RHound,

How can there be a trial by jury that costs lots of money when you have done nothing illegal? Do you understand how the legal system works?

Ed,

Yes, there are some states that have the "must retreat" clause (Texas had it until last year when it was repealed), but to my knowledge nobody has ever been prosecuted because they didnt retreat. The reason I know this is because it came up alot in the papers when Texas was taking that clause out of our law.

Maybe if you sat in your rocking chair with a gun pointing at your front door waiting for someone to walk in, and you shot them as soon as they crossed the threshold....then you might be prosecuted. Anything less than that, its not gonna happen IMO.

Lawsuits are a whole different subject. The burglar can sue you because he cut himself on the glass as he broke your window. Theres nothing a person can do to prevent ridiculous lawsuits like that.....well they could shoot all lawyers

Property = house. Or have I been levelled?

I agree with most of what pkrkat said

Its legal to shoot a burglar in the back if hes in your house.

Someone find me a story of a person prosecuted for shooting a burglar that was inside his house. I dont think you can do it. If you do, the circumstances are going to be very interesting.

As far as taking steps so it doesn't happen again... .What would those steps be? He has an alarm and still got a break in. ..Getting a dog is a little late since it'll be a few months old (assuming he wants to train it his way). Whats the suggestions? Bars on the windows and a reinforced steel door???

Double tap FTW.

Here is the Texas law that relates to this situation. Now youre right, the law is intentionally written semi vaguely so it can be interpreted by different people in different situations, but there is mountians of case law that says you can shoot a burglar in your house and it is totally legal. Precedent has been set over and over.

The law also states that you can shoot the burglar as he is fleeing. He doesnt even have to be in your house anymore. A person could argue that property can be recovered in another manner other than shooting the burglar, but again, case law at least in Texas says that using deadly force to stop him at the scene before he gets away with your property is legal. Also, it has been ruled that trying to grab the burglar or fight with him DOES expose yourself to substantial risk of injury so you are not required to try to fight him or tackle him or anything like that before shooting him

Would I shoot a burglar that is running away? I seriously doubt it.

Again, laws are different in different states. People should read up on this stuff just in case.
***********************************************************************************************
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury