50-year-old Dallas woman shoots and kills home burglar

[Deaf Smith]

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/201...sident-fires-on-home-burglars-kills-one.html/

"According to a police report, the woman was 50-year-old Beverley Valentine-Creeks. She told police that she noticed that her front door was kicked in when she arrived at her house around 12:45 a.m. One of the men was holding a handgun, she told police.

Valentine-Creeks ran back out to her car, where she had her own gun, the report says. She fired on two of the burglars when they tried to walk out the front door, the report says. The third suspect then jumped out of a bedroom window “and she opened fire on him as well,” the report says."

Now ain't that a shame. She missed one!

Deaf

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm glad the homeowner escaped uninjured.

My wife has strict instructions to immediately turn around, get in her car and leave as rapidly as possible if she comes home to what should be an empty house and finds evidence of breaking and entering. I told her that she can call 911 once she's in the car and away from the scene but that she is on no account to attempt to enter the house or linger in the immediate area.

I plan to take exactly the same approach.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm with John on this.

 

[volleyfire]

In 23 years of marriage I have found there are basically zero instructions one can give a Texas girl. This is about the third one of these shootings in the last two weeks in the DFW area. We have some slow learners.

 

[orionengnr]

Just too bad she had to return to her vehicle to retrieve that firearm...

 

[Pilot]

Yes, I agree, never put yourself in danger like that, even armed. Drive away, call 911. This could have turned out very differently, but I am glad she prevailed and the surviving perps were caught.

Love the comments below the article by people defending the deceased perp as a "good guy". I don't care how nice you are, nice guys don't commit armed robbery.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well you guys can say she should of done this or that but..

IT WAS HER HOUSE. She can do what she thinks best. She felt she needed to protect her property and came prepared (and I bet well trained from the looks of the body count.) She played by big boy rules and kicked ass. Sure she could have been hurt or killed but THIS IS TEXAS guys. She knew the risk and went in anyway. Good for her and bad for the bad guys.

Come here to kill, rob, invalid, etc... and don't be shocked if you are met by some very aggressive house holders who don't give a dang for your life.

And as for those who said the dead guy was a good joe, well he is now but he sure wasn't when he went our robing people.

Deaf

 

[Apachedriver]

A few points I'd like to make are:

1) For all that say they only carry when they think they might need their firearm, here's an example that no memos are sent out on a planned break-in or other illegal activity that may well impact you when least expected.

2) No where in the article does it say that she went back after the bad guys. It says "She fired on two of the burglars when they tried to walk out the front door,..." I don't see a timeline so while it may imply that she might've waited, for all we know, they came out immediately upon being discovered. Who's to say they weren't coming out after her?
Besides, your instincts will default to what you know. Her instincts said get the gun.

3) If your decision is to leave the scene for your safety, that's fine. But you can't or shouldn't criticize anyone else's decision to act otherwise unless their choice of action places a third uninterested party at risk.

Many on here say that they choose to take personal responsibility for their safety and protection as gunowners. Well, here's an example of someone that doesn't follow the masses and chooses for themselves. If I get shot or killed because of my own decision, trust me, I made that decision with full acceptance of what it may cost me and that's my choice, not yours. Your values may be different, and that's fine.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Deaf Smith: She felt she needed to protect her property and came prepared (and I bet well trained from the looks of the body count.)

There are no indications that her motivation was to protect property. And even in Texas, and even at night, if that were the case she would have to show a basis for a reasonable belief that the perps were fleeing with her tangible, moveable property and that she had no reasonable alternative to recover it..

Rather, the perps were armed and coming toward her. Looks a lot more like self defense.

This article states that she "maintained a position outside her home." She apparently could shoot, but her tactical training was either lacking or she forgot it, or the timing was such that she had no reasonable alternative

She knew the risk and went in anyway.

She went in unarmed and she learned she was outnumbered by armed criminals. I doubt she even thought about the risks. She sure did not mitigate them wisely.

 

[jeepnik]

When ever I see something like this I always wonder, "what does the age of the person, or sex of the person have to do with it"?

