TexasCHLforum.com

CHL/LEO wrote:Isn't part of the Castle Doctrine that it provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill?

Didn't I say that, like, a page ago????

HerbM wrote: The detective testified that he was in his yard, and they move towards him, at least one entering his yard, he was in fear of his life, he was authorized to be there.

I've said that from the beginning, too.

Molon_labe wrote:
Explain?

Doesn't that mean if you see a badguy and DON'T tell him to repent of his bad ways, that when he dies, his blood is on your hand?
and if you do talk to him about his bad ways, if he doesn't stop at least you tried?

Oh and the KHOU thing says "You're Dead" then gunshots..but the left out the important part where he says "MOVE, You're Dead" Like he walked out and shot them down with no warning

More like, What if I warneth someone committing wrong, and instead of engaging me in a riveting dialogue of the perils of modern society, he sticks a shiv in my liver???

his warning is the locked door, I presume.

SCone wrote:The 911 tapes are going to be the issue here.

0:20 - Do you want me to stop them?
3:09 - I'm going to shoot, I'm going to shoot
6:07 - I'm gonna kill 'em
6:50 - Move, you're dead
6:52 - 1st shot
6:53 - 2nd shot
7:01 - 3rd shot

The tapes weren't an issue before, I don't imagine they will be now. (even if there is a chance of a civil case)
from what I heard on the aforementioned tapes, whenever he says "I'ma gon' shoot." it was in response to what the 911 nimrod said.
"If yew go out thar, yew'r gon' git hurt."
"No I ain't, I'ma gon' shoot'em."

or something to that effect.

HerbM wrote: Also, the article KHOU is still repeating the "shot in the back" thing without putting it in context: Once deadly force is justified (and the Grand Jury has ruled) then it doesn't legally matter which end you shoot.

I agree, and have thought/said so since day one.