Yes, legally there is quite a difference between trespass in the house and trespass on the land outside it. If we were dealing with just the trespass, that would be a simple answer.OneGun wrote:I would like a little clarification. If a person trespasses in my house with a weapon, It would be a defense from prosecution to shoot the trespasser. However, if an armed trespasser is on my land and shoots my horse, I can't shoot the armed trespasser?
But neither of those situations is just a trespass case. In the case of inside the house, as a general rule you get to presume the burglary is occurring. In the case of the trespasser shooting the horse, you have multiple crimes going on. You have the trespass while armed, which does not justify the shooting, then you have the cruelty to livestock animal (PC 42.09) which would be a state jail felony. I would guess that shooting the horse would come under the heading of torture (causing unnecessary pain) but I have to admit that killing the animal is not specifically defined as cruelty. I believe most prosecutors have been doing this in this manner. Then we also have the criminal mischief. A horse is property and it is illegal to damage another person's property. This would go by the value of the animal (the defined part as a felony is for a fence containing the animal but not the animal itself). And, as we all know, criminal mischief at night does justify the use of deadly force.
So, you might be allowed to shoot a trespasser in your house, while not allowed to shoot the armed trespasser in your yard, but you are justified in shooting the armed trespasser who is shooting your horse at 9:30 p.m., as the OP had stated.