[LouAvul]

There’s more to this than is being told. No place in the US can you shoot someone for merely trespassing or attempted B&E.

[Tenacious 1]

There’s more to this than is being told. No place in the US can you shoot someone for merely trespassing or attempted B&E.

Correct for trespassing. Incorrect for attempted burglary. Castle Doctrine. You can defend yourself and your property with lethal force. You do not have to retreat. That said, engaging a burglar in a detached garage is a grey area and there are lots of them. If you go armed to investigate and are confronted with an armed perp., good shoot. If you go to investigate and find a drunk digging through your stuff, bad shoot. It's best to defend yourself, your family and your property at your homes interior perimter, WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE (in my opinion). Otherwise, arm yourself, call the police and be ready for anything while watching your stuff get stolen.

[Eaker]

Texas.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

There’s more to this than is being told. No place in the US can you shoot someone for merely trespassing or attempted B&E.

I thought you have to "hail the house" in Texas after dark or you are fair game to be shot.

[El Gato]

No place in the US can you shoot someone for merely trespassing or attempted B&E.

Don't bet on it. Especially don't bet your life on it.

Texas Penal Code on Deadly Force for Protection of Property

Excerpt:

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

...

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... No place in the US can you shoot someone for merely trespassing or attempted B&E."

As far as 'breaking and entering' is concerned, the following states hold 'Castle Doctrine' to be the law:

* Alabama
* Alaska
* Arizona
* Connecticut
* Florida
* Hawaii
* Idaho
* Illinois
* Indiana
* Kansas
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* Maine
* Massachusetts
* Michigan
* Minnesota
* Mississippi
* Missouri
* Montana
* Nevada
* North Carolina
* Pennsylvania
* Rhode Island
* Texas
* Tennessee
* Utah

In none of those states have you got a duty to retreat from property crime of 'breaking and entering' meaning that you may settle the issue yourself up to and including the use of deadly force in order to prevent the crime.

Where I live, deadly force is justified simply by the actor committing a violent felony on private property or against a person travelling in a vehicle anywhere in the state.