TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:The Harold Fish case. Both of these shootings were justifiable, but I'm just curious about the significance of the aggressor being on PCP with regards to the defense of the homeowner for his actions.

First, the homeowner is golden because of the TPC §9.32(b) presumption.

I mentioned the PCP issue only because someone on PCP is not going to comply with instructions, they are aggressive and they have superhuman strength. The homeowner didn't know he was on PCP, but that doesn't matter. PCP helps to explain why the burglar ignored the homeowner's instructions even when facing a gun. It bolsters the homeowner's statement of events.

While not relevant to this case, PCP like a prior history of violence could be an issue for defense, if one of the issues in trial is who was the aggressor. For example, if someone shoots another person on the street claiming it was self-defense, the fact that the attacker has a history of violence would be relevant, thus admissible, under two circumstances. First, if the shooter knew of their violent past, then it would be a factor in his reasonable belief that deadly force was immediately necessary. If the shooter/intended victim didn't know of the history of violence, it would not be admissible at trial to support the shooter's reasonable belief of immediately necessity. However, if one of the issues in trial is "who was the aggressor," then the issue of a past history of violence would be relevant and admissible.

Chas.

The shooting was obviously justified, per TPC §9.32(b) and it was morally justified also. The fact that the burglar had PCP on board is also significant. Anyone who has dealt with someone on PCP knows that you aren't going to reason with them and they aren't going to follow instructions even if they are looking down the barrel of a cannon.

Chas.