For a long time the law has been (in Texas) that if a burgler is running off with your stuff, at night, and you have no idea where he resides, therefore having no chance of recovering your belongings later, you can shoot. Even in the back. Maybe they've changed it recently.
San Antonio Man Kills Intruder Not Charged
- Thread starter beaucoup ammo
- Start date
- Status
Sans Authoritatis must have asbestos underwear. Sheesh! 
If the homeowner was not moving the guy to an illuminated area to perform first aid, I find a problem with that. But as with all news stories, we do not have all of the information and likely never will.
That said, certain 'professions' come with a few more hazards and rightfully so. Overall I think this ended in the proper way.
If the homeowner was not moving the guy to an illuminated area to perform first aid, I find a problem with that. But as with all news stories, we do not have all of the information and likely never will.
That said, certain 'professions' come with a few more hazards and rightfully so. Overall I think this ended in the proper way.
beaucoup ammo
Member
Bottom line here gents, IMO, is the state of Texas has given the home owner more latitude in protecting his family, himself and their possessions which they have worked hard for. In every case "you had to be there" to fully understand what happened. The police were, and they apparently see nothing wrong with what the home owner did. Neither do I.
"Castle Doctrine" includes your vehicle as an extenstion of your "Castle." No license required.
I live less than a mile from where this happened in NE San Antonio. The area has slipped over the past 10 years and it's rare to find someone who hasn't had some form of experience along these lines. The criminals either break in to loot your house or, they've robbed a qik stop, pawn shop, whatever on Walzem or Eisenhaur (2 main drags) then run into our neighborhood looking for an open garage door, old man or woman in a car they can jack or a door to knock down.
Everyone is armed and no one would hesitate for a second to protect their families from the scum that run rampant in most every city in America.
"Castle Doctrine" includes your vehicle as an extenstion of your "Castle." No license required.
I live less than a mile from where this happened in NE San Antonio. The area has slipped over the past 10 years and it's rare to find someone who hasn't had some form of experience along these lines. The criminals either break in to loot your house or, they've robbed a qik stop, pawn shop, whatever on Walzem or Eisenhaur (2 main drags) then run into our neighborhood looking for an open garage door, old man or woman in a car they can jack or a door to knock down.
Everyone is armed and no one would hesitate for a second to protect their families from the scum that run rampant in most every city in America.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Still viable, but new and improved with more options and protections under the law.
FYI, there is no law that says you can't shoot a person in the back. The location of the impact is not a governing factor in the legality of lethal force application.
csmkersh
Member
A person acting under the color of TxPC 9.42(2)(B) or 9.42(3)(B) would most likely shot the perp in the back - legally.
Crazy. I have had a man come into my house and sit down and have coffee at 2am. He was drunk and thought he was at home. I gave him some coffee and sent him on his way. I did not shoot him, or even yell at him. No harm done to anyone. This is not the wild west although it sound like many would like it to be. Sorry, but petty crime does not require shooting a fellow human being.
How about a local perspective?
I drove right by the house where this happened yesterday to take my dad out to lunch. My dad lives just around the corner from where this happened. The neighborhood has had a problem with burglary and gang violence for a long time, not one of the best areas to be in. My dad is part of the neighborhood association and C.O. P. patrol, they are trying to take back their neighborhood.
My dad is a firm believer in get rid of the trash any way we can but he knows the neighborhood very well and thinks this shoot may have been a little fishy but the kid killed was no good.
My opinion, if this kid would have just been caught or got away he would do it again and maybe my dad's house would be next. The way it turned out the area is a little safer and others have been put on notice your next burglary may be your last.
I drove right by the house where this happened yesterday to take my dad out to lunch. My dad lives just around the corner from where this happened. The neighborhood has had a problem with burglary and gang violence for a long time, not one of the best areas to be in. My dad is part of the neighborhood association and C.O. P. patrol, they are trying to take back their neighborhood.
My dad is a firm believer in get rid of the trash any way we can but he knows the neighborhood very well and thinks this shoot may have been a little fishy but the kid killed was no good.
My opinion, if this kid would have just been caught or got away he would do it again and maybe my dad's house would be next. The way it turned out the area is a little safer and others have been put on notice your next burglary may be your last.
beaucoup ammo
Member
You can push people just so far. After a steady diet of break-ins, threats, gang violence and drug dealing in the neighborhood people are going to react.
