Houston Neighbor Intervenes In Home Invasion

alsaqr · May 11, 2017

A Houston, Texas home was invaded by four cretins who tied up and commenced beating the residents. A neighbor observed a resident being attacked and shot the attacker in the leg. An escaping home invader pointed his gun at the good guy and was killed.

"A neighbor heard the noise and came to help. The neighbor observed two of the suspects beating another man in the back yard. Fearing for the man’s safety, the neighbor fired his weapon, striking one of the suspects. He then ran to the front of the house where he saw the remaining three suspects jumping the fence. One of the suspects turned toward the neighbor, holding a pistol in his hand. Fearing for his life, the neighbor fired his weapon at the suspect. This suspect was pronounced dead at the scene."

http://www.houstontx.gov/police/nr/2017/may/nr050917-2.htm

AlexanderA · May 11, 2017

The neighbor's actions may be laudable but he's on shaky legal ground. The right of self defense does not include the right to intervene on others' behalf. That's the job of law enforcement. The neighbor's shooting of the second suspect may be justified, in that a gun was pointed at him, but he will still have to explain why he was in that position in the first place.

This is an interesting topic of discussion, exploring the limits of what a weapon-carrier can and cannot do.

RPZ · May 11, 2017

Based on the info so far, kudos to the good neighbor.

RPZ · May 11, 2017

AlexanderA said:
The neighbor's actions may be laudable but he's on shaky legal ground. The right of self defense does not include the right to intervene on others' behalf. That's the job of law enforcement. The neighbor's shooting of the second suspect may be justified, in that a gun was pointed at him, but he will still have to explain why he was in that position in the first place.

This is an interesting topic of discussion, exploring the limits of what a weapon-carrier can and cannot do.

In Texas, deadly force can be used in defense of a third party or parties. It is written into the Texas Penal Code

badkarmamib · May 11, 2017

AlexanderA said:
The right of self defense does not include the right to intervene on others' behalf.

In Virginia, you can defend another's life with deadly force, if required:

https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-self-defense-police-use-of-force-laws-penalties-defense-lawyer/

Can't copy-and-paste, it is about a third of the way down the page.

And, www.piedmontnrainstructors.com/resources/SummaryOfVAFirearmsLaw.pdf

IV. DEFENSE OF OTHERS
A Self defense applies to the defense of others.
B. Force used to defend others must be reasonable under the circumstances.
C. Deadly force cannot be used to defend others unless you reasonably fear that the person you are defending is
in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm.
D. Defense of others is viewed from the mind of the person acting to defend another. When defending another,
you must reasonably believe that the person you are defending is a faultless victim of the assault you are
defending against.

Back to the OP, the victim is fortunate to have such a quick-responding neighbor.

Berger.Fan222 · May 11, 2017

Intervening on behalf of third parties is legal in many states.

The challenge with third party situations is being sure enough of the facts to act.

In this case, it seems that the neighbor was able to ascertain the facts with enough certainty to act.

MedWheeler · May 11, 2017

AlexanderA writes:

The neighbor's actions may be laudable but he's on shaky legal ground. The right of self defense does not include the right to intervene on others' behalf.

Absolutely it does, in most jurisdictions, at least. Known as an "in their shoes" respect, the law accepts that a person who believes that they would be in danger of death or serious injury if they were in the position another person they observe is would be justified in defending that other person. If deadly force is determined to be warranted, or to have been warranted, then the defender would likely be on as stable a legal ground as the person defended would have been had they employed it.

That's the job of law enforcement.

While a LEO witnessing such an attack would be bound to intervene by duty, high-court decisions have ruled that LE agencies do not have any obligation to provide for the protection of any individual person.

hdwhit · May 11, 2017

This thread should be moved over to the Legal forum so that we can have some of the attorneys who moderate that forum weigh in and explain how the law works in a situation like this.

hdwhit · May 11, 2017

RPZ wrote:
In Texas, deadly force can be used in defense of a third party or parties. It is written into the Texas Penal Code

Yes it is.

But after you shoot one of the assailants, the others run away and you chase down the people who are fleeing what third party are you "defending"?

And since you have already shot someone and are now an armed individual chasing down people who are running away how do you argue the necessity to use deadly force to defend yourself?

Once the assailants run away where is the imminent threat to life?

And if there is no imminent threat to life where is the necessity to use deadly force?

strambo · May 11, 2017

hdwhit said:
Yes it is.

But after you shoot one of the assailants, the others run away and you chase down the people who are fleeing what third party are you "defending"?

And since you have already shot someone and are now an armed individual chasing down people who are running away how do you argue the necessity to use deadly force to defend yourself?

Once the assailants run away where is the imminent threat to life?

And if there is no imminent threat to life where is the necessity to use deadly force?

Are you saying he was chasing fleeing suspects? I see no statement or evidence of that based on the story as presented. "He then ran to the front of the house where he saw the remaining three suspects jumping the fence." The suspects were fleeing and one pointed a gun at him so he shot in fear for his life. He did not shoot at the fleeing suspects...they pointed a gun at him and he shot in self-defense, the order of these events is a MASSIVE difference.

