Re: Guy in undies confronts intruder...
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 2:01 pm
Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. I didn't recognize that the Threat of Lethal Force was justified if the use of Force was justified. I thought that the Threat of Lethal Force was only justified is Lethal Force was justified.Mike S wrote: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.allisji wrote:That's interesting. So if lethal force wasn't justified then neither is the Threat of Lethal Force, right?Mike S wrote: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.allisji wrote: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.RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.
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.
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.
