TexasCHLforum.com

stroo wrote:Doesn't our castle doctrine already require "forcible entry" or something like that?

It does to get the presumption, but the right of self-defense or deadly force to defend property does not hinge on forcible entry. Even the presumption is available when trying to prevent the "imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery[,]" and neither location nor forcible entry are issues.

The other two elements of SB378 (2007) are not impacted by forcible entry or location elements; i.e. no retreat duty or immunity from civil liability. (Location can be an issue for the no retreat duty, but only if you are not legally present at the place where you used deadly force.)

Chas.

http://abc13.com/news/montana-man-gets- ... th/514916/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;