He could have been running to the front to get a description, to ensure they didn't go back in the house, to ensure they didn't double back and shoot him etc. etc. He wasn't necessarily chasing suspects he knew to be fleeing. This was a chaotic dynamic fight against 4 armed assailants, and it sounds like he never left the neighbor's property.

alsaqr · May 11, 2017

hdwhit said:
Yes it is.

But after you shoot one of the assailants, the others run away and you chase down the people who are fleeing what third party are you "defending"?

And since you have already shot someone and are now an armed individual chasing down people who are running away how do you argue the necessity to use deadly force to defend yourself?

Once the assailants run away where is the imminent threat to life?

And if there is no imminent threat to life where is the necessity to use deadly force?

Show me where the neighbor "chased down people who are running away". From the Houston PD news release:

"He then ran to the front of the house where he saw the remaining three suspects jumping the fence. One of the suspects turned toward the neighbor, holding a pistol in his hand. Fearing for his life, the neighbor fired his weapon at the suspect."

AlexanderA · May 11, 2017

Berger.Fan222 said:
Intervening on behalf of third parties is legal in many states.

The challenge with third party situations is being sure enough of the facts to act.

I stand partially corrected (depending on the state). Nevertheless, we should be very leery of "officious intermeddling." What may appear to us, as outside observers, as a cut-and-dried situation calling for the use of deadly force, may not be so to the parties directly involved. For example, suppose you witness a man savagely beating a woman. They may be spouses or domestic partners, and if you intervene, both parties may suddenly turn on you. Even for law enforcement, this is a very dangerous situation. Regarding the "home invasion" in the OP, such crimes hardly ever take place randomly among total strangers. There is previous conduct leading up to the situation (gang rivalries, drug deals gone bad, etc.). Do you really want to become involved in something like that?

hdwhit · May 11, 2017

Are you saying he was chasing fleeing suspects? I see no statement or evidence of that based on the story as presented.

Read the original post which you even quote, "Fearing for the man’s safety, the neighbor fired his weapon, striking one of the suspects. He then ran to the front of the house where he saw the remaining three suspects jumping the fence." The man had to have disengaged to run to the front of the house to encounter the remaining suspects. The suspects are "jumping the fence", that is "fleeing", if he has to give chase to encounter them.

As far as rising to your rhetorical bait, you show me how someone who is was in the backyard of a house and is then encountered "jumping the fence" is not fleeing.

alsaqr · May 11, 2017

"Regarding the "home invasion" in the OP, such crimes hardly ever take place randomly among total strangers. There is previous conduct leading up to the situation (gang rivalries, drug deals gone bad, etc.). Do you really want to become involved in something like that?"

And you know this to be true because............

Many home invasions in cities like Houston have nothing to do with dope or previous conduct. Gang rivalry is not the big factor it once was. Gangs are most interested in money and stuff that can be quickly converted into money.

http://stophoustongangs.org/default.aspx?act=frontpage.aspx&name=Organized+Crime

http://stophoustongangs.org/(X(1)S(...))/default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

GBExpat · May 11, 2017

AlexanderA said:
This is an interesting topic of discussion, exploring the limits of what a weapon-carrier can and cannot do.

"may and may not do"

ClickClickD'oh · May 11, 2017

AlexanderA said:
The right of self defense does not include the right to intervene on others' behalf.

LOL WUT?

**Edit to make sure I stay on topic** The above comment is the official opinion of a lethal force instructor in the state in which this occurred and is the official penal code rebuttal of the quoted statement.

Deanimator · May 11, 2017

AlexanderA said:
The right of self defense does not include the right to intervene on others' behalf.

I can't speak to Texas law, but it most CERTAINLY does in Ohio.

I have the right to use deadly force to defend myself, and to come to the defense of others, if were I in their place I would have a legal right to defend myself.

I have NO duty to stand by while someone who for whatever reason is incapable of defending themselves from an unlawful deadly force attack, is maimed or murdered.

To hear you tell it, if I see somebody hacking an 80 year old woman to death with a machete while screaming "Allahu akhbar!", I have NO right to intervene on her behalf.

That's not just wrong, it's barbaric.

RPZ · May 11, 2017

hdwhit said:
This thread should be moved over to the Legal forum so that we can have some of the attorneys who moderate that forum weigh in and explain how the law works in a situation like this.

The way the law works is actually quite simple. MedWheeler explains it quite well.

Deanimator · May 11, 2017

AlexanderA said:
That's the job of law enforcement.

I missed this the first time around.

Memorize:

Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
Police not assigned as bodyguards have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

Police do not protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals unable or unwilling to protect themselves.

If you're not willing and able to protect YOURSELF, you're just not going to get protected AT ALL.

Anybody who tells you different is LYING.

RPZ · May 11, 2017

hdwhit said:
Yes it is.

But after you shoot one of the assailants, the others run away and you chase down the people who are fleeing what third party are you "defending"?

And since you have already shot someone and are now an armed individual chasing down people who are running away how do you argue the necessity to use deadly force to defend yourself?

Once the assailants run away where is the imminent threat to life?

And if there is no imminent threat to life where is the necessity to use deadly force?

