TexasCHLforum.com

Yeah it didn't mention him having advance notice. Thats a pretty crucial piece of information that is missing. I would have certainly called for help if I had that much time to do something. That would make much more sense.

Answered my own question

"]against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
"

Clearly says occupied habitation. But also says was "attempting to enter". So unless they gave him reason to think they were going to enter the house and drag his son out I guess it would not fall under the castle doctrine.


Edit: Thanks for clearing it up for me Dragonfighter. I thought I had read it explained the way you did but couldn't find the verbage. See next post for a better explanation.

txinvestigator wrote:

Big Dom wrote:Interesting I never really thought about him saying it was an accident. I can see how that would work against him. However I was thinking more along the lines of this falling under castle doctrine. .

Interesting. What part of the Castle Doctrine would have applied in Texas?


I don't think there would be an indictment in Texas.

Does it pertain to the whole property or just the actual house or dwelling? I was thinking it covered the whole property. I need to go back and read it again as I should be clear on that. In applying to this situation I meant only then he would have no duty to retreat so they shouldnt be saying he should have just went inside and called the police.

Interesting I never really thought about him saying it was an accident. I can see how that would work against him. However I was thinking more along the lines of this falling under castle doctrine. You have a drunk angry mob on your property and one of the guys lunges for your gun. It is after dark you may or may not know if they too are armed and he could reasonably believe that once disarmed his life would be in immediate danger. I would say he was justified in shooting. As for waiting for the cops I certainly would have had whoever was in the house call them but I don't think I would wait at their mercy in the house. Just my opinion but I can see how this could be justified. Aside from him saying it was an accident which he probably just said because he thought it would look better for him. Who knows. I do agree more facts are needed to say for sure.

Anyone else think this was justified? Guy probably had the worst defense attorney of all time. His defense was pretty weak. Basically in a nutshell. Group of angry teens shows up at this guys house after dark to attack his son. He goes out and confronts them. One of them make a move and he shoots. The guy dies. He gets convicted. It must suck to be from New York! I think this was totally justified. They show up on his doorstep intending to do his son harm. The prosecutor says he should have just went back inside and called the cops. To me this is a prime example of why you should be prepared to protect yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/22/dr ... index.html