TexasCHLforum.com

Mike S wrote:

allisji wrote:

Mike S wrote:

allisji wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

As I read it I was thinking about the garage door intruder story that you posted a while back. Noticed that this guy happened to be in the Rice Military area and that the BG was banging on the garage door when caught.

One could assume that he was trying to gain entry into the garage, and possibly into the home. It sounds like the homeowner would have been justified in the use of lethal force. At best this guy was committing criminal mischief on his property at night.

I'd disagree on this, at least from what's been disclosed so far. The security camera video only showed the drunk guy banging his fist on the garage door a couple times; I find it unlikely that would qualify as "unlawfully with force entering, or attempting to enter unlawfully with force" an "occupied dwelling". This may have met the presumption of reasonableness in the Texas Penal Code if he had been attempting to kick in the front door or otherwise gain entry, but I seriously doubt banging on the garage door a couple of times would.

And for Criminal Mischief, some monetary damage must be made. Unless there's damage to the property (garage door or mail box hanging on the wall), it would likely be a stretch to find the justification under "to prevent Criminal Mischief at night". The end of the news report stated that Federal charges wouldn't be sought for mail tampering since he rummaged through it without taking anything, & there was no damage to the mail box.

I'm not a lawyer, but there's quite a few on this forum who are or who have a solid foundation for the law. I'll defer to them if there's something i missed.

That's interesting. So if lethal force wasn't justified then neither is the Threat of Lethal Force, right?

TPC 9.04, Threats as Justifiable Force, only requires that 'force' be justified; therefore I don't see a problem with the homeowner in this case showing his firearm in order to "cause apprehension that he would use deadly force if needed". Force is justified in order to prevent or eject a trespasser (force, NOT deadly force), and I believe that's what the news said the drunk/drugged guy would be charged with.

Mike S wrote:

allisji wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

As I read it I was thinking about the garage door intruder story that you posted a while back. Noticed that this guy happened to be in the Rice Military area and that the BG was banging on the garage door when caught.

One could assume that he was trying to gain entry into the garage, and possibly into the home. It sounds like the homeowner would have been justified in the use of lethal force. At best this guy was committing criminal mischief on his property at night.

I'd disagree on this, at least from what's been disclosed so far. The security camera video only showed the drunk guy banging his fist on the garage door a couple times; I find it unlikely that would qualify as "unlawfully with force entering, or attempting to enter unlawfully with force" an "occupied dwelling". This may have met the presumption of reasonableness in the Texas Penal Code if he had been attempting to kick in the front door or otherwise gain entry, but I seriously doubt banging on the garage door a couple of times would.

And for Criminal Mischief, some monetary damage must be made. Unless there's damage to the property (garage door or mail box hanging on the wall), it would likely be a stretch to find the justification under "to prevent Criminal Mischief at night". The end of the news report stated that Federal charges wouldn't be sought for mail tampering since he rummaged through it without taking anything, & there was no damage to the mail box.

I'm not a lawyer, but there's quite a few on this forum who are or who have a solid foundation for the law. I'll defer to them if there's something i missed.

RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

Ryan wrote:Trespassing on MY property and going through MY things at night... I'd have held him at gunpoint too. I definitely would not have let him just go on his way and if you don't hold him at gunpoint, then you better be well versed in some hand to hand combat. Because he isn't just gonna hang around for the cops to show up.

Had he not had a gun, this guy might just have attacked him on the spot when almost naked guy came out to inspect what's going on. And if he's on drugs, and you don't have a weapon, you might not stand a chance... depending on the drugs he's on.

Teague appears to have bumped into the doorbell on the gate while trying to get inside.

"Then I heard something hitting the garage," George said.


Teague hit the garage with his fists, and then he opened the mailbox next to the garage and rifled through George's mail.

George then ran outside wearing only his underwear and held Teague at gunpoint.