I don't see this as a "castle doctrine" case either as Chad was unarmed.
Where does it say in the Castle doctrine the other party must be armed?
TX castle doctrine doesn’t allow you to use lethal force for someone who’s just trespassing on your property.
What about when someone tries to wrestle a gun away from you?
The following are the allowed use of force conditions under Texas law:
The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
Kyle would seem to fail to get cover under the Castle doctrine for two reasons:
- Chad did not fit into any of conditions (A) to (C) above, as he was not entering the house at all, and even if you argue the whole curtilage issue, you can't say that he did anything close to "entering with force" prior to Kyle firing the warning shot, which leads to
- Kyle would seem to be excluded by provoking Chad with the warning shot.
That being said, Chad's a poster boy for PSGWSP.