I probably have run into your Dad as I'm on the Camelot Neighborhood Watch.
I probably have run into your Dad as I'm on the Camelot Neighborhood Watch.
Another of those endless threads where people who don't live within 500 miles of the event, don't know the local laws and who certainly don't know the circumstances, pontificate on the guilt or otherwise of the shooter/shot.
We should be putting our energy into improving our own performance, not blaming someone else when we have absolutely no idea of the full facts.
We should be putting our energy into improving our own performance, not blaming someone else when we have absolutely no idea of the full facts.
csmkersh
Member
Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
I for one didn't blame anyone. I just said that I wouldn't shoot someone in the back who was running away from my house. I don't think that's very "high road," but others may disagree.
I don't know what the exact circumstances were in San Antonio, but from the available information it appears that the homeowner shot a man who was running away from his house and then dragged him back into his house.
I don't know what the exact circumstances were in San Antonio, but from the available information it appears that the homeowner shot a man who was running away from his house and then dragged him back into his house.
Geronimo45
Member
No rules against shooting in the back. This is completely legal (with the possible exception of moving the body). Moral? Well, this isn't seeing the guy a day later while eating at McD's and putting a bullet in his head. This is 'hot pursuit'.
hankdatank1362
Member
For those of you suggesting that "man's law" is of no importance compared to God's Law, what if someone doesn't believe in a higher power?
Are they still obligated to abide themselves by your choice of ethics or values?
Or should we have what our forefathers coined a "separation of church and state" and have a written code of law that all must abide by, regardless of chosen belief system?
Are they still obligated to abide themselves by your choice of ethics or values?
Or should we have what our forefathers coined a "separation of church and state" and have a written code of law that all must abide by, regardless of chosen belief system?
csmkersh
Member
Switch from a .30-30 to a 300 RUM?
macadore
Member
Excellent idea!!!
That is based on the unverifiable belief that he is rational.
This was the second time the perp had invaded the house. There is no reason to believe he would not have returned, at a later date, heavily armed and seeking revenge.
I thought it just said he shot him when the guy was out in his yard. I didn't see where it said he shot him in the back or while he was running away. You might take that as implied, but not necessarily. If he followed him out the door to make sure he left and the guy turned back and came at him, that would still be a good shoot in most jurisdictions.
He was wrong to move the body, but if the cops had no reason to suspect anything else going on, I can't see that they would bother prosecuting him for that.
hankdatank1362
Member
Hahahaha
101AirborneE8
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 37
OK, besides Texas' Castle Doctrine, there is the doctrine of "Fleeing Felon".
Many/most states do not allow you to shoot a felon who has finished his crime and is just fleeing, but...
The laws do state that, if a person has committed a dangerous felony, and is fleeing, and you have a reasonable belief that he shall commit another dangerous felony, that deadly force can be justified.
[Easiest example: A robber shoots at a police officer, then turns to run away, but only runs to cover and shoots again. Now the robber runs from the officer again. The officer can reasonably believe that the offender will shoot again, if given the opportunity, and so can shoot the offender while he is running.]
Burglary is considered a dangerous felony. It appears that the offender committed a previous burglary and returned to the same residence to commit another burglary. You now have a pattern that, just because he completed one crime, does not mean that he is through committing crimes against this same victim and his family. So a REASONABLE person may believe that, if he did not stop the suspect (even though he was fleeing), the suspect would return again and commit another dangerous felony against the victim's household. Therefore, the shooting may be justified under the fleeing felon doctrine.
This may not keep the incident from being scrutinized by a District Attorney, or even going before a judge. But I think that it can be pretty good weight toward acquittal.
Many/most states do not allow you to shoot a felon who has finished his crime and is just fleeing, but...
The laws do state that, if a person has committed a dangerous felony, and is fleeing, and you have a reasonable belief that he shall commit another dangerous felony, that deadly force can be justified.
[Easiest example: A robber shoots at a police officer, then turns to run away, but only runs to cover and shoots again. Now the robber runs from the officer again. The officer can reasonably believe that the offender will shoot again, if given the opportunity, and so can shoot the offender while he is running.]
