aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

When did the kid try to enter?

barbacoa taco said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

So you didnt like how I used the term "execution style" but you sure do seem to know for a fact that the kid tried to enter the house, instead of just knocking on the door. How do you know so much more than everyone else?

---

Ok, then if you say he didn't try to open the door, which has been repeated and stated in many articles, then we're don't really have much to discuss until trial.

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

"Threat" doesn't get you there in Missouri. It needs to be a threat.....of the imminent use of physical force against you and the use of the deadly force (the gun) needs to be reasonably necessary to defend against that particular threat.

"Threat" doesn't get you there in Texas, either, by the way. I think you're warping the castle doctrine to be something much more than what it actually is.

beanbean said:

---

My wife has a prescription that gets delivered to our house from a delivery person from the pharmacy. It's always a black dude who is the delivery person and he opens the storm door to set the bag between the glass storm door and our front door so it is secured and kind of out of sight. I guess if I shot the dude next time he opens that storm door, I'll be free and clear?

(Of course I'd never do this because I'm not an idiot)

---

What if that never happened and it's 10pm at night and a black dude who you do not know and have never met is knocking on your door and then starts to open it?

Not saying you should shoot at that exact moment, but even a hardened Navy Seal would be on edge and ready at that point. Point is, it's way different than your scenario where you are expecting a dude to come by and leave your wife's drugs a certain way.

Tanya 93 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

When did the kid try to enter?

---

We are ALL speculating, don't kid yourself. None of us know if he just knocked/rang, did that and then started to try to open the door, or actually opened the door and entered. Even the mainstream media has reported that he entered, only to retract and say he just rang doorbell. How many times has the truth either been opposite of initial reporting or somewhere in the middle?

This is a discussion forum and we are discussing possible scenarios and hypotheticals based on the very limited information we had. None of us know if this was justified or not.

The only thing that is for absolute certain, is that the left is blindly running with the "OMG Racist!!!" angle, like they always do. Not a word for the 20 year old white girl who was just shot to death because her friend pulled into the wrong driveway. Obviously only the black kid gets an invite to the WH from our braindead puppet president and cackling lunatic VP. Only he gets condolences and sympathy from fake ass leftist celebs, politicians and influencers.

Not a single word for the white girl who was shot DEAD.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

"Threat" doesn't get you there in Missouri. It needs to be a threat.....of the imminent use of physical force against you and the use of the deadly force (the gun) needs to be reasonably necessary to defend against that particular threat.

"Threat" doesn't get you there in Texas, either, by the way. I think you're warping the castle doctrine to be something much more than what it actually is.

---

I disagree with your interpretation of law. The law talks about what the shooter believes is a threat of force.

" A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:


Then states that deadly force is applicable if:

" 2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:"

" 2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or"


So of those two requirements, which were not met by a 6ft teenager attempting to open a door with an 85 year old standing behind it in his own house at night?

aggielostinETX said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

"Threat" doesn't get you there in Missouri. It needs to be a threat.....of the imminent use of physical force against you and the use of the deadly force (the gun) needs to be reasonably necessary to defend against that particular threat.

"Threat" doesn't get you there in Texas, either, by the way. I think you're warping the castle doctrine to be something much more than what it actually is.

---

I disagree with your interpretation of law. The law talks about what the shooter believes is a threat of force.

" A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:


Then states that deadly force is applicable if:

" 2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:"

" 2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or"


So of those two requirements, which were not met by a 6ft teenager attempting to open a door with an 85 year old standing behind it in his own house at night?

---

You do understand the test to apply "reasonable belief" is not that this specific man believed he was at risk of death, serious injury, etc.

The test for application of "reasonable belief" is that a REASONABLE PERSON judging the situation in the light of the law and information concerned would believe there was a imminent risk of death, serious injury, or forcible felony.

Based off what has been established thus far, I don't see his belief as reasonable. It will be interesting to see what a jury will say.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

When did the kid try to enter?

---

We are ALL speculating, don't kid yourself. None of us know if he just knocked/rang, did that and then started to try to open the door, or actually opened the door and entered. Even the mainstream media has reported that he entered, only to retract and say he just rang doorbell. How many times has the truth either been opposite of initial reporting or somewhere in the middle?

