Squatting, stealing or threatening great bodily harm are all different.........
You can squat if you want, but that doesn't give me the right to kill you
You can steal if you want, which certainly wasn't the case here............
Or you can threaten my life which would then allow me some protection under the law to kill you........
None of the above other than the squatting has been alleged................
Castle Doctrine won't even be accepted as an argument unless this guy can prove that the squatters were going to either kill him or do great bodily harm.........
If I were the remaining wounded squatter, I certainly wouldn't want YOU as my defense attorney...........
In Texas if you feel yourself or your possessions are being threatened you can use deadly force. If I walk into my home and strangers are inside, I’m probably going to feel like, at the very least, my possessions are being threatened. I don’t see my home as being any different from my rental property.
Plus, I sure wouldn’t put much stock in the meth head’s testimony.
Without some concrete physical evidence proving the owner a liar I would be inclined to believe that the squatters cuased him to fear for his person. I would also find that fear reasonable unless the squatters were fleeing in the opposite direction, which by the survivors account they were not. Given only the facts presented in the article (two druggie squatters are roused and make furtive movements towards the property owner) I would not convict.
If I was a 73 year old, I would not take any chances of one of them suddenly pulling a gun and shooting me before I had a chance to react. My viewpoint would be that they were illegal intruders, and my expectation is that my life would be at risk from them.
And thus the need for “Make my day” laws. If you are on my property without my permission, unless you are a peace officer with a warrant, you AUTOMATICALLY are a threat. Further, I should not have to wait until you display some action that the perp means harm.