Not what I might have done but after four kids I'd just say "good shoot" to the wife.
Link
By MIKE GLENN Copyright 2009 HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Nov. 3, 2009, 6:32AM

A woman fatally shot a suspected car burglar Monday night in the parking lot of her northwest Houston apartment complex, police said.

The woman, who is eight months pregnant, told Houston police she shot the man about 9 p.m. after she spotted him breaking into her car parked outside the apartment in the 5900 block of Pinemont at Alabonson.

The man still had a screwdriver in his hand when the woman opened fire with a shotgun. The door lock to her car also had been popped open, officers at the scene said.

He was pronounced dead at the scene. The woman was still being questioned late Monday.

The fatal shooting remains under investigation, Houston police said.

**********************************UPDATE***************************
Nov. 4, 2009, 8:20PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6703918.html

Mayes' family and activist Quanell X are questioning how a woman who is 8 months pregnant and so short in stature could fire a 20-gauge shotgun and why the woman's boyfriend never came outside their apartment after the shooting. Quanell X said the woman denied shooting Mayes when a neighbor questioned her immediately after Mayes was killed.

guess the racking noise didn't scare him away

I'm betting it was an auto, or she already had one in the chamber.  LMAO

Edited: for spelling

Hell Hath No Wrath Like A Woman Scorned X2 if she's with child and armed.

Hormones.... they're a killer.



 

This is precisely why anytime my wife announced a craving of any sort when she was pregnant with my two kids, I got my ass off the sofa and ran to the store.

Hopefully this is a good shoot as it appears and she is no-billed.  One less scumbag on the street.

is it just me or in the Houston area the citizens have been shooting the piss out of the bad guys lately?  seems like the Grand Jury is routinely reviewing non-LEO shootings more than police shootings lately.  good if the Grand Jury is no-billing everyone.

While Castle Doctrine doesn't apply here, it still looks like it should be justified:

She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.

 

you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********

No I didn't. Points 1, 2, and 3 must all be met for deadly force to justified. It would make more sense if the formatting wasn't lost when I pasted it here. I'll see if I can fix it.
 

It looks like a good shoot.
It would be nice if the county would at least reimburse her for ammunition.

ETA: it's 1, 2, and either A - OR -  B  .....  if with B... the remainder of the paragraph applies ( which includes 3 ).

From what is written in the article... to me, it looks like she's GTG under 1, 2, and A.

Wrong. Paragraph 3 is its own paragraph separate from paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 is joined with 1 and 2 using "and" which means all three circumstances must be present for deadly force to be justified. This is Penal Code Reading 101.

Ummm, your all wrong.  The guy had a screwdriver in his hand, a deadly weapon.  She confronted him, he advanced on her with a deadly weapon, she shot him in self defense.    Him breaking into the car and all that jazz is just icing on the cake for her defense.  



 

unfortunately the article does not state that. we can assume that's what happened but we have no idea what her statement actually is. if that is the case then yes I'd say it's a question of self defense not protection of property.

and I believe topgunpilot's interpretation of the and/or issues are correct since they are separate 1, 2, and 3, otherwise it would have been 1, 2, a,  b, b1, b2, etc.

The problem is that you highlighted in red the following from 2(a)...


...as part of your assertion that "Castle Doctrine" does not apply, implying that it does not apply because her actions failed that specific test (2(a)).  But because of the "or" at the end of 2(a), the overall rule (2) may be satisfied if 2(b) is passed instead.  In other words, test 2 is passed as a whole if EITHER 2(a) is passed OR 2(b) is passed.

So, what does 2(b) say?  Let's review:


Since the story tells us that she...


...it would appear that either 2(a) or 2(b) may well in fact apply here.  We just don't know whether "imminent commission of" or "fleeing immediately after committing" apply.  But either will serve to satisfy paragraph 2.

ETA: By the way, the same either/or construction applies to paragraph 3.  Her actions need not satisfy 3(a) if they satisfy 3(b) instead.

Castle Doctrine does not apply because she was not inside the car when the bad guy broke into it. The section of Penal Code I posted has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine and has been around for much longer.
Here is the recently added Castle Doctrine from Section 9 of the Penal Code:






Since she wasn't inside the vehicle, Castle Doctrine doesn't apply. That doesn't mean it's not justified though.
Judging by the article, I think her actions are justified by what I posted earlier. It just takes a little more work to justify situations where Castle Doctrine doesn't apply, since she has to satisfy the three paragraphs for using deadly force to protect property (which I believe she can).
And you are correct that either 3a or 3b may be satisfied.











Did we read the same article? Where did it say he was advancing on her?




 
 

True.  I incorrectly cited your mention of Castle Doctrine there.  But the bottom line is that, if the use of the term "night" in the story is consistent with it's use in the cited statute, she's likely covered by 9.42...though we appear to agree on that.  The source of the confusion seems to be your original use of highlighting and the ensuing "and/or" debate, which suggested that you thought 2(a) AND 2(b)...and...3(a) AND 3(b) needed to be satisfied.  Misunderstanding all around, apparently.

Isn't lawyer-speek fun?




 

so for clarification....do we all believe that the breakdown is:

(1) must be satisfied, AND
(2)(A) OR (2)(B) must be satisfied, AND
(3)(A) OR (3)(B) must be satisfied?

Correct.



I edited the formatting of my original post, so it shows that a little clearer.





 

ok great.  i just hope the grand jury no-bills her, which i think they will, so long as she didn't say anything stupid to the investigators.

Hold on to yer hats, Quanell 10 now has doubts about her story.  He's wondering how a pregnant 4'11" woman could shoot a 12-gauge.  I'm thinking he's both racist and sexist.  

Wow:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6703918.html

Family questions who shot accused burglar

Mayes' family and activist Quanell X are questioning how a woman who is 8 months pregnant and so short in stature could fire a 20-gauge shotgun and why the woman's boyfriend never came outside their apartment after the shooting. Quanell X said the woman denied shooting Mayes when a neighbor questioned her immediately after Mayes was killed.

“We are praying that the truth comes out,” Quanell X told mourners during a candlelight vigil outside the woman's apartment Wednesday. “This does not pass the smell test.”

and the news just said she shot from the second story window of her apartment and shot the bad guy in the face with a 20 gauge.

nice to know all the facts before fabricating things isn't it?

The changes to the law that were unfortunately called "The Castle Doctrine" were in the sections regarding using force or deadly force to protect person, NOT to protect property.

And I agree;

1, 2 and 3 must be met.