TEXAS PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
The invaders were clearly trying to enter unlawfully with force, the habitation was occupied, deadly force by the occupier of the habitation is presumed reasonable, door or no door. There have been numerous people in Texas shot through the door of an occupied habitation that they were trying to unlawfully enter, often as a result of chemically altering their perceptions. The Castle Doctrine law is clear on this.
However, if the habitation occupier had also hit one of his neighbors, he could have faced charges of Reckless Injury, and a civil suit.
This might vary by circumstance and jurisdiction, I suppose. We had some deputies from a neighboring county chase a suspect into our county, then shoot and kill her on the porch of a mobile home (not hers, just random pick by her). Some of their shots went into the mobile home and killed a five year old boy. I never heard of any reckless injury charges from that.
I’m with the apartment dweller with this one, but I’d like to believe that I would have been more prudent and conservative about number of shots and placement.
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that
the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the 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;
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;
Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.
The invaders were clearly trying to enter unlawfully with force, the habitation was occupied, deadly force by the occupier of the habitation is presumed reasonable, door or no door. There have been numerous people in Texas shot through the door of an occupied habitation that they were trying to unlawfully enter, often as a result of chemically altering their perceptions. The Castle Doctrine law is clear on this.
However, if the habitation occupier had also hit one of his neighbors, he could have faced charges of Reckless Injury, and a civil suit.
This might vary by circumstance and jurisdiction, I suppose. We had some deputies from a neighboring county chase a suspect into our county, then shoot and kill her on the porch of a mobile home (not hers, just random pick by her). Some of their shots went into the mobile home and killed a five year old boy. I never heard of any reckless injury charges from that.
I’m with the apartment dweller with this one, but I’d like to believe that I would have been more prudent and conservative about number of shots and placement.
Last edited: