(TX) Police: Father Protects Daughter, Shoots Alleged Intruder


PDA






Drizzt
September 6, 2007, 09:03 PM
Police: Father Protects Daughter, Shoots Alleged Intruder

CANUTILLO, Texas -- The El Paso County Sheriff's Office investigated a shooting in Canutillo Saturday morning.

It happened on the 800 block of Anthony Road early Saturday morning, when deputies said a 21-year-old man attempted to cause damage or commit a theft.

The woman who lived in the home called her father, who lives a few houses away.

He showed up with a handgun and confronted the 21-year old outside.

Deputies said the father fired a warning shot first, and fired at the man when the 21-year old charged after him.

The 21-year-old was hit in the chest.

He was taken to the hospital.

Deputies have not released the names of anyone involved.

They said charges are pending.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/14029873/detail.html

If you enjoyed reading about "(TX) Police: Father Protects Daughter, Shoots Alleged Intruder" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boredelmo
September 6, 2007, 09:03 PM
Charges are pending what?

quatin
September 6, 2007, 09:09 PM
an investigation?

CountGlockula
September 6, 2007, 09:25 PM
Deputies said the father fired a warning shot first...

Isn't that a bad thing? Rule #4?

Bazooka Joe71
September 6, 2007, 09:30 PM
Yes warning shots are a horrible thing. Just ask the alien looking feller that got shot in the head with birdshot.

MICHAEL T
September 6, 2007, 10:32 PM
need more information

Spreadfire Arms
September 7, 2007, 12:24 AM
boredelmo wrote:

Charges are pending what?

probably aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. shooting someone for pretty much just trespassing may not pass muster with a Grand Jury. it appears uncertain if the man was attempting theft or criminal mischief, or was up to something else.

Loucks
September 7, 2007, 12:49 AM
I don't know about that, Spreadfire Arms. If the guy did charge the father, then that could possibly change things.

Anyway, don't all shootings go before a Grand Jury in TX as a matter of state law?

fireflyfather
September 7, 2007, 02:35 AM
Not enough info. Then again, depending on exactly what the guy was doing AT THE DAUGHTER's HOUSE, and whether or not the guy drew down before the perp became violent, threatened the father, etc, the guy could be entirely in the clear. Hard to say either way at this point.

Flak_Jakett
September 7, 2007, 02:47 AM
Sounds like the guy was up to no good, but more facts are needed in this one.

Warning shots are a bad idea in MOST cases. There are some cases when they have deterred the situation and nobody had to get shot. If you shoot one, however, you never know how that person is going to react. Case in point the kid charged. Dumb kid. Dead kid.

mjrodney
September 7, 2007, 06:38 AM
Some states, such as Florida, have mandatory sentencing for discharging a firearm in public.....even if it's meant as a warning shot.

Discharging your weapon to stop instances of petty theft, vandalism, property crimes or other non-life threatening events (that fall outside of "forcible felony" and/or "castle doctrine" definitions), will not fly well with most LEO's or prosecuting attorneys.

The BG you are after may indeed end up in jail, but you stand a good chance of joining him......and staying there long after he gets out.

My own rule is to keep my firearms tucked away and out of sight unless an in-my-face and imminent "forcible felony" situation would exist.....and my life, or the life of another, would be in immediate jeopardy.

Specific definitions vary by state, but in Florida the definition of a "forcible felony" is generally any felony crime which involves the existence of two additional factors:

1. An act involving violence, or the immediate threat of violence, must exist.

2. That violence, or immediate threat of violence, must be directed towards a person or persons and not merely property.

Florida law also includes treason, arson, aircraft piracy and aggravated stalking in this definition, but those are definitions I would not like to interpret on my own, so I'll stick to the existence of violence part.

Kentak
September 7, 2007, 09:07 AM
Said shot, not killed.

Charges could be pending against the 21 yo.

I don't agree that warning shots are always a bad idea. Depends on the circumstance.

I'd be interested in knowing if the person shot knows the guy's daughter.

K

Dr. Dickie
September 7, 2007, 12:15 PM
Some states, such as Florida, have mandatory sentencing for discharging a firearm in public.....even if it's meant as a warning shot.

+1 that was the first thing I though of when they said charges pending.
Course, from the way the article was written there could be any number for charges (either against the shooter or the shootee).

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
September 7, 2007, 12:51 PM
Charges are probably pending to the intruder, since he did not die.

Warning shots are dangerous, but in front of a grand jury, could look like you gave the scum a chance to stand down. Also, most people would have to agree that if you fired a warning shot and the guy still came after you, he wasn't firing on all cylinders.

TexasRifleman
September 7, 2007, 01:37 PM
Warning shots are dangerous, but in front of a grand jury, could look like you gave the scum a chance to stand down.

That's sort of what I always thought.

The legal eagles on THR however think differently. I'm certainly no lawyer so I don't know but the other argument goes that if you fire a warning shot you are admitting that you didn't believe deadly force was necessary. Personally I think that's goofy but I've heard the argument a lot.

I'd love to hear from a real lawyer on how they think that would play out.

Seems a stretch to me but who knows.

K3
September 7, 2007, 01:47 PM
Some states, such as Florida, have mandatory sentencing for discharging a firearm in public.....even if it's meant as a warning shot.

Let's say a man was on his own land. Is that discharging a firearm in public?

Back to the case at hand. Assuming the 21yo was about to commit a crime like theft or was about to cause some damage, why is it a bad thing to send a message? Why should a warning shot cause the shooter any legal grief? I know how the laws generally read, and they are ridiculous. This notion that you should/have to let somebody complete their misdeeds so long as there is no immediate threat to life is ludicrous and dare I say another example of the weak-kneed sheep-like society we now have.

Dammit, there should be no legal repercussions for defending my property. Unfortunately, the law says otherwise, and it's clear that the majority of people in this country are a-ok with this. I guess I gotta play along.

Oh well. Further down the path we go.

cane
September 7, 2007, 03:03 PM
She had time to call her father, but not 911. I think there may be more to this story that isn't in the papers. How old is she? Is this a current or ex-boyfriend? What if: I'm the 21 y/o, "my girlfriend and me were having an argument, all of a sudden her father show up with a gun, shoots at me, misses the first shot, I try to disarm him (remember flee from a knife, charge a gun?) and he shoots me." You know the statement "attempted to cause damage or commit a theft" is kind of vague.

grasssnake
September 7, 2007, 03:05 PM
You may need that warning shot when his 10 gangbanger buddies walk around the corner to help him.

CannibalCrowley
September 7, 2007, 03:35 PM
She had time to call her father, but not 911.

She made the first call to the person who would get there sooner.

ArfinGreebly
September 7, 2007, 04:00 PM
She made the first call to the person who would get there sooner.
Well, yes.

While true, I'm thinking that, in her shoes (assuming [!] for the moment that this guy is a stranger), after I've called Dad and told him I'm being attacked, I'm calling 911 and telling them I'm under attack, and that my dad is on the way over to assist -- and he's armed.

For whatever reason, when "armed" makes it into the call, the black-n-whites typically show up sooner (leastwise, around here).

In any case, the call to 911 essentially "legitimizes" the action.

Of course, if the "assailant" is already known to the girl and her father, that changes the complexion of the event quite a bit.

Shootin' folks you know is a bit different from shootin' strangers.

Stevie-Ray
September 7, 2007, 04:43 PM
I'm certainly no lawyer so I don't know but the other argument goes that if you fire a warning shot you are admitting that you didn't believe deadly force was necessary.I don't think so in this case. The way it reads it appears that he fired a warning shot first, (Possibly after telling him to leave the property and getting a negative response) and then shot CM when he was rushed as a response to the warning shot.

Blackbeard
September 7, 2007, 05:58 PM
I think the warning shot could get him in more trouble than the COM shot. Hard to argue self-defense for a warning shot, since it's not intended to eliminate the threat.

Also, calling dad and then calling 911 is a good recipe for getting dad shot by police. "Hello, 911? There's a man outside threatening me." Cops roll up and see a guy with a gun outside...

birdv
September 7, 2007, 06:45 PM
More Information Needed

Dave P
September 7, 2007, 07:19 PM
Some states, such as Florida, have mandatory sentencing for discharging a firearm in public......


That's a new one. What paragraph of 790 says that???

Tim Burke
September 8, 2007, 10:51 AM
Texas? At night? A father?
My suspicion is that charges are pending on the intruder. They are just waiting until he leaves the hospital. They don't want the county to be responsible for his hospital bill.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 8, 2007, 11:17 AM
On warning shots, we just discussed this in a similar thread. I used the phrase "warning shot" and "self defense" to search the All States database of Westlaw cases. I got 565 hits and wasn't able to read them all; but by and large it reinforced my idea that warning shots were a bad idea. Some examples from cases explaining why:

1. Warning shots very rarely stop the attacker. In almost every case, multiple shots were fired because the warning shot convinced the attacker that the person he was attacking was unwilling to use deadly force and could be assaulted. In very few cases of the 160 or so I have read so far was a warning shot effective to halt the attack. I just don't see much evidence that a warning shot is any more effective than a verbal warning; but it does carry a lot more risk than a verbal warning.

2. You are responsible for every shot you fire - in one case, two young criminals in a car were surrounded by an opposing gang of criminals armed with bricks, bats, chains and intent on stopping their car and dragging them out. One of the men in the car fired a warning shot which ricocheted off the concrete and struck an innocent bystander in the chest. Having seen plenty of ricochets off of dirt berms, I want to have a better idea of where any shot I fire is going to stop; because I am going to be held responsible for the law for where that shot stops. If I am lucky, it will just be property damage.

3. Warning shots sometimes strike the attacker causing legal problems for the shooter. In at least one case, a man was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after his warning shot (he was firing up into the air) struck his attacking son-in-law in the neck. He claimed both accident and self-defense at trial; but the prosecutor used his initial statement to police claiming accident to shoot down his self-defense claim. They then brought out past testimony from other people indicating he had brandished his firearm in the past during verbal arguments (the testimony was allowed because it went to his claim of accident). Combined with the fact that his son-in-law appeared to be unarmed, it put this small business owner away for ten years.

I'm certainly no lawyer so I don't know but the other argument goes that if you fire a warning shot you are admitting that you didn't believe deadly force was necessary.

An argument can be made that you not only didn't believe deadly force was necessary (as evidenced by not using it); but that the threat was not immediate either (since you had time to fire a warning shot). It may also cloud the issue whether your shooting was intentional self-defense or a negligent discharge that struck someone you did not intend to strike. That second point can be particularly important if the shooting happens at your home (in a state without a Castle Doctrine-type law) because it means a civil suit can be filed against your homeowner's insurance if it can be shown that you didn't intend to shoot the person you shot. You may not have the money to make a civil suit worth an attorney's time; but your homeowner's policy probably does and they are likely to settle as well.

Overall, I see few benefits to a warning shot to compensate for the extra risks you are running in firing one.

Blackbeard
September 8, 2007, 12:44 PM
Does the Castle Doctrine protect you at someone else's castle? That was not dad's house. Did he have a duty to retreat to his own castle?

hamourkiller
September 8, 2007, 02:19 PM
If he was legally entitiled to be where the shooting took place the legal and civil protections apply, not just your home. Stores, movies, daughters house etc.

Flak_Jakett
September 8, 2007, 02:30 PM
I agree that 9 out of 10 times a warning shot is a bad idea.

1) The guy accidentally shot his son-law-in the neck? Yeah right, more like he accidentally missed his head.

2) Gang members shooting warning shots? Who in their right mind would shoot a warning shot when their car is surrounded with angry people with bricks.

3) Shooting warning shots into a road is a lame brain idea as well.

There was a case in the town where I live a few years back. This girl had borrowed money from a drug dealer. She was being harassed by the guy and threatened daily. One day she told him to meet her at a Carl's Jr. hamburger joint. While they were talking in the booth, the girl's father came in and popped the guy in the head. In the end he was acquited. (Is that how you spell acquited?)
This case may end up similar possibly

Buttermilk
September 8, 2007, 06:24 PM
In Texas all cases such as this are taken before a Grand Jury of 6 to 8 persons picked from the jury pool.
Evidence is brought before the Grand Jury, by th D.A., to determine if there is enough evidence of a criminal nature to warrant a trial. If not, the person is "No Billed". If yes, the cases is remanded to the proper court for a trial.

Just because a father lives next door to his daughter, does that mean he can no longer protect her? The Supreme Court has held numerous times that the Police are not here for our protection.

Therefore,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Say it with me children,,,,,,,,,,,

We are responsible for our own protection!

If you enjoyed reading about "(TX) Police: Father Protects Daughter, Shoots Alleged Intruder" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!