Burglary is considered a dangerous felony. It appears that the offender committed a previous burglary and returned to the same residence to commit another burglary. You now have a pattern that, just because he completed one crime, does not mean that he is through committing crimes against this same victim and his family. So a REASONABLE person may believe that, if he did not stop the suspect (even though he was fleeing), the suspect would return again and commit another dangerous felony against the victim's household. Therefore, the shooting may be justified under the fleeing felon doctrine.
This may not keep the incident from being scrutinized by a District Attorney, or even going before a judge. But I think that it can be pretty good weight toward acquittal.
Some good points in the last few posts. Once again, let me plead that we all use the review of these events to better preserve ourselves, our families and our property.
These situations are more complicated than we usually imagine. What do you think of this situation because it puts another twist into the "justified shoot" question.
Facts. My home has two levels. If I hear a break-in downstairs, going down the stairs to investigate could be fatal because my legs would be visible on the stairs long before I could see what was going in the lower level. However, I could leave through a bedroom window, walk along a porch roof, jump down into a dark area and probably see the invader through the windows. I would probably be carrying a carbine. Do you think I would be justified in shooting someone in my home even though I was safely outside? What if I saw the intruder was armed even though he was no immediate threat? What if I had left my wife in the bedroom with a locked door and a pistol - which she does know how to use? Why not just shout and let the invader know you have heard him and you have a gun?
My point is, I have tried to think through the moral, tactical and legal implications of possible situations before they happen. Do I have all the answers? No. Without preaching, have you thought through your personal situation, did the person involved in this incident?
These situations are more complicated than we usually imagine. What do you think of this situation because it puts another twist into the "justified shoot" question.
Facts. My home has two levels. If I hear a break-in downstairs, going down the stairs to investigate could be fatal because my legs would be visible on the stairs long before I could see what was going in the lower level. However, I could leave through a bedroom window, walk along a porch roof, jump down into a dark area and probably see the invader through the windows. I would probably be carrying a carbine. Do you think I would be justified in shooting someone in my home even though I was safely outside? What if I saw the intruder was armed even though he was no immediate threat? What if I had left my wife in the bedroom with a locked door and a pistol - which she does know how to use? Why not just shout and let the invader know you have heard him and you have a gun?
My point is, I have tried to think through the moral, tactical and legal implications of possible situations before they happen. Do I have all the answers? No. Without preaching, have you thought through your personal situation, did the person involved in this incident?
True TIMC,
The reason I choose not to judge the actions of others is because I know I am not in their mind at the instant of decision and I am well aware of how chaotic that mind can be under stress. All the well known factors tend to sharpen or dull our responses to stimuli. I think it has often been demonstrated that two people observing the same events under stress can have totally different recall of what actually happened.
It has also been often demonstrated that thinking through a scenario and forming a plan, that must be somewhat flexible, leads to more controlled response to a stressful event and removes some of that reaction to fear. We see this in military and LEO training. Unfortunately (or I should probably say fortunately), in our normal lives, we do not get enough exposure to stressful situations to vaccinate us against fear.
The reason I choose not to judge the actions of others is because I know I am not in their mind at the instant of decision and I am well aware of how chaotic that mind can be under stress. All the well known factors tend to sharpen or dull our responses to stimuli. I think it has often been demonstrated that two people observing the same events under stress can have totally different recall of what actually happened.
It has also been often demonstrated that thinking through a scenario and forming a plan, that must be somewhat flexible, leads to more controlled response to a stressful event and removes some of that reaction to fear. We see this in military and LEO training. Unfortunately (or I should probably say fortunately), in our normal lives, we do not get enough exposure to stressful situations to vaccinate us against fear.
The amount of people I have taught to defend themselves with Pistols over many years, quite a goodly proportion of them have recounted times when Leo's have advised, drag them inside, or put a kitchen knife in their hand!
So in essence many of these wrong advice given people think "Sounds good!"
and that mindset sat there, till I pointed out "Oh NO!"
As anyone considered the fact that no thought was in the shooters head, non! just a head full of fear, adrenalin, and loud noise induced shock.
So in essence many of these wrong advice given people think "Sounds good!"
and that mindset sat there, till I pointed out "Oh NO!"
