. So….. in Texas pretty much a cop is a cop no matter when or where. Game wardens, city police, county sheriffs and deputies, constables and deputies, school district police, DA investigator, fire department arson investigators, etc., are all listed as Peace Officers and even though they are hired to do a specific job, they have overall police powers. It is not that way in all states which sometimes distinguish between on and off duty, jurisdiction and what laws they can enforce. In Texas as an example a Texas game warden can make a traffic stop just as if he was a city police officer or a DPS trooper and make an arrest for DWI. City officer can likewise go into an alcohol licensed premises and enforce Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission laws just as if he was state TABC agent. In fact I was inspecting a bar one time and the bartender got in my way and told me to stop. He said that I did not have the authority to make the inspection since I was not a TABC agent. I explained the law to him and said I was not going to interfere with his business but I was going to make my inspection. Twice more he interfered with my inspection so I arrested him on the spot. TABC suspended the bar’s alcohol license for 14 days (think of the money they lost) and the bartender received 14 days in the county jail for the interference. Interesting? Not interesting? I do not always agree with the laws just as much as anyone else but I think the way that it functions is interesting.

The man who rarely speaks, just spoke volumes.

I think Stare Decisis will be the sticking point.

I have made calls in that area and I have supervised officers who have made calls in that area. I could see a situation where Orange County was requested to respond as a closer unit in a serious situation. PAPD many times has responded to emergency calls outside of the city. That is normal. A few years ago I and other officers responded to a Jefferson County jurisdiction call of two or three people shot on the beach. The First ground units to get there were PA. That is routine for police officers. Fairly recently like within the last year, I had an officer stop a DWI driver in Orange County but outside of the city of Port Arthur. The police agency that had jurisdiction over that area refused to help. I had the officer go ahead and make the arrest and transport the driver to the Orange County jail and file charges over there since it was their jurisdiction. I think PA did annex part of the Gulf of Mexico. Some of that went to appeals court and I can’t remember if it was state court or a federal court.

Unfortunately they got caught up in the mess created by Bridge City. Their land was between Port Arthur city limits and the Entergy plant. I have made calls over there in that area when someone called the police so I know they get police service. I’m not sure what else they would be asking for.

I am doing this from memory so…….. That is because for much of Bridge City‘s history, it was not a city. Bridge City was just an unincorporated area much like Orangefield today is just an area. There is no city of Orangefield. In maybe the late 1960s there was talk of Bridge City wanting to become a city. The problem was that the area was in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of Port Arthur. That means that Port Arthur controlled that area and could have annexed what is now Bridge City. Port Arthur agreed to allow Bridge City to incorporate. In the signed agreement/contract, Port author would not give up its ETJ. According to the population of the city, they control a certain amount of land that is adjacent to the city limits. Port Arthur did not cede any of that jurisdiction to Bridge City. Bridge City actually incorporated into an actual city somewhere in the early 1970s. The Entergy plant was within Port Arthur’s ETJ. Port Arthur had the authority to annex Entergy (I think then GSU) at any time just like it could have annexed Bridge City before they allowed them to incorporate as their own city. When cities have commercial businesses within their ETJ, they often sign what is called an in lieu of tax agreement. That is a mutually beneficial agreement not to annex an area. Legally a city cannot tax something that is not within their city jurisdiction. BUT…. when that entity’s fate is within the ETJ of the city, The city holds a trump card because they can simply annex it and get 100% tax evaluation. It benefits the city by not annexing because even though they would get the taxes, they would have to provide city services. It benefits the entity (usually a company/corporation/etc.) because they make a deal for less taxes for a promise not to annex. . An example might be a chemical plant outside of the city. This city has no authority to tax the company for millions of dollars a year but they can annex the chemical plant and then tax. So in lieu of annexation, a city can say, pay us 80-90% what you would owe if we annexed you, and we will promise not to annex you. In a way it might be almost like legal bribery. Look at Motiva which is in the middle of Port Arthur but it is not part of the city. I believe it is the largest production plant in the United States so you could figure what the taxes would be at 100%. I have no idea what they would pay but let’s say it would be $10 million a year. They could make a deal to pay Port Arthur $9 million and save $1 million in taxes. Why is all of that important? Entergy was in Port Arthur’s ETJ and they got something like nearly $1 million a year in lieu of taxes from them. No big deal and everybody is happy (kinda). Well, up until the mid or late 1990s. There was talk in Bridge City about the Entergy plant and the in lieu of taxes that they pay to Port Arthur. The problem was with the agreement that Port Arthur had with Bridge City. Basically there was a contract that the ETJ belong to Port Arthur and that was that. Some people in Bridge City (I don’t remember if it was business leaders, the city Council, the mayor or whoever) started questioning that agreement and started asking why they had no control over it. I believe the Texas legislature was in a session at that time and there was talk of submitting a bill that would undo Port Arthur ETJ, allow Bridge City to have part of it, take away the ability to annex outside of their county (which would kill Port Arthur‘s leverage for an in lieu of taxes agreement) or something to that effect. I don’t remember exactly what the plan was but there was an effort or talk to end Port Arthur’s jurisdiction. Port Arthur ended all of that by moving fairly quickly if I remember correctly, to annexing that area. So….. had Bridge City not made overtures on Entergy, that area would still be an unincorporated area that Port Arthur would have discretionary authority over.

