TexasCHLforum.com

FORT WORTH (CBSDFW.COM) – A 75-year-old Fort Worth man was arrested after he shot and killed another man in his driveway Friday night, police said.
Warren Lynn McSpadden is charged with murder after a dispute turned deadly, police officials said.
The shooting happened around 7:30 p.m. Friday at a home in the 3400 block of Fairview Street. Julio Ortiz was inside his house at the time and heard gunshots.


http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2010/11/27/75-y ... th-murder/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not siding with the shooter nor against him. But this is clearly NOT a castle doctrine case.

Too little to say...the article says he was 'harassing' the man. Was he making fun of the man? Was he verbally harassing the man?

According to the police report, McSpadden said Gregory Mayfield, 53, was harassing him and wouldn’t leave him alone, so he shot him.

Doesn't sound like a clear enough picture to call it a Castle Doctrine fail quite yet...I hope they come out with more details.

Warren Lynn McSpadden is charged with murder after a dispute turned deadly, police officials said.

75-year old "McSpadden said Gregory Mayfield, 53, was harassing him and wouldn’t leave him alone, so he shot him."

Assuming the reporter is 100% accurate
Reported facts are pretty thin, I don't recall harassment in Texas Penal Code Chapter 9.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Not only for deadly force 9.32, but just force itself 9.31 wouldn't be justified for harassment

9:31
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

If it had been self-defense, the age difference might work for him, but harassment ....
Wonder why he didn't just go inside his own house (retreat from the verbal abuse)

Just assuming a minute that the "harasser" was pointing sharp sticks and stones or waiving a knife while harassing ...
Perhaps McSpadden shouldn't have talked without an attorney present.

The other thing that gets me is that the person was still sitting in his truck.

cbucher wrote:The other thing that gets me is that the person was still sitting in his truck.

Yes, Trespass might justify force (Sec 9.41) but not deadly force.
Maybe he was trying to run him over, assault with his deadly weapon truck, but still there's the run in the house/get out of the way option, assuming physical ability to do so.

Perhaps the deceased had a can of spray paint in his truck, threatening graffiti, criminal mischief at night, and the actor was attempting to prevent the imminent commission of such ... 9.42 (A)

Still .......

Or, perhaps the deceased was aiming his army surplus flame thrower at the 75 year old's house to "tease and harass" in a threatening arson manner.

I personally dislike those "Trespassers will be shot" type signs, and the mentality that goes with it.
But breaking into my house while I'm in it is inadvisable.
Standing outside my house and shooting into my house through a window or open door, prior to entering, also inadvisable; I can afford a new storm door glass and screen.

Stand outside a window unarmed and yell all you want, I'll turn up the TV, until police arrive to give you a ride..