We do not know he was chasing anyone. He could have been moving to a position to try and get a license number and vehicle description. Maybe he was planning to attempt a citizen arrest - and regardless of whether anyone would think that "smart", any citizen in Texas can make an arrest for a felony or felonies that they witness. The bottom line is that there are many possible reasons this guy may have been there.

alsaqr · May 11, 2017

All homicides committed in Texas must go to the grand jury.

BTW: Harris County, Texas has a new prosecutor. Kim Ogg was the leader of the first Houston Gang Task Force. She literally wrote the book on Texas gangs.

http://www.hpou.org/kim-ogg-a-short-biography/

Deanimator · May 11, 2017

AlexanderA said:
Regarding the "home invasion" in the OP, such crimes hardly ever take place randomly among total strangers. There is previous conduct leading up to the situation (gang rivalries, drug deals gone bad, etc.). Do you really want to become involved in something like that?

The person being attacked and the person who came to his assistance were neighbors. Do you have any evidence that:

the person being attacked was engaged in criminal behavior?
the person coming to the victim's assistance had any reason to believe that the victim was involved in criminal behavior?

In the case of the doctor in Cheshire, CT who was beaten half to death and his wife and daughters raped and burned to death by two home invaders, what evidence do you have that the victims had ties to or criminal associations with the perpetrators?

A friend who used to live in Friendswood, TX related to me the story of a home invasion robbery and hostage taking.

A Vietnamese woman in a Houston suburb was the victim of a home invasion by a Vietnamese home invasion gang which targeted Asians on the assumption that they would be less likely to engage police. Unfortunately for them, the woman and her husband had a prearranged signal should trouble ever arise, namely the garage lights being on. When the husband arrived home, he immediately perceived trouble, and arming himself entered the home. I believe that there were no survivors among the home invaders. Their victim selection process was flawed in that they elected to invade the home of a former Biet Dong Quan. They chose badly.

strambo · May 11, 2017

hdwhit said:
Read the original post which you even quote, "Fearing for the man’s safety, the neighbor fired his weapon, striking one of the suspects. He then ran to the front of the house where he saw the remaining three suspects jumping the fence." The man had to have disengaged to run to the front of the house to encounter the remaining suspects. The suspects are "jumping the fence", that is "fleeing", if he has to give chase to encounter them.

As far as rising to your rhetorical bait, you show me how someone who is was in the backyard of a house and is then encountered "jumping the fence" is not fleeing.

I'm not debating the suspects were fleeing. I'm saying there is no evidence one way or the other that the neighbor was "chasing" them. That is putting a motive in his mind not in evidence one way or the other. As I (and others) have said, there are numerous reasons for him to have decided to go to the front yard and observe what the others were up to, it is only after arrival did he see they were "fleeing" and one of them pointed a weapon at him.

He very well may have been "chasing" them knowing they were fleeing, or, he could have been keeping tabs on the actions of the 3 other armed people in the equation. "Security" is the number 1 priority in any gunfight, neighbor may have felt scene in backyard was secure so being only one of him it made sense to verify what the other 3 were doing vs. getting flanked by surprise. We don't know, but to assume he was trying to chase them down, then chastise him for that is jumping to conclusions.

Deanimator · May 11, 2017

strambo said:
He very well may have been "chasing" them knowing they were fleeing, or, he could have been keeping tabs on the actions of the 3 other armed people in the equation. "Security" is the number 1 priority in any gunfight, neighbor may have felt scene in backyard was secure so being only one of him it made sense to verify what the other 3 were doing vs. getting flanked by surprise. We don't know, but to assume he was trying to chase them down, then chastise him for that is jumping to conclusions.

I agree completely.

For him to ignore other possible assailants would have been foolish.

If the person he shot in the front of the house hadn't turned toward him with a firearm, he probably wouldn't have been shot in the first place. He didn't shoot any of the others.

People who don't want to get shot shouldn't do things which make it prudent for other people to shoot them.

chicharrones · May 11, 2017

AlexanderA said:
I stand partially corrected (depending on the state). Nevertheless, we should be very leery of "officious intermeddling." What may appear to us, as outside observers, as a cut-and-dried situation calling for the use of deadly force, may not be so to the parties directly involved. For example, suppose you witness a man savagely beating a woman. They may be spouses or domestic partners, and if you intervene, both parties may suddenly turn on you. Even for law enforcement, this is a very dangerous situation. Regarding the "home invasion" in the OP, such crimes hardly ever take place randomly among total strangers. There is previous conduct leading up to the situation (gang rivalries, drug deals gone bad, etc.). Do you really want to become involved in something like that?

I'm reading between the lines and guessing the two neighbors were possibly friends. The one with a gun saved his buddy's hide.

Much like the AR homeowner thread, the incident happened in a rough area of Houston where the two neighbors may be just trying to lead normal lives in a neighborhood they can afford to live in.

The guy that saved his neighbor may face legal issues. He may have already thought that through months or years before this went down. He made his choice. I hope it works out well for him, although the biggest trouble maybe the criminals that got away will come back for round two.

Houston Neighbor Intervenes In Home Invasion

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

needs more ammo

Similar threads