No. The paraphrased quote attributed to Davis was that, "...there was a reasonableness test before deadly force can be applied on an intruder in the home,..."Renegade wrote: We are talking about Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground. The reasonable person test for Stand Your Ground does not apply in the home. Look it up in 9.32 if you are a non-believer.
Note, not a reasonableness test for whether or not you should have stood your ground, which I agree is specifically removed from consideration in the law, but a reasonableness test before deadly force can be applied. The Castle Doctrine did not address or change this part of the statute nor the well established case law principle.
Both 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33 state that an actor's actions are presumed to be reasonable if the conditions listed below (in the statutes) were met. Note that just because an action is presumed to be reasonable doesn't mean that it automatically is reasonable. All it means is that the burden of proof (to prove that the action was not reasonable) lies with the state.Renegade wrote: Obviously you cannot just shoot anybody in your home without cause.
However, under Castle Doctrine I think you really can just shoot any intruder. The fact they broke into your home is cause enough.
If state proves that your actions were not reasonable, you're gonna do time.
Nope. He was not charged because the police and DA believe that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances, at least to the point where thet DA felt there was no chance of proving that they were not reasonable.Renegade wrote: That is why the guy who shot the musician (who was outside the home and unarmed) got off with no charges. Merely attempting to break in is cause enough.
Check out this link.Renegade wrote: I will have to see the final version of SB378 that gets enrolled to be sure though.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf
Scroll down to 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33. These sections show SB378 incorporated into the relevant deadly force statutes.