This is a discussion forum and we are discussing possible scenarios and hypotheticals based on the very limited information we had. None of us know if this was justified or not.

The only thing that is for absolute certain, is that the left is blindly running with the "OMG Racist!!!" angle, like they always do. Not a word for the 20 year old white girl who was just shot to death because her friend pulled into the wrong driveway. Obviously only the black kid gets an invite to the WH from our braindead puppet president and cackling lunatic VP. Only he gets condolences and sympathy from fake ass leftist celebs, politicians and influencers.

Not a single word for the white girl who was shot DEAD.

---

He told the police he did not try to enter.
No report of his prints on the door knob.

Well, my point was more that you're throwing around the generalized "threat" rather than describing what the threat was. My point wasn't really whether the appropriate threat existed in this case.


However, on that latter issue, I don't think someone trying to open a door reasonably equates to the use or imminent use of force against another person.

We'll see what happens. Based on what we know at this point, I think this guy is in trouble. And the fact that they took some time and appeared to be very careful about charging this guy, that doesn't lead me to believe we're going to learn a lot of facts that are going to point to a good shot(s).

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

When did the kid try to enter?

---

We are ALL speculating, don't kid yourself. None of us know if he just knocked/rang, did that and then started to try to open the door, or actually opened the door and entered. Even the mainstream media has reported that he entered, only to retract and say he just rang doorbell. How many times has the truth either been opposite of initial reporting or somewhere in the middle?

This is a discussion forum and we are discussing possible scenarios and hypotheticals based on the very limited information we had. None of us know if this was justified or not.

The only thing that is for absolute certain, is that the left is blindly running with the "OMG Racist!!!" angle, like they always do. Not a word for the 20 year old white girl who was just shot to death because her friend pulled into the wrong driveway. Obviously only the black kid gets an invite to the WH from our braindead puppet president and cackling lunatic VP. Only he gets condolences and sympathy from fake ass leftist celebs, politicians and influencers.

---

Well, the two situations are quite different, for starters. And there is good reason to believe racism played a part in the KC shooting. Hell, people have even defended it with statements like "I'd be scared too if there was a black guy on my doorstep late at night." Put simply, the guy may have felt threatened by a black guy but wouldn't feel the same if it were a guy who was another race.

I don't know for sure, by the way. But it's highly suspect. And no matter the race, it was not a justified shooting.

Quote:

---

Not a single word for the white girl who was shot DEAD.

---

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. There is a LOT of outrage for the white girl who was killed. People are absolutely furious about it. Shot dead, her whole life robbed of her, because her friend made a simple mistake of pulling into the wrong driveway (side note, imagine the horrible survivor's guilt the friend feels for this. heartbreaking). She did nothing wrong, everyone is rightfully furious about it.

Branca's take.

Elderly Man Defends Against Home Invasion, Charged with Life Felony https://t.co/5jNpilJEit

— Law of Self Defense (@LawSelfDefense) April 18, 2023

I understand it completely. And I think about my dad, 77, who had a guy try to enter their home through the front door last year about 11pm.

I believe a reasonable person would believe he would have justified in shooting that person.

Turns out the guy was known felon and ended up assaulting an officer as he was being arrested later that night.

So you tell me, how does the homeowner know who the person is or what their intentions are when they are trying to get into their home?

But the media has obscured this by talk about what a great kid he is and how he was at the wrong house and none of this is his fault. And I am sure that's all true. But none of that is relevant when this occurred.

Tanya 93 said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

When did the kid try to enter?

---

We are ALL speculating, don't kid yourself. None of us know if he just knocked/rang, did that and then started to try to open the door, or actually opened the door and entered. Even the mainstream media has reported that he entered, only to retract and say he just rang doorbell. How many times has the truth either been opposite of initial reporting or somewhere in the middle?

This is a discussion forum and we are discussing possible scenarios and hypotheticals based on the very limited information we had. None of us know if this was justified or not.

The only thing that is for absolute certain, is that the left is blindly running with the "OMG Racist!!!" angle, like they always do. Not a word for the 20 year old white girl who was just shot to death because her friend pulled into the wrong driveway. Obviously only the black kid gets an invite to the WH from our braindead puppet president and cackling lunatic VP. Only he gets condolences and sympathy from fake ass leftist celebs, politicians and influencers.

Not a single word for the white girl who was shot DEAD.

---

He told the police he did not try to enter.
No report of his prints on the door knob.

---

If it comes back that he did not try to enter, then the shooting was not justified and this guy is an idiot and will probably die in jail or before he goes.

aggielostinETX said:

---

I understand it completely. And I think about my dad, 77, who had a guy try to enter their home through the front door last year about 11pm.

I believe a reasonable person would believe he would have justified in shooting that person.

Turns out the guy was known felon and ended up assaulting an officer as he was being arrested later that night.

So you tell me, how does the homeowner know who the person is or what their intentions are when they are trying to get into their home?

But the media has obscured this by talk about what a great kid he is and how he was at the wrong house and none of this is his fault. And I am sure that's all true. But none of that is relevant when this occurred.

---

Why do you keep saying he tried to enter the home?

He told the police he did not try to open the door.

barbacoa taco said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

When did the kid try to enter?

---

We are ALL speculating, don't kid yourself. None of us know if he just knocked/rang, did that and then started to try to open the door, or actually opened the door and entered. Even the mainstream media has reported that he entered, only to retract and say he just rang doorbell. How many times has the truth either been opposite of initial reporting or somewhere in the middle?

This is a discussion forum and we are discussing possible scenarios and hypotheticals based on the very limited information we had. None of us know if this was justified or not.

The only thing that is for absolute certain, is that the left is blindly running with the "OMG Racist!!!" angle, like they always do. Not a word for the 20 year old white girl who was just shot to death because her friend pulled into the wrong driveway. Obviously only the black kid gets an invite to the WH from our braindead puppet president and cackling lunatic VP. Only he gets condolences and sympathy from fake ass leftist celebs, politicians and influencers.

---

Well, the two situations are quite different, for starters. And there is good reason to believe racism played a part in the KC shooting. Hell, people have even defended it with statements like "I'd be scared too if there was a black guy on my doorstep late at night." Put simply, the guy may have felt threatened by a black guy but wouldn't feel the same if it were a guy who was another race.

I don't know for sure, by the way. But it's highly suspect. And no matter the race, it was not a justified shooting.

Quote:

---

Not a single word for the white girl who was shot DEAD.

---

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. There is a LOT of outrage for the white girl who was killed. People are absolutely furious about it. Shot dead, her whole life robbed of her, because her friend made a simple mistake of pulling into the wrong driveway. She did nothing wrong, everyone is rightfully furious about it.

---

Could not disagree more. The only thing I agree with is the notion that most people, of every race, are naturally going to instinctually be a bit more on edge if a black dude is tampering with their front door or even ringing the front door at night than if it was an Asian dude. This is 100% just basic ingrained survival instinct, given the fact that black males commit a shockingly disproportionate amount of home invasion/jugging type crimes (and murder/violent crime in general). If it was Asian males committing wildly disproportionate amounts of violent crime, people would be more fearful of them instead. But it's not...it's black males who are jugging, lynching white ladies in the streets, curb stomping elderly Asian people to death for fun. Could go on and on.

IMO, anyone who claims they would be equally on edge with an Asian male at their front door at night vs. a black male, is either (a) dishonest, or (b) dumb and oblivious to the world.

aggielostinETX said:

---

I understand it completely. And I think about my dad, 77, who had a guy try to enter their home through the front door last year about 11pm.

I believe a reasonable person would believe he would have justified in shooting that person.

Turns out the guy was known felon and ended up assaulting an officer as he was being arrested later that night.

So you tell me, how does the homeowner know who the person is or what their intentions are when they are trying to get into their home?

But the media has obscured this by talk about what a great kid he is and how he was at the wrong house and none of this is his fault. And I am sure that's all true. But none of that is relevant when this occurred.

---

If you can't tell the difference between knocking on the door and trying to "get into the home" you probably shouldn't own a firearm.

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

From cnn:

"Lester told police he fired immediately after answering the doorbell when he saw Ralph pulling on an exterior door handle, according to the probable cause document obtained by CNN."

No bill.

---

No bill? I don't think that's sufficient cause to fire through the door. Simply pulling on the handle is not actively trying to break in.

---

From Missouri law.
Pulling on a door handle is the same thing as attempting to open the door, right?

