I'm not suggesting it in a suburban neighborhood, but it seems to be justified to threaten deadly force to encourage trespassers to leave.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Just playing Devil's advocate here, but the homeowner reportedly had numerous "no trespassing" signs posted on his property. So seeing someone advance past those signs, the homeowner may have rightly been on alert. They don't know the extent of any potential threat posed by this intruder, but they do know that the person willfully violated the law to enter their property. I'm not sure whether the homeowner could have legally drawn a gun at the intruder at that point (threat of deadly force), but if they did, the solicitor may have then reacted in a way that the homeowner interpreted as a threat.
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
Video would help clear up a lot of the he said, she said.