Originally Posted by
tadawson
For what it's worth, I discussed this with a friend that isa 25 year Dallas area LEO . . . Tried to stay with the written narrative offered, and once done with that, posed some of the questions/issues raised here. Spexifically,he also thought that under TX Castle Doctrine, that the shoot was clean . . . .
Specifically:
- Under TX law, *nothing* in a custody agreement in any way alters trespass. Even if the exchange was specifically stated to be at that address, the property owner had the right to refuse any presence on the property - teal guy could stand on the curb and wait, but that was it.
- Even if a custody exchange is refused, LE will *NOT* take any action in TX! This is purely an issue for the courts, and call your lawyer and take it to court is the only option. (Other than the kid not being there, but Mom saying she would go get him, there is no refusal here, only a delay. Junior may just be guilty of not paying attention to the clock, who knows . . .)
- Once asked to get off the property, teal guy was committing trespass.
- In light of the trespass and refusal to leave, the homeowner getting his gun was not inappropriate under Texas Castle Doctrine. Coulda/shoulda/woulda stayed inside is irrelevant as TX law is concerned, in that there is no "duty to retreat" nonsense in TX law. TX law does, however, allow defense of your property under Castle Doctrine.
- The shot in the ground as a final warning to leave, he thought was OK. Teal not taking the hint was the problem
- The illegal presence, threats recorded and assault by teal made this justified under TX Castle Doctrine.
The rest is nice to talk about, but irrelevant to the law.
Granted, he's not the grand jury, but in 25 years (including time on SWAT), I think he has a pretty good clue how things play out, but then again ???