Scenario - As you pull into your driveway, criminals flee from your house

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amazing attitude. I'm disappointed by the number of supposedly responsible gun owners who seem to be itching for a reason to shoot someone.
Click to expand...
I'm not "itching" to shoot anyone but I will if necessary. I've had a number of (legal) opportunities to shoot but didn't. Actually never shot anyone.

Here's the real world.
Some years back I didn't stop a punk. Before I could find him he killed his neighbor. Shot him in the face with a 44 Mag. Shot the unarmed man in his front yard in front of his wife.
The POS had a long record.
Maybe if someone had the guts to (legally) shoot him when they had the chance that victim would still be alive with his wife.


Having a legal right to shoot a robber who is posing no harm to you or your family or anyone else doesn't make shooting him the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion.
And how do you KNOW the criminal is posing you no harm? Unless you are a mind reader you do not know.
 
You mean someone shot two fleeing criminals, killing one, and he got off?

I'm not saying crime shouldn't be punished, but I'm not willing to play judge, jury, and most importantly NOT executioner.

Doesn't the law in Texas say something about property being stolen has to be like a car to get to work, or rent money, work tools, or something important to your survival?
Click to expand...
Yes. Note the law says "fleeing".

Don't steal and you won't get shot.

The law says "protect land or tangible, movable property". That could be a Dollar Bill.
One case I know of was a young woman shot a thief stealing a power drill from the woman's garage. Legal shooting. She told him to drop the drill and he didn't. If he had dropped the drill the lady couldn't (legally) shoot because at that point she was no longer "protecting" her property. She had her property again.


Let me put it this way.
A while back someone was on my shooting range in the woods. They did a little damage.
The Sheriff told me, If you catch them give us a call when you finish with them and we will come pick up what's left. (No I didn't intend shooting them, it was probably kids and they never came back)
 
Last edited:
M2, I'm not willing to do that because it's not legal here. But the world would be a lot better place if more burglars got themselves shot in the act. Texas is the only place that has it right on that point.
 
And how do you KNOW the criminal is posing you no harm? Unless you are a mind reader you do not know
Click to expand...

It's a regrettable experience you had, but it doesn't alter my position. If I see a guy just walking past my house, how do I KNOW he's not going to walk by my house again in a few minutes and shoot me through my window? How do I KNOW he's not going to go home, arm himself, and shoot up a theater?

I don't know. I can't know. But I won't shoot a man for something he might conceivably do. Neither will LEOs. If he becomes an imminent threat to me or others, the scenario changes. But as a petty thief, he's no threat to me. Besides, if he steals my TV, he'll be really pissed off when he discovers it doesn't work. I'll have a good laugh at his expense, call the police, and get a new TV from my insurer.

Bottom line: This isn't a legal question for me, or for most. It's a moral question.
 
Besides, if he steals my TV, he'll be really pissed off when he discovers it doesn't work. I'll have a good laugh at his expense, call the police, and get a new TV from my insurer.
Click to expand...
:D.....
 
Posted by M2 Carbine: Simply running from inside my house "burglary" is enough evidence to shoot them.
Click to expand...
No, it is not. Running is necessary, but it is not sufficient, There must also be evidence that they were in fact taking your property.

But that's not enough, either. Running and taking your property are necessary, but they are not sufficient, either.

Remember the law, "to prevent the other who is fleeing (from a burglary)".
Click to expand...
Remember the rest of the law--the part that pertains to necessity.

So, if the evidence (1) that the perp was fleeing with property and (2) that the actor had reaonably believed (a) that the property could not have been recovered by any other means, or (b) that the use of force other than deadly force would have exposed the actor to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury was suffficient to create reasonable doubt in a defense of justification, the actor would be spared a criminal conviction.

That's not enough. In a civil, trial the plaintiff needs only to meet the threshold of a preponderance of the evidence that the use of deadly force had been avoidable.

That presents a pretty tough burden for the defendant.

I'm not sure if anything material is worth the risk of losing everything in such an aftermath.

And those are only the legal risks. Not long ago, police responded to a burglary call in our area. A man leaving the target house opened fire on an arriving officer, who was wearing body armor. The officer was paralyzed from the waist down. The officer's gun did not protect him from serious injury.

Of course, as a sworn officer, he had the duty to put himself at risk.
 
I'd open fire if I thought I could hit. Texas says I can.

