A case that is set to begin today could challenge the limits of Texas' 'Castle Doctrine' law, which allows an individual to use deadly force to protect property under his or her control, News Radio 1200 WOAI reports.
Coty McDonnell, 31, of Converse, is charged with deadly conduct after police say he chased a carful of teenagers down the street with an AR-15 after suspecting they were planning to burglarize a neighbor's home.
McDonnell told police his neighbor asked him to watch his house due to a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood.Police say when a car containing several teens pulled up to the neighbor's home with its lights off, McDonnell ran inside, grabbed the rifle, jumped into his pickup truck, and 'pursued the car down the street, blocking it is and refusing to allow the car to leave while police were called.'
Gun rights activists are protesting the charges, saying McDonnell was acting within his rights under the state's Castle Doctrine law. But prosecutors say McDonnell went too far.
The three points of contention are, whether the teenagers were ever a threat to the neighbor's home, whether the home we was protecting was occupied, and whether McDonnell had the right to pursue them off of the property and down the public street.
Section 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code allows a person to use deadly force to protect property 'if a third person has requested his protection of the land or property.'
But, according to Texas Law Shield, there are three things that are problematic about McDonnell's claim.
First, Castle Doctrine does not allow a person to use deadly force of the threat of deadly force to repel 'trespassers.'
"Criminal trespass alone is not one of the crimes listed in Texas Penal Code §9.42 or even as part of the “Castle Doctrine” under §9.31 or §9.32," according to Texas Law Shield's guide to the Castle Doctrine law.
Police say even though the car full of teens may have looked 'suspicious,' there was no evidence that they ever actually committed or even threatened to commit any crimes.
Secondly, the biggest problem with McDonnell using a 'Castle Doctrine' defense will be in the fact that he chased them off of the property and onto a public street. While the law does allow a person to use deadly force to chase down an individual who has stolen property ("deadly force is reasonably necessary to prevent another who is immediately fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property" according to Texas Law Shield), there is no evidence that the teenagers had committed any of those offenses or that they were in possess of any stolen property.
It is generally accepted that, even had the teens been committing a crime, and there is no evidence of that, the 'threat' that allows the use of deadly force disappears as soon as the individual is fleeing.
Secondly, Castle Doctrine gives a person to use deadly force only to protect an occupied home, car, office or building. If the neighbor's home was not occupied at the time, Castle Doctrine doesn't apply. That's what insurance is for.
Also, Castle Doctrine does not guarantee that a person will not be arrested or prosecuted. It is an 'affirmative defense' to charges like deadly conduct, but Texas Law Shield points out that it does not 'guarantee' that a person will not be arrested or prosecuted.
IMAGE: GETTY