" (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or"

---

You missed the first part of the statute where it says "when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself". This means the actions must be reasonable and proportionate and the force must be properly escalated. Simply pulling on the handle would call for a verbal warning as the initial action. You don't immediately jump to firing through the door.

---

Supposedly there are a bunch of no trespassing signs up.

That counts as a warning, right?

The asymmetry here is important. Young physically imposing guy vs an 80 year old guy means the old guy can perceive a threat of great bodily harm in a situation that you might not necessarily perceive the same level of threat.

I have no idea what really happened. If the kid was yanking violently on the door, then this might be legit self defense. If he just rang the doorbell, not so sure.

---

Walking up to the door and ringing the bell is not trespassing no matter what signs are up. Besides, it was 10:30 at night and maybe he didn't see the signs anyway.

I don't care what State it is or what "castle doctrine" is on the books. There is no place in the country where simply ringing the doorbell and/or turning the handle on a storm door is sufficient cause to plug someone from the other side of said door and then shoot him again.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

I understand it completely. And I think about my dad, 77, who had a guy try to enter their home through the front door last year about 11pm.

I believe a reasonable person would believe he would have justified in shooting that person.

Turns out the guy was known felon and ended up assaulting an officer as he was being arrested later that night.

So you tell me, how does the homeowner know who the person is or what their intentions are when they are trying to get into their home?

But the media has obscured this by talk about what a great kid he is and how he was at the wrong house and none of this is his fault. And I am sure that's all true. But none of that is relevant when this occurred.

---

If you can't tell the difference between knocking on the door and trying to "get into the home" you probably shouldn't own a firearm.

---

Lets see what the evidence says.

aggielostinETX said:

---

I understand it completely. And I think about my dad, 77, who had a guy try to enter their home through the front door last year about 11pm.

I believe a reasonable person would believe he would have justified in shooting that person.

Turns out the guy was known felon and ended up assaulting an officer as he was being arrested later that night.

So you tell me, how does the homeowner know who the person is or what their intentions are when they are trying to get into their home?

But the media has obscured this by talk about what a great kid he is and how he was at the wrong house and none of this is his fault. And I am sure that's all true. But none of that is relevant when this occurred.

---

Again, you can exhaust other options before immediately going for the kill. Don't be trigger happy all the time.

Announce "Get off my property, I have a gun." It's not hard.

When I was in high school, my friends from school and I were playing a dumb "mafia" game where we tried to "kill" each other and we hid things around town you had to go and find. We had a rule that it could not be on private property. Well, someone did put it on private property and we tried to go find it in a detached barn. (Yes I know, we were stupid).

It was on the wrong damn property, because we had shotguns pulled on us. The owner fired warning shots. We hightailed it off the property and were scared ****less. Yes, it taught me a lesson. Thank God they didn't immediately try to murder us for being idiots. And yes, they likely would have gone to prison because deadly force is almost never justified to protect personal property.

Ok Joe Biden

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

From cnn:

"Lester told police he fired immediately after answering the doorbell when he saw Ralph pulling on an exterior door handle, according to the probable cause document obtained by CNN."

No bill.

---

No bill? I don't think that's sufficient cause to fire through the door. Simply pulling on the handle is not actively trying to break in.

---

From Missouri law.
Pulling on a door handle is the same thing as attempting to open the door, right?

" (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or"

---

You missed the first part of the statute where it says "when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself". This means the actions must be reasonable and proportionate and the force must be properly escalated. Simply pulling on the handle would call for a verbal warning as the initial action. You don't immediately jump to firing through the door.

---

Supposedly there are a bunch of no trespassing signs up.

That counts as a warning, right?

The asymmetry here is important. Young physically imposing guy vs an 80 year old guy means the old guy can perceive a threat of great bodily harm in a situation that you might not necessarily perceive the same level of threat.

I have no idea what really happened. If the kid was yanking violently on the door, then this might be legit self defense. If he just rang the doorbell, not so sure.

---

Walking up to the door and ringing the bell is not trespassing no matter what signs are up. Besides, it was 10:30 at night and maybe he didn't see the signs anyway.

I don't care what State it is or what "castle doctrine" is on the books. There is no place in the country where simply ringing the doorbell and/or turning the handle on a storm door is sufficient cause to plug someone from the other side of said door and then shoot him again.

