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;