Common sense needs to be used when defending ones self, but THIS guy didn't use any
Jeff White : Since I am tired of seeing members make posts here that the Brady organization could use against us, I've been doing some research into how the law that so many members feel gives them Carte Blanche to shoot anyone they find in their home for any reason in Texas is actually applied.
Well I understand why you'd like to deter people from thinking that they have the right to shoot anyone they want to on their property because of the new Castle Doctrine law in Texas for a couple of different reasons (they don't have that right and to think that they do is extremely foolish and to do so would be tempting fate to make an example of you/not to mention the ammo it gives the anti-gun freaks), but I don't really think that this was a very good case with which to make your point since there are a few things wrong with it from the very beginning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Valdez (the deceased boyfriend) had established residence at the house the shooting took place, NOT the shooter. Maybe his girlfriend had thought that he had moved out, but he still had a legal right to be there.
That makes the "....In Your Home" portion of the title incorrect.
The title should say "You can't shoot the boyfriend of the girl with whom you're sleeping in their home in Texas and expect to be cleared, especially when you run away to Colorado right after". The title's too long, but you see my point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The shooter fled the scene and then later tried to claim self defense. Like someone said before "Flight equals guilt in the eyes of the law". If he wanted to claim self defense he should have stayed at the scene. Any home owner with a lick of sense would stay at the scene if they had just shot an intruder, especially if it was at their own home. That's pretty much a given.
The appellant fled the apartment, but......was later apprehended in Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) There's no evidence that Valdez attacked or even threatened the shooter prior to his being killed. Plus, Valdez wasn't even threatening Diane at the point that he was shot so the shooter can't claim that he was trying to protect someone else at the time he used deadly force.
It held that, because Valdez's threat was directed towards Diane and not the appellant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what I mean?
I understand and I agree with your point that self defensive measures always need to be tempered with common sense before you open fire, but this case was flawed from the get go for the purposes with which you were trying to use it to illustrate that common sense needs to be used when defending ones self because the shooter in this case didn't really use any common sense.