A Real Test of Texas' New Castle Doctrine Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

dglockster

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
68
Location
DFW, Texas
West Dallas business owner kills 2 suspected burglars in 3 weeks

09:32 PM CDT on Sunday, October 14, 2007
By MARISSA ALANIS / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

A Ledbetter-area business owner fatally shot a suspected burglar Sunday morning – the second time in three weeks that he killed an intruder, Dallas police said.

James Walton, owner of Able Walton Machine & Welding in the 2000 block of Chalk Hill Road in West Dallas, was alerted to the intruder when his motion sensor system activated about 9 a.m. Sunday, police said.

Mr. Walton, who also lives at his business, went downstairs with a shotgun and fired at a man who had broken in. The intruder was later identified by police as Jimmy Gannon of Ferris.

Police said Mr. Walton also noticed another man outside Sunday. Mr. Walton shot and wounded that man. He escaped, but a witness eventually led police to him. The man, whom police did not immediately identify, was questioned by officers Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Gannon, 37, was taken to Methodist Dallas Medical Center, where he died.

Police said Mr. Walton is allowed to protect his property. No charges were filed against him Sunday, though the case will be referred to a grand jury, police said.

"He's got a right to defend his property. What gives a stranger the right to go in and vandalize or burglarize his business?" said Dallas police Sgt. Gene Reyes. "He's within every legal right to do this."

Mr. Walton could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Dallas police Sgt. Andrew Harvey said he doesn't believe anything was stolen from Mr. Walton's business on Sunday.

On Sept. 22, Mr. Walton shot and killed a man he saw climbing through a pried-open window of his business, police said. The intruder was later identified as Raul Laureles. That incident also was referred to a grand jury.
 
Every time I read an article like this I am reminded of Robert A Heinlein's novel Time Enough for Love.

In it, Lazarus Long takes under his wing a young couple and helps them get started on a frontier planet. The couple opens and runs a small diner. A thug tries to break into the diner and the husband kills him. The thug's head goes up on a stake outside the diner.

I imagine if one could put the head of human predators up on a stake outside your business or your home when you removed them from the gene pool that the impact would be a bit more than a few flies stinkin' up the place...

In this case it seems unlikely that the 2nd thug would have broken into the citizen's business if the 1st thug's head had been prominently displayed on a stake out front.

Maybe we've gotten too civilized for our own good.
 
A real test of the law will be when said thug's family attempts to sue for damages. I would love to be a fly on the wall when their attorney informs them that they can't because of the Castle Doctrine Law. :)
 
They refer to it as "West Dallas." That is a euphemism for the Oak Cliff neighborhood. It is what a buddy of mine calls a "three gun--if you really have to go--neighborhood."

Dude is likely to rack up a count worthy of a WWI German flying ace unless he runs with the "head on a pike" method. It would be a kindness to all other potential crackhead burglars.

To give you an idea of the Oak Cliff crime rate, here are some OC-themed t-shirts:
welcometooc.jpg



survived-oc.jpg


For an article (with video) on OC & the t-shirts:
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4892619/detail.html




Some more "local color" in t-shirt form can be seen here, if you are not easily offended:
http://charroking.com/store/
 
I would have to know a lot more detail of how much of a threat these burglars were to the store owner. I realize that that is not the Texas criteria but it sure as hell should involve some common sense and a tad of respect for human life.
On the surface, it sure looks like he used excessive force - much more than was needed to stop the act that was in progress. (How much of a threat is a guy halfway into the store coming in thru a pryed-open window?!?
 
In all fairness, the complete story is not known. But given the facts as stated. The shop owner was correct in his response.

1. If it isn't yours don't mess with it.
2. Don't go where you aint invited.
3. Ask permission before entering someones property.
4. If you do not follow rules 1 thru 3 and you get killed it is your own fault and not the person who shot your sorry !@#.

Things my Dad taught me when I was 5 yrs. old.
 
What gives a stranger the right to go in and vandalize or burglarize his business?" said Dallas police Sgt. Gene Reyes. "He's within every legal right to do this."
An officer who says that the criminal is at fault? That doesn't explicity condemn the idea of defending your property?
I like this guy.
 
MinnMooney,
(How much of a threat is a guy halfway into the store coming in thru a pryed-open window?!?

You have that urban Yankee mind set. If you are where you aint suppose to be the hurt is on YOU.

DON'T mess with TEXAS

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
 
Mr. Walton could not be reached for comment Sunday
If he wants to avoid prosecution, he should stay unavailable for comment. Notwithstanding the castle doctrine, "no comment" is the best comment.
 
MinnMooney wrote:

I would have to know a lot more detail of how much of a threat these burglars were to the store owner. I realize that that is not the Texas criteria but it sure as hell should involve some common sense and a tad of respect for human life.
On the surface, it sure looks like he used excessive force - much more than was needed to stop the act that was in progress.

In Nevada we do not have to determine intent. If someone breaks into your home, they are there to harm you. The bg's respect for human life ended when they thought that they could steal from whomever they felt like. Do you really think that if the bgs caught Mr. Walton without any protection they would leave him unharmed?

(How much of a threat is a guy halfway into the store coming in thru a pryed-open window?!?

So, it would be fair to let the bg finish coming through the window and have a fighting chance? Maybe shoot Mr. Walton or stab him before he got his gun ready?
 
