had a right to fear for his life if he was disarmed.
***Not at the moment of the shots. He was several feet away.
__________________________________________________________
Yes the shooter was several feet away but had been forcibly removed from his own home (his porch) and forced into the front yard with the assailant occupying the house (porch) . Now we are in the Castle doctrine, there is almost no proscription of shooting someone once they forcibly enter your house.
I suspect the dead guy didn’t realize he would actually be shot, his temper got the better of him but that does not take away the shooters right to protect himself and his home. it’s a sad story. Had the dead guy gotten a little anger management perhaps he would still be alive.
I am not making a moral view only what is legal. Had it been me I likely would have simply gathered my family into the house and locked the door. I hate to see someone killed even someone who deserves it.
had a right to fear for his life if he was disarmed.
***Not at the moment of the shots. He was several feet away.
There’s another case where a guy’s car got stolen, several guns [including a fully automatic machine gun] inside the car. The car owner shot the guy apparently on the side of the vehicle rather than head-on, and he’s up for murder charges. Different state, different outcome.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4052770/posts
The way I read title 4 chapter 24 of the Texas property code the decedent was guilty of forcible entry whether or not he went on the porch. He had no legal right to be on the lawn and he was asked to leave the property and refused. However I am not convinced the deadly force was legally justified in light since it seemed obvious that no force was necessary to remove the man. Rather the shooter and his girlfriend could have crossed the street and the decedent would have have followed since he was obviously more interested in the argument than in occupying property.