---

Be honest...let's play along with this scenario. It's 10:30pm at night. You are not eagerly awaiting any online orders, a black youth with no uniform on rings your door bell, then decides to start opening the storm door (hypothetical)...any sane human being, you included, is sh*tting bricks at that point, right? I think it would AT LEAST be prudent to arm yourself in that situation and be ready to shoot in the event he enters.

Maybe him tampering with the door isn't sufficient justification to shoot at that moment, but a reasonable person is justified in fearing a possible home invasion at that point, right?

If I see a dude, of any race, trying to open my outer door at night, I am rushing to get my gun and telling wife to take our toddler and hide in back.

Point being, if the shooter's testimony is correct, and the kid was turning his door handle...it would be completely normal to be scared AF and have some sort of fight or flight response. I hope we can at least all be honest and concede that.

aggielostinETX said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe firearms training needs to include more threat identification and analysis.

---

Maybe it does. And when someone tries to enter your house uninvited in a castle state, they are viewed as a threat.

---

So you didnt like how I used the term "execution style" but you sure do seem to know for a fact that the kid tried to enter the house, instead of just knocking on the door. How do you know so much more than everyone else?

---

Ok, then if you say he didn't try to open the door, which has been repeated and stated in many articles, then we're don't really have much to discuss until trial.

---

Not sure about "many articles." I just saw it in a TIME tweet but it wasn't in the article. Then it got retweeted like crazy by Jack Poseibic and a bunch of other people who desperately want the kid to be in the wrong and the homeowner to be in the right.

I'm sure that's what the homeowner's defense will be, and we'll see if the evidence backs that up. So far, I think the evidence suggests the kid was outside. Remember, he was picking up his sibling and it was someone else's house. Good chance he rang the doorbell instead of walking right in.

It was also in the CNN article and I quoted it earlier in the thread.

barbacoa taco said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

I understand it completely. And I think about my dad, 77, who had a guy try to enter their home through the front door last year about 11pm.

I believe a reasonable person would believe he would have justified in shooting that person.

Turns out the guy was known felon and ended up assaulting an officer as he was being arrested later that night.

So you tell me, how does the homeowner know who the person is or what their intentions are when they are trying to get into their home?

But the media has obscured this by talk about what a great kid he is and how he was at the wrong house and none of this is his fault. And I am sure that's all true. But none of that is relevant when this occurred.

---

Again, you can exhaust other options before immediately going for the kill. Don't be trigger happy all the time.

Announce "Get off my property, I have a gun." It's not hard.

When I was in high school, my friends from school and I were playing a dumb "mafia" game where we tried to "kill" each other and we hid things around town you had to go and find. We had a rule that it could not be on private property. Well, someone did put it on private property and we tried to go find it in a detached barn. (Yes I know, we were stupid).

It was on the wrong damn property, because we had shotguns pulled on us. The owner fired warning shots. We hightailed it off the property and were scared ****less. Yes, it taught me a lesson. Thank God they didn't immediately try to murder us for being idiots. And yes, they likely would have gone to prison because deadly force is almost never justified to protect personal property.

---

I don't even believe you, no offense. You may be telling the truth, but leftists lie all the time and it is a major cornerstone of their religious faith so my default stance is to assume you are lying to advance your cause or agenda.

I can't trust a single liberal...they lie WAY too much. Last handful of years woke me the F up.

ok, don't believe me then. idc. only point I was driving home is there are ways to handle a situation when your life is clearly not under threat that don't involve deadly force.

I think I'm seeing a trend here in which people with storm doors tend to be trigger happy. And/or opening said storm door is escalating and potentially criminal behavior.

Not to self. Stay away from homes with storm doors.

aggielostinETX said:

---

I understand it completely. And I think about my dad, 77, who had a guy try to enter their home through the front door last year about 11pm.

I believe a reasonable person would believe he would have justified in shooting that person.

Turns out the guy was known felon and ended up assaulting an officer as he was being arrested later that night.

So you tell me, how does the homeowner know who the person is or what their intentions are when they are trying to get into their home?

But the media has obscured this by talk about what a great kid he is and how he was at the wrong house and none of this is his fault. And I am sure that's all true. But none of that is relevant when this occurred.

