TexasCHLforum.com

allisji wrote:

Mike S wrote:

allisji wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's interesting. So if lethal force wasn't justified then neither is the Threat of Lethal Force, right?

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:

RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for posting this.

Here's a few immediate observations (& possible teaching points gleaned in parentheses) from the video & article:

1. Homeowners had a security camera overwatching the entrance. (They had somewhat of an idea what was happening, & there was only one visible perp.)

2. Homeowner made decision to respond by going outside to confront perp. Not mentioned in the reporting is who called the police; I'd assume since the husband was busy outside that the wife made the call to police. (Delineation of tasks; lots of stimuli for the mind to process under stress, with little wiggle room for error. However, if wife made the call from inside house it may have been difficult to relay dispatcher's instructions to her husband; IE, "officers are on scene, make sure your husband puts his gun down before they approach")

3. Husband stayed 'inside' of the closed gate while issuing commands to the intoxicated guy. (Good use of an obstacle between him & threat. However, if threat had been armed with a gun, gate wouldn't have offered much protection).

4. Husband seems to have put his gun down before officers approached. (Good job; never greet the responding officers with a gun in your hand; you will be the immediate threat that needs to be dealt with).

Just a few of my observations, for what it's worth.