Would it be less correct if it was a man, or a 25 year old, or whatever other catagory you can think of?

 

[Sam1911]

Would it be less correct if it was a man, or a 25 year old, or whatever other catagory you can think of?

It CAN, when the question turns to "disparity of force" type issues.

While most of us love to think in the absolute black-and-white world of "RIGHT" and "WRONG" and even of "LEGAL" and "ILLEGAL," that world is an illusion. No-one else can see your halo. No matter how righteously you believe you acted, no shooting is a "good shoot" until a prosecutor, DA, Grand Jury, or trial jury have agreed that it is. In the end, other people are going to decide if you were righteously defending your self with appropriate means, or are a guilty killer. Prison or freedom may indeed hinge on what other people think about you and how vulnerable you appear to them. Generally speaking, a woman has a much easier time of proving her need to shoot/kill an attacker than a man does. An older person (and/or someone in poor health) has an easier time convincing juries that their actions were necessary than a young, healthy person. A smaller person will be granted more latitude than a large, athletic, muscular type who looks like they could "take care of themselves." (And though we'd be uncomfortable admitting it, race often creates similar influences.)

Guilt and innocence is more often than not heavily affected by perception. That's not "fair" or "unfair." It just IS.

 

[JohnKSa]

Well you guys can say she should of done this or that but...

For what it's worth, I didn't say what she should have done. I only said what I will do and what I've instructed my wife to do.

IT WAS HER HOUSE. She can do what she thinks best.

Of course, to do what she thinks best (within the framework of the law, of course) is her right.

However we can discuss the strategy involved. In fact, unless I'm very badly mistaken, that is precisely the point of the "Strategies, Tactics and Training" subforum on THR.

But you can't or shouldn't criticize anyone else's decision to act otherwise unless their choice of action places a third uninterested party at risk.

When did the Strategies, Tactics and Training subforum become the Kumbaya subforum?

The point of having a Strategies, Tactics and Training subforum is to discuss strategies, tactics and training, ostensibly with an eye toward developing ideal strategies and tactics. How is it possible to accomplish that if we are bound to only say positive things about any action taken by someone in an incident posted here?

 

[Apachedriver]

JohnKSa,

What I saw in your first comments regarding your wife and self is clearly a plan of action that you have chosen for your situation. That's STT. It can be discussed and critiqued for improvements or changes.

No personal attack intended with the following:

When I read Pilot's comments:

Yes, I agree, never put yourself in danger like that, even armed. Drive away, call 911. This could have turned out very differently, but I am glad she prevailed and the surviving perps were caught.

I read that as a statement of close-ended opinion. It comes across as a presentation of definitive action which leaves little if any room for STT discussion. In my reading of his comments, I perceive an implied, unfair criticism of the actions that occurred.

So no, there isn't any kumbaya here. but there is a difference between a effective critique vs an unfair or unbalanced criticism, if only in the tone.

ETA: In my case, some time ago, our front door was inadvertently left partially open or unlocked for the day. When we came home and saw it, I had my family move away from the house and ready to call 911 if they saw or heard anything, based on prior discussions, that warranted that action. In the meantime, I moved in and swept the house. Now based on my personal training and experiences, I felt and still feel fine with those decisions.
If we came home and the door is kicked in, damaged, or showed any signs of obvious tampering and opened, then we would move away to a safe position, and call 911 while continuing to observe if able.
Unless one of my family was expected to be in the house and potentially in danger. Then I'll be back in sweeping again. Those are my plans as executed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Apache Driver: I read that [(Yes, I agree, never put yourself in danger like that, even armed. Drive away, call 911. This could have turned out very differently, but I am glad she prevailed and the surviving perps were caught.)] as a statement of emotional opinion. It comes across as a presentation of definitive action which leaves little if any room for STT discussion. In my reading of his comments, I perceive an implied, unfair criticism of the actions that occurred.

I wouldn't call it emotional. Nor was it unfair.

If she had a choice, she placed herself in unnecessary danger by remaining on the scene, but we do not know that.

