Quote:
|
This was not a strict "shoot to protect property" incident, despite the plaintiff's unsuccessful attempts to make it appear so. .... It was a shooting in defense of life.
|
So I presumed, Mas, from your prior note.
My thought, and you can correct this, was that the so called "Castle Doctrine" did not apply because the decedent had already left the house. Ordinarily, in most places that means the property owner or tenant cannot invoke the castle doctrine in claiming self defense. Where I live in Missouri, I have no business going out after an intruder who has departed, or so I understand.
However, in Texas, one may attempt to use force, even deadly force, to recover property. If, in the course of that lawful pursuit, the perp attacks the homeowner or tenant, it becomes a defense of life situation...or so I assumed from the news articles and from your post.
Comments?