[bradstewart]

Be careful ignoring those "private" signs though. I ignored such a sign in south Texas, took a dirt road (in a 4x4) that was mapped as a public road (both on paper and Google), only to have a rifle shot cross my path about 5 minutes later.

Ended up having a fairly civil conversation with the "owner" before turning around, but he was adamant that I was on private property and would not be allowed to continue.

[lgunsch]

That sounds extreme, but does indeed play into the stereotype of a Texas rancher. I'm in Canada, and if you shoot someone on your land who's not threatening you with a weapon - chances are you will go to jail because it's not reasonable force.

[bradstewart]

It is certainly a bit extreme. To be fair, it was clearly a warning shot fired a "safe" distance ahead of me. Most of the folks I've met in rural Texas aren't itching to shoot anyone and everyone, but they do value privacy to an extreme and will go to great lengths to protect what is (in their mind) theirs.

[cardiffspaceman]

Curious whether the owner thought that shooting across car hoods was going to get Google to stop routing cars across his land.

Did the owner know it was Google's "influence" causing people to trespass? If so had the owner informed Google?

[bradstewart]

Google didn't actually route me down this road. I initially found it on a paper map, and I confirmed it's continued existence/public status via Google Maps as my paper map was a few years old.

It was ~15 miles shorter than the highway route, but I can't imagine its actually a shorter travel time in anything short of a very well equipped 4x4. I just happen to like dirt roads.

I also did not press him for details, so I don't know if this was a recurring issue or not.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Does it matter? Ultimately, where the vehicle goes is the driver's responsibility.

[geggam]

In Texas the castle doctrine is very much alive. As was stated most folks are very nice but it is within their right to stop that one trespassing driver from ever driving again.

Not sure they care about Googles influence at all.

[Frondo]

It is not within the rights of Texans or Americans anywhere to shoot people on sight merely because they're on their property.

Edited to include the relevant laws:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#D

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#C

From this source:

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground

[alistairSH]

Texas Penal code specifically uses the term "habitation", not "property" when discussing the use of deadly force. If some jackass is shooting at strangers who wandered onto his property, he's committing a felony.

See Texas Penal Code §9.31 (castle doctrine as it relates to trespass and non-deadly force) and §9.32 (castle doctrine as it relates to habitation and deadly force).

[geggam]

The castle doctrine does apply to living areas. True.

There are other codes however allowing for the use of deadly force

is also justified in using deadly force if: (1) he reasonably believes that it is necessary to use force to prevent or terminate the trespass; and (2) he reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent the trespasser from committing certain crimes, such as arson, burglary, or robbery.

Just stating a word of caution. Life is different than the city and laws vary but landowners have significant rights.

[shereadsthenews]

In the West most "ranchers" are just running herds on BLM leases. It is not "their property" by any definition. By contrast virtually all ranches in Texas are on private holdings.

[geggam]

There is also the case of Indian Reservation trespass which brings an entirely different set of police and rules to bear.

I live in AZ and am surrounded by reservation or BLM land. There are no clear markers marking the difference.

[alistairSH]

That it's considered acceptable in Texas (and much of the west) to leap straight to "there's somebody on my property; if I don't shoot'em, I'm a dead man" is bonkers to me.

[Frondo]

It's really not. The one guy in this thread who keeps trying to say that is, I think, either mistaken (from movies or whatever) or is trying to paint an exaggerated portrait of rural life such that it seems extreme to urban-living folks; either way, it's not the case.

You don't go around shooting people you see on your property. "You did WHAT Jim? Because you saw some guy out in the cotton?"

(Now watch that same individual in this thread come back and say, "well, it's not like that in cotton country, but where they're ranching..." and...no.)

[geggam]

With the constant trickle of folks who do illegal things around you and on your property. Who shoot at you if you get close to a car they abandon on your property.

How is it hard to see ? Ever been shot at walking around what amounts to your extended backyard ?

[dboreham]

It isn't considered acceptable. Only in the movies, or by people who are going to end up in jail at some point in the future.

[chillwaves]

Are you a lawyer? I wouldn't advise anyone to shoot at people who are not threatening.