Authorities said the woman found dead Monday on Pleasure Island was categorized as a missing person out of Beaumont. Next of kin was notified Tuesday, and Justice of the Peace Precinct 2 Marc DeRouen identified the victim as Janice Summer Ross, 30……….. Det. Mike Hebert said Port Arthur Police dispatch received a call of a deceased person at approximately 2:18 p.m. Monday. The body was located in the 1000 block of North Levee Road. Police are not releasing many case details in an effort to maintain the investigation’s integrity, including how long Ross had been there and who notified police……….. DeRouen told Port Arthur Newsmedia there wasn’t anything obvious on scene like knife or bullet wounds indicating foul play. [Hidden Content]

Blame that on Bridge City.

We used to always have a two-man patrol unit downtown and a two-man patrol unit it’s Sabine Pass. Those eventually went to one-man units.

Yes on fishing…… 👍🏼 I don’t specifically remember them having any security but they have tried various things over the year so they might have had for a short time. That has always been PAPD‘s responsibility however it is so far detached that they don’t see much Patrol. To drive to the end of the north levee and then to the state line and back is more than half an hour round trip. That does not count doing any kind of action, stopping any traffic, stopping at any businesses, etc. That is merely a drive from one end to the island to the other and back to the bridge. If a patrol car in the area gets a call at the causeway, which does happen, it can be almost a 20 mile round-trip unless the officer is already on the island. That area is under the patrol section of the downtown unit. Usually one patrol officer has from Stillwell Boulevard to Highway 82 and then Pleasure Island to the state line. Without stripping the rest of the city for patrol coverage and to hire a single police officer three shifts a day and seven days a week they would have to increase the police force by six officers. Counting salary, benefits, patrol vehicle, fuel etc. it would cost to city over $1 million a year. I do believe that they have a camera system installed that takes pictures of every vehicle that drives onto the island. I am sure they are going through the records right now.

Uh huhhhh….

.:: or at least any that I can pass on publicly

I am trying to get some details but no luck so far.

The way you’re asking, deadly force is usually not off of the table. I guess technically it might never be completely off the table under certain circumstances. In one scenario it seems like it would not be allowed but I guess technically even then it could. For example a man goes into a store with a gun and he’s committing an armed robbery. By Texas law anyone can use deadly force to stop that robbery in progress if it was reasonably necessary. The robber in that situation does not have the right to use self-defense and if he kills someone during that robbery, it is capital murder and death penalty eligible. In other words, he cannot pull a gun on you and when you pull a gun in self defense, he has no right to self-defense. But… What if the robber surrenders, throws down his gun and lays on the floor so you can make a citizen arrest? In anger you run up and start kicking him in the head and risk killing or seriously injuring him. Would he have a right to self-defense at that time since he has surrendered? I believe so. Texas law on self-defense says that you cannot resist arrest from a police officer even for an unlawful arrest however, you can resist arrest if the officer is using more force than is necessary and the suspect did not offer resistance. The law in Texas generally says that you cannot resist arrest no matter what, even it the arrest is unlawful (made without probable cause), unless… for example the officer says you’re under arrest and you say sure, turn around and put your hands behind your back and he walks up and starts beating you in the head with a baton. He is now using deadly force against you when you offered no resistance and you have the right to defend yourself. I have seen cases where people used force and sometimes even killed an officer and it was ruled justified. So, never say never. In the situation that you ask about, removing a trespasser, like all cases in depends. in my opinion, playing the What If game…. What if you order a man off of your lawn and be voluntarily leaves? Can you run up and start beating on him? My opinion no. He has offered no resistance and he’s leaving like you ordered. By the same reasoning, the man is voluntarily leaving and you run up behind him and try the stab him with a knife. Can he use deadly force to protect himself? I believe so. For trespassing in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code it says you’re allowed to use force to remove a trespasser. That means that your use of force is legal if necessary to remove the trespass. He is breaking the law by trespassing and has no self-defense claim to assault you. So the guy is trespassing and you grab him by the arm, pin it behind his back and start to shove him off of your property. He then pulls a gun and in my opinion he’s not justified because he is the one committing the crime of trespassing and you are using legal force to remove him. Can you then defend yourself with deadly force? I think almost assuredly, yes. At that point the scenario changes. You’re not using deadly force to remove a trespasser, you are using deadly force to protect yourself which is a different section of the chapter. The use of force against trespassing has ended and now you’re under that different section which is a threat upon your life. I guess in the purest technical sense, you could never use deadly force to stop a trespasser however the trespasser might unlawfully escalate it and you are no longer under the section of the force for trespassing but under the different section of defense of a person. Clear as mud? I could make it a lot shorter by saying that if under the law you’re legally using force in self-defense and the other person tries to kill you, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself. Whether you’re using that legal force to protect your property from trespassing, yourself from assault or even another person from assault (all justified in Chapter 9), the guilty person committing the crime generally has no such right.