In ST&T, we try to discuss the best way to avoid danger and to survive it when that fails, or if necessary, to protect others whom we must.

Deciding to engage a perp for other reasons is a bad idea unless one is charged by the community with the responsibility to do so.

 

[Apachedriver]

Yes, I reread my comment and removed 'emotional' because it wasn't the word I wanted either, but instead 'close-ended".

I say implied and unfair because as you stated:

If she had a choice, she placed herself in unnecessary danger by remaining on the scene, but we do not know that.

 

[Fred Fuller]

It doesn't matter how thin the salami is sliced, we STILL don't know what we don't know. Newspaper and television reports are great at delivering insufficient information - we DO know that.

So what DO we know, according to the report? This - Valentine-Creeks ran back out to her car, where she had her own gun, the report says.

So she apparently wasn't carrying her gun on her person or in some other way, but had left it in her four-wheeled motorized steel holster parked in the driveway, on the street or whatever. I'm very familiar with that approach to carrying a gun - it was necessary to do the same thing in order to carry legally here in NC, until the state legislature finally got around to passing a concealed carry bill which became law. It's not what I recommend, but it was what it was at the time. And what her particular choices were in Texas, as far as legal carry were and are concerned, I don't know.

So she went back to her car, to get her gun. Could she have simply gotten into the car and driven away from the scene? Perhaps, perhaps not - again, we don't know.

If she did have the time to get back into her car and drive away, would that have been more safe than opening fire on multiple intruders, one of whom she reported to be visibly armed? I would think so. Others may well disagree. Since we do not have perfect knowledge of the situation, it is impossible to say for sure.

We examine these situations, not to play cheerleader for the good guys, not to wave the redwhiteandblue and cheer truthjusticeandtheamericanway, not to say definitively (at least very often) what is the right or wrong thing to do in a given situation, but to try and do some decisionmaking ahead of the time of actual need, should it ever arise. We use several sets of tools to provide 'school solutions' to these situations. One of those tools is something called ADEE. The A in ADEE stands for AVOID.

Our usual counsel here is to AVOID potential gunfights whenever possible. Bullets that remain crimped in their cases seldom injure anyone. The advice to avoid gunfights whenever possible is given by several noted defensive firearms trainers and we consider it to be sound.

Avoiding gunfights is, unfortunately, NOT always possible. Was it possible this gunfight could have been avoided?

We don't know. That's not criticism. It is not unfair. It does not imply anything. It is a simple statement of fact. We do not know whether Beverley Valentine-Creeks could have avoided what happened, or not.

Saying that IF she could have reasonably avoided shooting, she should have, merely reflects the standards by which we here in ST&T judge such incidents. Not all here will agree with these standards, or will agree with them in every situation. That's perfectly fine - this is not, as was indicated earlier, some kind of Kumbaya-singing gathering.

But we do not tolerate bloodthirstiness here, nor do we encourage braggadocio. We do seek understanding and wider knowledge. I hope we gain some of that from this thread...

 

[cpt-t]

ONLY IN TEXAS: The People Down just march to a different drum. When I lived in Amarillo a few years back, after the hours of darkness you were with in your rights to defend your property any way you could or wanted to. Living in TEXAS is really refreshing. Why shouldn`t a person be able to defend what is there`s. And not give a second thought to the rights of a burglar or thief. Stealing and robbing others is a dangerous job and it is much safer if they got a job and worked like most other people. But I know unless you are from there or lived there for a short while it is hard to just not call on some one else to protect you and your famliy or your proerty. It probabely never enter most peoples mind to say no to a burglar or thief or someone that is going to try to hurt You or Yours. To just say no you will not do this to Me or Mine because (( I )) am not going to let you. ken

 

[Apachedriver]

ADEE...Well I learned something new there. I knew OODA and ACDC but not ADEE. I use a semblance of the first two in the conduct of my job regularly. But then, my job and everyday life are two totally different things and not everything crosses over.

And what her particular choices were in Texas, as far as legal carry were and are concerned, I don't know.

In Texas, without a CHL, you can legally carry a handgun in your vehicle but it must remain out of sight, and you're allowed to carry it between home and vehicle. The legal option to have it on her person was available barring any other unknowns. Some excerpts are below. The underlines are my own.

Title 10 . Section 1
Section 46.02
(a) A person commits an offense if the person [he] intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or
about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person
or under the person's control.

SECTION 2.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control unless the person
is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary
responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or property,
in which event the person must comply with Subdivision (5);
(3) is traveling;
(4) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate
premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the
actor's residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft if the weapon is a type commonly used in
the activity;

 

[tarosean]

ADEE...Well I learned something new there. I knew OODA and ACDC but not ADEE.

Maybe I am slow but what do all those acronyms stand for?

 

[Hangingrock]

After the fact/action it is easy to critique.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

The only problem I see is leaving the pistol in the car where it can be stolen. At least that seems her intent when she left it there.

Now, if she was taking the pistol into the house and confronted the bad men who broke in and were armed then she would have already been armed and not needed to make another round trip for the pistol. Juries are funny they may see that as her out of control drive to shoot someone.

Being from Texas I do not see that as a problem but we have so many folks that have come down here to live from gun fearing states. They might be on my jury!

As for me I don't think I would enter my house armed knowing there were an unknown number of bad guys in there who may be armed.

Off topic question: When the cops shoot a bad guy in your home do they pay for cleanup?

ps. I would have called 911 and told them a felony break in was in progress and I was armed in my driveway. Might be the one that got away would have run into a big old cop! I'm just 3 blocks from the police station and thay have been hunting a group of robbers that are responsible for 27 break ins so far.

pps. I have been on many mock juries and you would not believe the convoluted logic some folks use. Some folks had an agenda from the very start.

 

[Sam1911]

After the fact/action it is easy to critique.

Yes, and that is a primary function of our S,T,&T forum.

We study what folks who've ended up in harm's way actually did to better understand how such events unfold, and therefore to make decisions about how we would like to try and react to similar events.

Sometimes the "good guy" does something risky and prevails anyway. Sometimes the "good guy" does something risky and is injured or killed. Sometimes the "good guy" does something aggressive (or even beyond the justification for such violent actions that the law recognizes) and the authorities that be decide not to press charges against him/her for some reason. Sometimes the "good guy" ends up prosecuted for actions that prosecutors believe exceeded the law's justifications, and loses all -- becoming just another "bad guy" in prison.

Sometimes the "good guy" recognizes that a situation is about to turn violent and is capable enough to be able to use their brain to extract themselves from danger, instead of taking his/her chances going to guns.

These events and outcomes are not entirely random. What happens when violent encounters arise is also not entirely in the hands of the aggressor. Just as we train with our weapons for split-second manipulation, we can train our brains to seek the decision paths that will be most likely to lead us away from bloodshed, of if blood must be shed, will be most likely to prevail and avoid action that will not be found lawful under our state's use of force laws.

So we analyze things and dissect events and read the prevailing laws to better educate ourselves in preparation for our own moments of need.

As Fred said, we don't gather here simply as idle spectators cheering on the "good guys" and boo the "bad guys."

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by cpt-t: When I lived in Amarillo a few years back, after the hours of darkness you were with in your rights to defend your property any way you could or wanted to.

You are misinformed. You may use deadly force in Texas to defend property from theft or criminal mischief only if you have no other safe alternative--and only at night.

Why shouldn`t a person be able to defend what is there`s.

Many centuries of legal thinking limit the degree of force that can be lawfully used, and more so everywhere else than in Texas.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the case at hand. Was the woman defending property?

 

[FuzzyBunny]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the case at hand. Was the woman defending property?

Or was she stopping a felony in progress?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by FuzzyBunny: ps. I would have called 911 and told them a felony break in was in progress and I was armed in my driveway.

Not I. Consider the risk of a lookout hiding to the side.

Or was she stopping a felony in progress?

Not if they were departing.