---

Even in Texas, your use of deadly force has to be "immediately necessary." I.e., if there are non-deadly alternatives that an be used to prevent it, the legal expectation is you use them. There is no carte blanche allowance to use deadly force to protect property or to protect against another's use of force.

Did your 77 year old Dad shoot the guy or was the attempted entry ended by other means?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

I understand it completely. And I think about my dad, 77, who had a guy try to enter their home through the front door last year about 11pm.

I believe a reasonable person would believe he would have justified in shooting that person.

Turns out the guy was known felon and ended up assaulting an officer as he was being arrested later that night.

So you tell me, how does the homeowner know who the person is or what their intentions are when they are trying to get into their home?

But the media has obscured this by talk about what a great kid he is and how he was at the wrong house and none of this is his fault. And I am sure that's all true. But none of that is relevant when this occurred.

---

Even in Texas, your use of deadly force has to be "immediately necessary." I.e., if there are non-deadly alternatives that an be used to prevent it, the legal expectation is you use them. There is no carte blanche allowance to use deadly force to protect property or to protect against another's use of force.

Did your 77 year old Dad shoot the guy or was the attempted entry ended by other means?

---

Your wrong again. Civilians dont have to exhaust all other means before engaging in deadly force. If deadly force is allowed, and I have mace, i don't have to use mace then my firearm. You interpretation of deadly force case law is comfort completely off. See the Carter Albrect case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Albrecht

He did not shoot because he has a 2" oak door. If it had been 1/4 glass, he the outcome probably would have been different.

He is right in that the statute does require that the actor believe the deadly force is "immediately necessary."

Yes
Dude with a clean record shows up to do a home invasion by ringing the doorbell.

Im Gipper said:

---

He is right in that the statute does require that the actor believe the deadly force is "immediately necessary."

---

That is correct. Someone trying to come in my door would make it immediately necessary.

aggielostinETX said:

---

This kid tried to walk in or walked in and got shot

---

Speaking of responding out of emotions. Where is the evidence to support this statement?

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

This kid tried to walk in or walked in and got shot

---

Speaking of responding out of emotions. Where is the evidence to support this statement?

---

I posted a quote from a CNN article earlier in this thread. Go find it.

the law does not require it to be what YOU think is reasonable. It's what a REASONABLE PERSON thinks is reasonable. I contend that a reasonable person would at least attempt to diffuse the situation or warn the person to leave, before immediately trying to kill them. Because the reasonable person is not trigger happy and paranoid. I think the jury would feel the same and that the shooter will have a hard time proving his actions were reasonable.

aggielostinETX said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

I understand it completely. And I think about my dad, 77, who had a guy try to enter their home through the front door last year about 11pm.

I believe a reasonable person would believe he would have justified in shooting that person.

Turns out the guy was known felon and ended up assaulting an officer as he was being arrested later that night.

So you tell me, how does the homeowner know who the person is or what their intentions are when they are trying to get into their home?

But the media has obscured this by talk about what a great kid he is and how he was at the wrong house and none of this is his fault. And I am sure that's all true. But none of that is relevant when this occurred.

---

Even in Texas, your use of deadly force has to be "immediately necessary." I.e., if there are non-deadly alternatives that an be used to prevent it, the legal expectation is you use them. There is no carte blanche allowance to use deadly force to protect property or to protect against another's use of force.

Did your 77 year old Dad shoot the guy or was the attempted entry ended by other means?

---

Your wrong again. Civilians dont have to exhaust all other means before engaging in deadly force. If deadly force is allowed, and I have mace, i don't have to use mace then my firearm. You interpretation of deadly force case law is comfort completely off. See the Carter Albrect case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Albrecht

He did not shoot because he has a 2" oak door. If it had been 1/4 glass, he the outcome probably would have been different.

---

One can parse the facts and prosecutorial discretion of any particular case. I think the Albrecht case involved a lot of banging, yelling at each other, a claim of a "warning shot" and and a bizarre line of facts leading up to it involving Albrecht being violent (although that wasn't strictly relevant to whether the shooter was acting reasonably based on what he knew) and he apparently was trying in fact trying to break in and commit violence (albeit against someone else.) All that to say, that's a messy case.

But I am right and correct in saying that Texas law is not "deadly force can be used to prevent trespass to property."


(BTW, this is besides my point, but trespass isn't actually one of the property crimes for which you can use deadly force..."immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime")