TexasCHLforum.com

Well, we all know what ‘assume’ means and I really don’t believe the DMN is ever forthright with the facts.

She came out of the house cursing and brought a means of deadly force with her.

Does this sound like fear of one’s life or looking for a confrontation? She should have called the police.

It is amazing to me when most cases of identity theft/fraud, stalking, molestation, kidnapping, rape, etc are committed by someone the victim personally knows and/or is related to, that the police treat the case differently saying it is a "civil matter" because you know the person.

In this case, the woman wasn't even related in any way to the guy and the only way she "knew" the stranger was through his years-long harassment of her, which culminated in him breaking into her house again. Somehow because he's been doing it for a long time, she should be used to it and should accept it? The logic is mind-boggling.

So who was breaking into the house? Was it the locksmith or the ex-resident???

The locksmith was acting in good faith, performing a legal service he was hired for. The ex-resident paid someone to break-in to her house and was standing by, overseeing it.

Did I read the article correctly? It seemed like she came out of the house while the old guy trying to get into the house was on the phone with 911. Why was he talking to 911?

Hoi Polloi wrote:The ex-resident paid someone to break-in to her house and was standing by, overseeing it.

So the ex-resident was standing by, overseeing it. Standing by and overseeing. Is this justification for use of deadly force?

Purplehood wrote:Did I read the article correctly? It seemed like she came out of the house while the old guy trying to get into the house was on the phone with 911. Why was he talking to 911?

If, as reported, he was mentally ill, you can't expect his actions to make sense.

My mother was in the hospital in the same room with a woman who had some kind of delusional or dementia problem. The woman thought she was in her home. Every time we walked in to visit our mother, the other woman started yelling about strangers being in her home and calling the police. Whatever was wrong with her, she could not manage to dial a number on the phone.

That was before 911 was invented. You had to dial some number like 555-1212 for the police.

As for the resident coming out to confront the intruder, we have that age-old debate about where to initiate your defense. My house has a fatal funnel built into it, and I ain't goin' out.

- Jim

I wonder if the guy had a key to the house to open the door for the locksmith or did the locksmith open it for him. If he had a key??????

TxA wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:The ex-resident paid someone to break-in to her house and was standing by, overseeing it.

So the ex-resident was standing by, overseeing it. Standing by and overseeing. Is this justification for use of deadly force?

Is there a requirement in "attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation" that the attempted entry be by that person's own force? If I have someone else kick in your door for me, am I then free to go on in and help myself to your stuff?

I agree with this, but there is a clause in PC 30.02, burglary, about intent:

...enters a habitation, ... with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault;

The intent is crucial, and that may be the problem for the homeowner here. If she already knew the guy was mentally ill and not overtly violent, she could have had the cops take him away.

- Jim

KD5NRH wrote:

TxA wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:The ex-resident paid someone to break-in to her house and was standing by, overseeing it.

So the ex-resident was standing by, overseeing it. Standing by and overseeing. Is this justification for use of deadly force?

Is there a requirement in "attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation" that the attempted entry be by that person's own force? If I have someone else kick in your door for me, am I then free to go on in and help myself to your stuff?

In past high-profile murder-for-hire cases, Both the hitman and the person who hire them are generally both tried for murder. I see the same logic being applied here.
Now, I don't think the locksmith was doing anything wrong here, as he was acting in good faith, and as such, should not be arrested or anything. Compared to a hit man, who knows that murder is illegal.


However, if this were a different situation, and a locksmith picked a lock on someone's home for someone else, even under good faith, and opened the door and came inside, and was shot by the resident, I'm pretty sure the resident would not be convicted. As in other crime, the person who hired the locksmith, knowing he was hiring him to commit a crime, would most likely be tried with his murder.

The female resident was on the phone with 911. The man had the intent of "evicting" her from the house. I imagine that involves kicking her and her stuff out on the curb by force, but who knows.

The way the article was written, the locksmith did not have a key. He was shown papers saying the guy lived there (presumably from years and years ago when the guy actually did) and was in the process of changing the locks (as part of the "eviction"??) That would have required him to pick the locks.

KD5NRH wrote:Is there a requirement in "attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation" that the attempted entry be by that person's own force? If I have someone else kick in your door for me, am I then free to go on in and help myself to your stuff?

But if you have someone else kick in my door and you're standing outside, can I run past the one who kicked in the door, and shoot you for standing by and overseeing?

The female resident was on the phone with 911.

The article clearly indicates that the man who was shot was the one on the phone with 911. Since he sincerely believed it was his house he was probably seeking help to get rid of the "tenant".

It seems to me the system failed everybody involved here.