TX: Houston homeowner shoots intruder in legs

[ELB]

https://abc13.com/intruder-shot-in-legs ... r/5995060/

The suspect was shot twice at a home off West Mount Houston Road around 1:45 a.m.

Deputies said the homeowner grabbed a gun when he heard the suspect scaling his 6-foot fence.

He started shooting when he heard the suspect trying to break in.

The suspected intruder was hit once in each leg.

Deputy put tourniquets on.

[Paladin]

Nice shooting!

[philip964]

Shot thru the door. At night. Any issues?

[ELB]

Shot thru the door. At night. Any issues?

Based on the scanty details presented, I would think not. Attempting to unlawfully enter an occupied habitation is justification to presume the occupier of the habitation acted reasonably in using deadly force.

[flechero]

Shot thru the door. At night. Any issues?

Better not be.... that is the exact method prescribed by the former vice president. (Except he recommended a side by side shotgun.)

[JustSomeOldGuy]

- Deputy Salgado carries two or more torniquets, apparently. Food for thought there.
- unless somebody had eyes on the intruder from a window, or a security cam, the homeowner was clearly kissing off Cooper Rule #4. That could be a problem in court...
- one hit on each leg in a target you can't see. How many rounds did the homeowner fire thru the door? full magazine horizontal 'stitch' line two feet above ground level?

Lot more info needed here to decide if this as a good example or a bad example of a defensive use of a firearm.....

[oljames3]

Shot thru the door. At night. Any issues?

Based on the scanty details presented, I would think not. Attempting to unlawfully enter an occupied habitation is justification to presume the occupier of the habitation acted reasonably in using deadly force.

Even if reasonable, we must still have to have innocence, imminence, and proportionality in order to have a good self defense claim. And a good lawyer.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/foundation ... fense-law/

[Caliber]

Shot thru the door. At night. Any issues?

Based on the scanty details presented, I would think not. Attempting to unlawfully enter an occupied habitation is justification to presume the occupier of the habitation acted reasonably in using deadly force.

Even if reasonable, we must still have to have innocence, imminence, and proportionality in order to have a good self defense claim. And a good lawyer.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/foundation ... fense-law/

Well, not so much on the proportionality since any deadly force used in this particular case would be presumed to be reasonable. (Castle law)

[ELB]

Shot thru the door. At night. Any issues?

Based on the scanty details presented, I would think not. Attempting to unlawfully enter an occupied habitation is justification to presume the occupier of the habitation acted reasonably in using deadly force.

Even if reasonable, we must still have to have innocence, imminence, and proportionality in order to have a good self defense claim. And a good lawyer.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/foundation ... fense-law/

True but this is all subsumed within the presumption of reasonableness in that particular justification.

The whole point of the presumption is that when someone is unlawfully breaking into your habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment is that your entitlement to safety in your own "castle" is so strong, the time to respond is so short, the risk of PC 9.32 (2)(B) felonies so high, the very act of unlawful entry with force justifies an immediate deadly force response. Thus imminence and proportionality are taken care of. The only additional elements are that the homeowner not have provoked the confrontation (innocence) and not be engaging in criminal activity other than a Class C traffic misdemeanor (more innocence).

There have been several door shootings in Texas of people who were essentially confused as to where they were (generally because they self-confused with alcohol or other drugs) and tried to enter the wrong house. They probably didn't intend to enter to commit kidnapping, murder, rape, nor robbery, they just wanted in the house. But because they were (attempting) unlawfully entering an occupied castle, the occupant's deadly response was legally self-defense.

So unless some new fact comes to light that says this was not an unlawful entry, or the homeowner was protecting his meth lab from a rival, I don't think he will need a lawyer.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

WHEN does it become unlawful entry justifying deadly force under castle doctrine? When the individual ATTEMPTS to breach the door (window, chimney, ventilator, etc), or when the individual BREACHES the door (etc., etc.)?

[ELB]

Law includes “attempt.”

[Charles L. Cotton]

WHEN does it become unlawful entry justifying deadly force under castle doctrine? When the individual ATTEMPTS to breach the door (window, chimney, ventilator, etc), or when the individual BREACHES the door (etc., etc.)?

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

• (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
  
  • (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
    
    (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

• (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
  
  • (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
    
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
  (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
  
  (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... 9.htm#9.32