As anyone considered the fact that no thought was in the shooters head, non! just a head full of fear, adrenalin, and loud noise induced shock.
101AirborneE8
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 37
Mr_Rogers
First, I would personally have no problem with you capping a dirtball intruder who breaks into your house. But there is the problem of after-action review.
Insofar as your question about going outside & coming back at a burglar, it may be tactically wise, but could be construed by a prosecutor/jury as intentionally entrapping him.
A prosecutor (or litigation attorney attempting to get easy money for Mamma Dirtball & Baby Dirtballs) would advance the theory that you intentionally climbed out to the roof, and broke into your own home with the intention of cornering the intruder and leaving him with no means of escape so that you could shoot him (even if there is a back door, he'll claim that the burglar had no way of knowing that).
Not wanting to see you get your legs taken out while coming down the stairs, what should you do?
I don't know how much climbing is involved with your "Plan A". It would be a shame to be attempting to stop a burglary, fall, break your back, then have the burglar hurt you or your wife while you're laying there like a turtle on his back.
IF you are going to confront (and possibly shoot) a burglar, one of the wisest things that you can do is to have an inexpensive digital recorder handy. (They start on eBay for $28.00). It should have at least 15 or 20 minutes of recording time, and be capable of being downloaded onto a computer and disk. Start recording as soon as you have armed yourself.
Then before you start shooting, order the offender to stop, beg the offender to stop, plead with him to lie down, to stop resisting, to put down the fireplace poker, or whatever. If you have to shoot, continue to plead with the burglar to stop, even while you're shooting. Then after the fact, make a sorrowful noise and ask why he made you do that.
Then when the investigators arrive, make certain that you and your attorney each have a copy of the recording before you surrender the device.
Criminals say stupid things such as "I'm going to kill you. I'm going to f... you up." Such a recording can highly bolster your case.
Why do you think that police departments have invested all that money in dash-cams? One successful lawsuit can pay for the cameras for the entire fleet.
And since you know that it is being recorded, and that it is going to be listened to again, you can say the proper things.
First, I would personally have no problem with you capping a dirtball intruder who breaks into your house. But there is the problem of after-action review.
Insofar as your question about going outside & coming back at a burglar, it may be tactically wise, but could be construed by a prosecutor/jury as intentionally entrapping him.
A prosecutor (or litigation attorney attempting to get easy money for Mamma Dirtball & Baby Dirtballs) would advance the theory that you intentionally climbed out to the roof, and broke into your own home with the intention of cornering the intruder and leaving him with no means of escape so that you could shoot him (even if there is a back door, he'll claim that the burglar had no way of knowing that).
Not wanting to see you get your legs taken out while coming down the stairs, what should you do?
I don't know how much climbing is involved with your "Plan A". It would be a shame to be attempting to stop a burglary, fall, break your back, then have the burglar hurt you or your wife while you're laying there like a turtle on his back.
IF you are going to confront (and possibly shoot) a burglar, one of the wisest things that you can do is to have an inexpensive digital recorder handy. (They start on eBay for $28.00). It should have at least 15 or 20 minutes of recording time, and be capable of being downloaded onto a computer and disk. Start recording as soon as you have armed yourself.
Then before you start shooting, order the offender to stop, beg the offender to stop, plead with him to lie down, to stop resisting, to put down the fireplace poker, or whatever. If you have to shoot, continue to plead with the burglar to stop, even while you're shooting. Then after the fact, make a sorrowful noise and ask why he made you do that.
Then when the investigators arrive, make certain that you and your attorney each have a copy of the recording before you surrender the device.
Criminals say stupid things such as "I'm going to kill you. I'm going to f... you up." Such a recording can highly bolster your case.
Why do you think that police departments have invested all that money in dash-cams? One successful lawsuit can pay for the cameras for the entire fleet.
And since you know that it is being recorded, and that it is going to be listened to again, you can say the proper things.
csmkersh
Member
Under Texas law, that's really immaterial, 101AirborneE8. Once the perp committed the hot burglary, he had signed his life away. You illegally enter a house, car or place of business that is occupied, you've just entered a free fire zone and are SOL.
I suspect that the naysayers have not been in this situation. Until you have, perhaps moral and legal judgments should be left to the DA and grand jury.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked