Your home is your castle, and Texas law grants you the right to protect it (and yourself).

But how far are you allowed to go to protect yourself? Sometimes, use of deadly force is justified, while sometimes homeowners have a duty to retreat.

It can seem confusing. Here’s what you need to know to protect yourself and your property — legally.

Defending Yourself and Your Property in Texas

If someone is accused of using force against you or your property, self-defense or defense of property may be justified.

Under state law, nonlethal force can be used in some instances when you’re defending yourself, another person, or your property. Under narrower circumstances, you may even be able to use deadly force. 

There are two laws that allow you to protect yourself and your property:

• Castle Doctrine: A person can use deadly force without retreating if someone unlawfully enters or attempts to enter their home, vehicle, or place of business
• Stand your Ground: If someone is threatened in a public space, and they are lawfully present, they have no duty to retreat before using force to defend themselves.

Texas’ Castle Doctrine

Texas’ Castle Doctrine specifies the actions you’re allowed to take to protect yourself in your home.

Think of King Henry XIII. He had no duty to retreat inside any of his castles. If someone forced their way into one of his properties, Henry (or one of his many ill-fated queens) could use any force necessary to prevent an attack. 

You can’t go quite that far. Texas’ laws have some limits.

Texas Penal Code 9.31 and 9.32 specify the boundaries of the Castle Doctrine. Section 9.31 explains when use of non-deadly force is permissible. Section 9.32 explains when deadly force is justified. 

Codes 9.41 and 9.42 describe when you’re allowed to use force. 

Though Texans have broad rights, the primary legal standards of the Castle Doctrine are reasonableness and immediate need.

• Under the Castle Doctrine, in certain circumstances, you are presumed to have acted reasonably in defending your “castle.” 
• Texas also extends this protection to other places, such as an individual’s vehicle or workplace, where they have a legal right to be.

Some of the key provisions of the Castle Doctrine include:

• The use of force is justifiable if the individual reasonably believes that it is immediately necessary to protect themselves or someone else from the unlawful use of force by an intruder.
• The use of deadly force is justifiable if the individual reasonably believes it is necessary to protect themselves or someone else from imminent death or serious bodily injury, or to prevent the commission of a violent crime such as aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, or robbery.
• There is no duty to retreat in Texas if the individual has a right to be in the location where the force is used and they are not engaged in criminal activity at the time.
• The Castle Doctrine does not apply if the individual using force is the initial aggressor, provoked the attack, or is engaged in criminal activity at the time.

To summarize, the use of force is justified if you reasonably believe it is required to protect yourself or to prevent a violent crime. However, the law doesn’t apply if you initiate an attack or are engaged in criminal activity at the time.

What is Considered Reasonable Under the Castle Doctrine?

It is challenging to define what is legally considered “reasonable,” and a grand jury, petit jury, or judge will usually determine that standard. However, there are a few instances when reasonability is presumed. This includes:

• Someone attempts to remove you by force from your home, vehicle, or workplace
• Someone attempts to enter your home, vehicle, or workplace unlawfully with force
• Someone attempts or commits aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery

Stand Your Ground

While the Castle Doctrine applies to protecting yourself on your own property, Stand Your Ground applies when you’re in public. 

It allows you to defend yourself without a duty to retreat if you reasonably believe you’re at risk of imminent harm. This applies to any situation in which you are lawfully present (for example, your vehicle or a public place).

However, you must be able to prove that you faced an imminent threat.

Misconceptions About the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws

Many homeowners mistakenly interpret the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws to mean that you can take whatever necessary actions to protect yourself and your home. That’s not the case.

These laws do not give you the blanket right to take action against someone in the vicinity of your home.

• A verbal threat alone is not enough: The law specifies that a verbal threat alone is not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force. In other words, if someone is approaching you saying, “I’m going to kill you,” that likely isn’t enough to meet the standard. However, if that person is holding a gun while threatening to kill you, the gun shows they have the ability to follow through with the threat. That means deadly force would be justified in that instance.
• You cannot set your own conditions on when deadly force is necessary: You will have to be able to prove that your actions were “reasonable.” For example, if someone is simply walking down an alley behind your home at night dressed in dark clothing, pulling a gun on that person may not meet the legal standard. If that person is attempting to break into your car, the use of force is more likely to be considered reasonable.

READ MORE: Can I shoot someone to protect my property?

Examples of Texas Castle Doctrine Cases

Raul Rodriguez 

Raul Rodriguez was a retired firefighter in Houston who shot and killed his neighbor, school teacher Kelly Danaher, during a dispute over loud music at a party. Rodriguez recorded the confrontation with his phone and claimed his actions were considered self-defense under the Castle Doctrine. He said he feared his life was in danger when the confrontation escalated and used deadly force to protect himself.

Rodriguez was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. The court ruled that he provoked the confrontation by approaching the party carrying a weapon.

Amber Guyger

Guyger was a white Dallas Police Officer who was accused of killing 26-year-old Botham Jean, a Black man, who was sitting in his apartment eating ice cream. Guyger’s primary defense was that she genuinely believed she was in her apartment and mistook Botham Jean for an intruder. She claimed she shot him in self-defense, thinking her life was in danger. 

Although the Castle Doctrine typically applies to individuals defending their own homes, Guyger’s defense team argued that because she believed she was in her home, the Castle Doctrine should apply. 

The jury disagreed. In October 2019, Guyger was found guilty of murdering Jean and sentenced to ten years in prison.

When is the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Not a Valid Defense Option?

There are some exceptions when both the Castle law and Stand Your Ground do not apply and will not be a valid defense. This includes:

• When a property owner provokes someone, and it escalates to violence
• If the property owner is involved in criminal activity

More Commonly Asked Questions

Will the Castle Doctrine Extend to my Vehicle or RV?

Yes.  Any vehicle routinely used for transportation is covered. This includes trucks, airplanes, cars, ATVs, or golf carts. Your vehicles are classified as your property.

Can You Shoot Someone on Your Property Who Makes a Verbal Threat?

State law establishes that a verbal threat is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

For example, if someone threatens your life, that may not be enough. However, if the person threatening you is holding a gun, knife, or other weapon, the threat goes beyond words because there’s a real risk that they could carry out the threat. In that instance, deadly force may be considered reasonable.

Can You Shoot Someone Who Makes a Threat of Future Harm?

Typically no. If someone says, “I’m going to kill you tomorrow,” it will be difficult to justify the use of deadly force.