TexasCHLforum.com

The report I read (for what it's worth stated the two drivers were side by side arguing when the aggressor who caused the accident sprayed the driver that fled, who then shot him. I'm not sure how this will play out, though, I must say to chase someone who leaves to de-escalate the situation bodes ill for the guy chasing him.

He (the shooter) might have a defense under castle law. (Wouldn't have to prove deadly intent)

9.32(b)(1)(A) "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"

I seem to remember seeing somewhere the term "entered" as being intrusion of any part of the body. So if the guy reached in through the window to spray him, he "unlawfully and with force entered..." (Can't find the reference now.)

9.32.(b)(1)(B) is the same with respect to "removing or attempting to remove" the actor from the vehicle, etc.

So, unless they argue that the sprayer was going to spray him, then leave, it is reasonable to believe the guy was either going to reach in to beat him up, or pull him out to beat him up. Either way, it would seem he's covered.

I don't see how any "reasonable man" could indict the shooter, much less convict him.

The attacker rammed the victim's car. The victim tried to escape but the attacker chased him and attacked him physically. Not just a punch, but the attacker used a chemical spray to deny the victim the ability to see and drive to escape the illegal assault. Without the opportunity to flee, the only reasonable option for the victim was to fight, and to use a tool that would quickly end the pattern of aggression because that's immediately necessary before he's completely incapacitated.

God only knows what this crazed man would have done after he had incapacitated this man. Lets count the assaults on this man #1 he attacked the man with his car #2 He chased down a man trying to flee from him #3 he sprayed him with pepper spray in an attempt to do God knows what to him (at minimum to make him hurt terribly). I call this a no-bill. This is classic self defense.

I hope the prosecute the mace man.

sjfcontrol wrote:He (the shooter) might have a defense under castle law. (Wouldn't have to prove deadly intent)

9.32(b)(1)(A) "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"

I seem to remember seeing somewhere the term "entered" as being intrusion of any part of the body. So if the guy reached in through the window to spray him, he "unlawfully and with force entered..." (Can't find the reference now.)

9.32.(b)(1)(B) is the same with respect to "removing or attempting to remove" the actor from the vehicle, etc.

So, unless they argue that the sprayer was going to spray him, then leave, it is reasonable to believe the guy was either going to reach in to beat him up, or pull him out to beat him up. Either way, it would seem he's covered.

...Texas criminal "entry" varies...here it is as relates to habitation...would be the same regarding Castle Doctrine, which views vehicle or place of business same as habitation...

http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanstudy/sta ... _Texas.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.

bizarrenormality wrote:For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.

Ok, thanks. And that would be...where? (That is what I remember.)

The aggressor failed to act with reasonable restraint & continued to escalate his attack. Just what was his intent; what were his limits; how far would he go; was he insane; was he on bath salts? One can only make a judgement based on his irrational behavior.

The victim had a right to stand your ground, but tried to flee only to be chased down. The victim showed restraint, but he could no longer expect restraint from the attacker. It became a case of neutralizing an aggravated assault.

There's a huge difference between spraying someone so you can escape and spraying them so they can't.

I hope the DA is smart enough to see the difference and wise enough to charge the attacker with aggravated assault at least.