The way the law was explained im my CC Class: if the perp is inside or has been inside - you see him coming out - their life is forfeit.

It gets a bit more complicated with the yard. Say you're using your chainsaw in the front yard and you set it down and another guy comes up and tries to walk off with it. IN the daytime, you can hit him with something or even draw on him, but you can't shoot unless he flips that sucker on and charges you. Unless it's after sundown. Then as soon as he starts walking off with your chainsaw, you can plug him.
 
Yes. Note the law says "fleeing".

Don't steal and you won't get shot
Click to expand...

Yeah, fleeing. As in, no longer a credible threat.

And how do you KNOW the criminal is posing you no harm? Unless you are a mind reader you do not know
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can't just go a shootin' people just because of what they might do. If they do it, then they are a threat, and you should handle it accordingly. If we went around persecuting people for what they might do, they'd take away all our guns, because we might kill someone.
 
Posted by academy: The way the law was explained im my CC Class: if the perp is inside or has been inside - you see him coming out - their life is forfeit.
Click to expand...
That's not what the law in Texas says.

The problem is twofold: first, the perps entry must have been made unlawfully and with force; second, and more importantly, said entry provides a presumption of necessity, and if he is not longer inside, or if you see him coming out, there is evidence to rebut that presumption.

Oh amd one other little thing: the law speaks of the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; the OP spoke of arriving home to witness someone leaving.

Now, there was a case in Texas in which the occupant of a residence acted as though that was what the law allowed the shooting of someone who had fled. As it turned out he walked, but he endured two murder trials and the attendant expenses, and he has little with which to enjoy his golden years.

Andfor him, that was a good outcome.
 
academy said:
I'd open fire if I thought I could hit. Texas says I can.

The way the law was explained im my CC Class: if the perp is inside or has been inside - you see him coming out - their life is forfeit.

It gets a bit more complicated with the yard. Say you're using your chainsaw in the front yard and you set it down and another guy comes up and tries to walk off with it. IN the daytime, you can hit him with something or even draw on him, but you can't shoot unless he flips that sucker on and charges you. Unless it's after sundown. Then as soon as he starts walking off with your chainsaw, you can plug him.
Click to expand...

Well, your instructor was likely wrong, for a situation such as the OP's scenario. Criminal trespassing, alone, is not one of the transgressions for which it is OK for a complainant to use deady force. Breaking into a house or building, without the intent to steal or commit a felony, IS mere criminal trespassing, generally. Perhaps a grand jury will indict the complainant in such a case, or perhaps not, but I would rather not depend upon a jury panel to give me the benefit of the doubt.

Also, I ask everyone to consider that if two or more persons are seen running from a home, it just may be that one of more of those folks might be a private citizen or plainclothed police officer trying to apprehend a trespasser or burglar. Does one really want to kill a neighbor or police officer, just because it can be justified?
 
It seems to me about half of the above discussion can be summed up as follows:

Well I sure don't want to shoot anybody

But I will if they give me the chance.

Now, if that last line was But I will if they give me no other option, I would like this thread lot better.

And what plays in Texas is VERY unlikely to play in Peoria (or anyplace else in the country), and I'm not so sure it would go smoothly everywhere in Texas either. But for those who want to believe that isn't so, I can't do much to convince them otherwise.

What we ARE going to do right now, though, is put an end to the "this is Texas and we just shoot 'em here for that" aspect of the discussion.
 
Frankly I am always disappointed by the number of people in these kind of threads that say they won't stand up for themselves and what is theirs.
Click to expand...
As am I. And as has already been said, God bless Texas! I try to protect what is mine as well, but I don't have the laws behind me Texas has. I can dream of a better future, though, when Michigan is not run by idiots that have been in congress too long and want to coddle criminals.
 
I'd keep my gun holstered, grab my phone, and run after them keeping a safe distance and communicating their whereabouts with 911. Chances are I know the lay of the land better and am in better shape than they are. If they're running they probably won't make it 1/4 of a mile anyhow still laying there in a heap when the cops arrive. If they outrun me they've earned it and I collect on the insurance.
 
Being burglarized and losing property is enough bad for one day. No need to add being assaulted, shot, or arrested to the list.

Get away and while you're getting away, call the police and give them as much information as you can.
...they won't stand up for themselves and what is theirs.
Click to expand...
I'll stand up for myself, but "myself" isn't in danger in the situation described unless I were to foolishly choose to put it in danger.

As far as for standing up for what is mine, I'll stand up for what is mine as long as what I'm risking is worth less than what I'm trying to recover. Makes no sense to lose everything trying to get my TV back. I can buy another TV, even if the insurance won't cover it.
I try to protect what is mine as well, but I don't have the laws behind me Texas has.
Click to expand...
Even with the laws TX has, if you shoot someone over property, you will be very sorry. You might escape jail, depending on the circumstances, but after the expense of defending yourself, you won't feel like you've won.
 
Last edited:
Retreat to a position of relative safety and call the police on your cell phone. If feasible, observe as much as possible their physical descriptions, which way they go, description of the car they drive if any, etc. Don't go in the house as there may be a "straggler" behind.
 
Even with the laws TX has, if you shoot someone over property, you will be very sorry. You might escape jail, depending on the circumstances, but after the expense of defending yourself, you won't feel like you've won.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Quite a few have fired to protect property without being charged. I'm not advocating one do so but there have been a number of shootings without charges being filed.

While TX law does include the caveat of no other means to recover the property being available, to my knowledge nobody has been convicted for shooting at night in the defense of property. One guy in Houston actually opened fire down a neighborhood street into a fleeing truck that was making off with roof shingles. He wasn't even charged. Another guy in Austin shot a man in the back who he witnessed breaking into to his vehicle on a public street. If i recall he was charged but not convicted.

I would not open fire but i would stay in pursuit from my vehicle so as to relay to the LE their location.

A 93 year old family member of mine was murdered by three scum bags who broke into his house one night to rob it. Hearing the noise he got out of bed and when he made it to the living room with his walker they hit him over the back, drug him back to bedroom and then lit his house on fire leaving him to burn. So yeah, if i can help get people off the street who break into homes i'm gona do so, within the confines of the law.
 
For those of you in TX. First off I wanna say that I love the state and think that out of all 50 states they have it the MOST right when it comes to self defense and gun laws. They give the advantage to the good guys which it should be. That said, the idea of shooting someone over stolen property, especially while they are fleeing is ludicrous. First off if they have their hands full and back turned then they are no threat to anyone. Secondly as most have said, its stuff that can be replaced. Are burglars and thieves low lifes? Yes, absolutely. Do they deserve to get caught and punished? Yes, absolutely. Do they deserve to die for it? No, not petty theft, not according to law. When these thieves are caught by police and charged, is the death sentence EVER an option? No. Why? Because it doesn't fit the crime. If a court of law wouldn't find a burglar or thief worthy of death, why do you think you have more power or right to than a court of law? Do cops have the right to just shoot perps in the back when they are running from a store with stolen merchandise in their hands? No, not unless the perp threatens or fires first. Most importantly do YOU even understand what it is to take a human life? Are you willing to degrade a life that much and are you so self deluded to think that your tv is more important or valuable than a human life?! Yes, even the life of a criminal. Look it comes down to this, a life for a life. If your life or the life of a loved one is in danger, then you have every right to use deadly force. Anything less especially over something as stupid as a material thing is murder in most books including mine. If I were on a jury for a case like this, I would find guilty for at very minimum manslaughter.
 
Huge criminal negligence or homicide exposure to shoot fleeing suspects from a burglary.

MOST people could not get away with that and it's irresponsible to suggest that it is lawful. Even if there is anecdotal evidence, or even if 1 state in the Nation says it's "okay" (let's not forget that he went to a Grand Jury - so it's not clear that it was okay and he in theory could have gone to trial).

Given the twist of facts, that a family member was inside, It is still prudent to wait for the cops but explain it to the 911 dispatcher. You may not want to disturb the evidence and don't want to go in to a hostage situation. Conversely, now that I think about it, what if there was some violence you could interrupt...

This is a good conversation.
 
Are you willing to degrade a life that much and are you so self deluded to think that your tv is more important or valuable than a human life?! Yes, even the life of a criminal. Look it comes down to this, a life for a life. If your life or the life of a loved one is in danger, then you have every right to use deadly force. Anything less especially over something as stupid as a material thing is murder in most books including mine. If I were on a jury for a case like this, I would find guilty for at very minimum manslaughter.
Click to expand...

So the thief who breaks into someone's house at night and steals something, KNOWING that he can legally be shot by the homeowner if he gets caught, bears no responsibility for his own fate? IMHO he has degraded his own life -- play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
Posted by JustinJ: Quite a few have fired to protect property without being charged. I'm not advocating one do so but there have been a number of shootings without charges being filed.
Click to expand...
Four things to consider:

  1. The difficulties and expenses associated with the grand jury proceedings, whether or not there is a trial;
  2. What happens if one is not among those "quite a few".
  3. Civil risks, where the burden of proof for the other side is much, much lower.
  4. Civil and criminal negligence risks relating to whomever may be "down range" at the time.

And, of course, there is the risk of being shot by whomever.
 
Four things to consider:

The difficulties and expenses associated with the grand jury proceedings, whether or not there is a trial;
What happens if one is not among those "quite a few".
Civil risks, where the burden of proof for the other side is much, much lower.
Civil and criminal negligence risks relating to whomever may be "down range" at the time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Again, i'm not advocating one shoot. However, to my knowledge there has been nobody in TX convicted for firing in defense of property. When i say a "a few" i mean there have only been a few cases when people shot in the defense of property. Not that a few of those who did were not convicted.

I'm not sure if one could be sued under TX law for shooting in defense of property if not found guilty but i would suspect not. There is of course always some risk.

I was actually quite surprised that the man in Houston who shot at a fleeing a vehicle was not charged. Not for attempted murder but for recklessly endangering his neighbors. Regardless if one feels it justified to shoot in defense of property endangering innocent bystanders to recover shingles, jewelry, tv, or whatever is wrong.
 
Posted by JustinJ: I'm not sure if one could be sued under TX law for shooting in defense of property if not found guilty but i would suspect not.
Click to expand...
Of course one can be sued. The question has to do with whether and how civil immunity might apply. That is a subject that is widely misunderstood,

Two things: (1) civil immunity applies to an act that took place within the actor's occupied habitation; and (2) to be immune, the actor must not only provide evidence that he or she was not guilty (the threshold is reasonable doubt)--he or she must demonstrate that a preponderance of the evidence supports justification. Much more difficult indeed.

The latter is the same threshold that applies if the case goes to trial---it's just that the court can examine the evidence and decide how far the plaintiff can proceed.

Of course, that civil immunity, should it be granted, would only apply to liability to the criminals per se. The rights of those down range cannot be limited.

I was actually quite surprised that the man in Houston who shot at a fleeing a vehicle was not charged.
Click to expand...
And many people were shocked that the Bexar County homeowner who chased the young man out onto his driveway and killed him, and who was charged and tried twice, was not convicted. One can predict the outcome of legal proceedings, civil or criminal, but not with certainty.

That is why so many criminal cases result in plea bargaining, and so many civil suits are settled out of court.

In the case of the latter, we won't hear about it.
 
zxcvbob -
I take it you are referring to more of a "castle doctrine" example which I agree with you 100%. If someone breaks in while my family is inside and sleeping, then the bg has put my life, my families life, and his life in danger and I have every right to remove the threat of danger. Unfortunately that doesn't apply to the situation being discussed. This situation is you returning home and while pulling up to your house you see people leaving your property with stolen goods. Completely different.
 
I had close to $100,000. worth of stuff stolen in Houston once upon a time. I recovered nothing.

Somethings can not be replaced.

I hear guys say, "It is just stuff"; correct stuff we worked and saved for. Would you fight tooth and nail if someone were stealing your wallet after making a withdrawal from the bank to purchase some high dollar item from a neighbor? What gives anyone the right to take what you worked for? Dunno what will happen and no one else knows until you earn the tee shirt. But somethings are worth war gaming/running scenarios and knowing the laws of the land.

I think the OP got it right in the opening post. Are there circumstances where one might get more involved, no doubt. But certainly not something I would wish on anyone.

Tis true a bad guy who gets away tends to be a bad guy once again IMO many many repeat offenders prove that point over and over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Scenario: Followed home
Replies
18
Views
744
Bob F.
B
B
  • Locked
suspicious truck in driveway
Replies
15
Views
2K
ofelas
O
D
  • Locked
Scenario--Metropolitan Shootout
Replies
2
Views
325
Jeff White
J
D
  • Locked
house robbed today while everyone slept.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
Sam1911
S
T
  • Locked
  • Poll
3 car loads of guys at 3 am pull up? (read scenario first)
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
Thin Black Line
T
Back
Top