MinnMooney : On the surface, it sure looks like he used excessive force - much more than was needed to stop the act that was in progress. (How much of a threat is a guy halfway into the store coming in thru a pryed-open window?!?

He's way more of a threat than if he hadn't broken into his home and business at night.

This looks like a threat to me.

burglar1_1.jpg

The burglars got what was coming to them. How many places had they broken into prior to this where they weren't confronted by an armed home and business owner? That guy just saved somebody and the legal system a whole lot of trouble. If you saw something like the guy above coming at you through your window wouldn't you shoot him, visible weapon or not? If you wouldn't then there's something wrong with you.

Besides, even if he wasn't a direct threat at that moment where is it written that he shouldn't protect his property that he's worked hard for? Should he just let the guy do and take what he wants merely because he hasn't pulled out a gun or a knife yet? What kind of logic is that?

And who knows what the burglars reaction to the home/business owners presence would be once he successfully obtained entry. When criminals are confronted and are about to get caught they have a fight or flight reaction, I wouldn't have given the burglar a chance either. If you break into my house to steal my belongings and threaten me with your mere presence then I have the right to defend my home, so does that guy.

A visible weapon in his hand is just even more justification to shoot.

That's what the law says here, so that's what I'll follow. Somebody should give the home owner a medal. It sucks that he was forced to kill someone who took a wrong turn in life, but he did what he had to do and I think that he did the right thing.
 
"You have that urban Yankee mind set. If you are where you aint suppose to be the hurt is on YOU."

I respectfully disagree with the phrase "urban Yankee mind set". I am a true Yankee born and bred in CT (now living in TX) and I can assure you that Yankees have no problem with defending what is theirs to whatever degree needed. Were it I, I would have used deadly force without hesitation. Living in TX just necessitates AC and the ownership of a car to get anywhere. :)



"I would have to know a lot more detail of how much of a threat these burglars were to the store owner. I realize that that is not the Texas criteria but it sure as hell should involve some common sense and a tad of respect for human life. On the surface, it sure looks like he used excessive force - much more than was needed to stop the act that was in progress. (How much of a threat is a guy halfway into the store coming in thru a pryed-open window?!?"


When it is YOUR store, YOUR family, you may make such decisions as you see fit. I hope you make the right ones. I am glad for this man's sake that you are not the DA he has to deal with.

Also, remember the four rules, one of which states that you don't point the weapon at anything you don't wish to DESTROY.
 
lanternlad1 wrote:

A real test of the law will be when said thug's family attempts to sue for damages. I would love to be a fly on the wall when their attorney informs them that they can't because of the Castle Doctrine Law.

I don't believe the new Castle doctrine provides that a person "can't" sue.

Anyone reserves that right.

What it does do (if the shoot is justified), is to make it nearly impossible for the person bringing the suit to win.

It would be very difficult to get an attorney to take a case he had little to no chance of winning.
 
Last edited:
In both cases the intruder had broken into the business. In Texas, that creates a legal presumption that the owner had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Short of Mr. Walton doing something really foolish to indicate that he did not have a fear of death or serious injury, he should be OK even without the new castle doctrine law.

The main advantage he will get from the new law is that he is less likely to face a civil suit from the family or burglar.
 
I disagree with Mr. Roberts. It is my understanding that under the old law, you had a duty to retreat from your home, if reasonably possible.

So my take is if the DA could argue that the home owner could have exited as the burgler crawled in, then the DA might have hung a murder conviction on him under the old law.

I believe the test of the law will be when home owner kills a one-legged burglar crawling through a front window, naked and unarmed, as the home owner stands in the threashold of the back door, with a van full of ninjas idling in the back driveway.

Texas generally was not eager to charge home owners and the new law helps re-enforce that. It is fine to say that people should not use force to discourage robbary, but then also stop whining about crime rates and murders. And think about moving to GB as they appreciate that mindset.
 
I would have to know a lot more detail of how much of a threat these burglars were to the store owner. I realize that that is not the Texas criteria but it sure as hell should involve some common sense and a tad of respect for human life.
On the surface, it sure looks like he used excessive force - much more than was needed to stop the act that was in progress. (How much of a threat is a guy halfway into the store coming in thru a pryed-open window?!?

No offense to Minn, but come on. I for one am sick and tired of reading posts where people make excuses for others that were breaking the law and then get shot and killed because of it.

The main point of this is: If he hadn't been breaking into a store, his chances of not being shot and surviving the night, would have gone up exponentially. I'm tired of people making excuses for criminals and "suggesting" that more common sense or respect for human life be used.

I don't have a genius IQ, but it is well above 70 and I know that if I am planning on breaking into a home, a place of business, assaulting someone, or committing any other crime, I have a darn good chance of having something happen to me.

LET'S QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR CRIMINALS!
 
Police said Mr. Walton also noticed another man outside Sunday. Mr. Walton shot and wounded that man. He escaped, but a witness eventually led police to him.

This may come back to haunt him more than the two dead perps.As was said in a prior post, we can't know the whole story. Did this third guy pose a threat? Does Texas castle doctrine cover property outside the domicile? How far was the guy from the structure? If he was just loitering around outside, then Mr. Walton may spend some time in in a State institution.:eek:

+1 on camslam
 
El Tejon, Before the law went into effect you could "stand your ground" in your home, place of business, or rural property. HOWEVER you faced the probability of being sued in CIVIL court for wrongfull death of the perp. This most likly would put you in the poor house defending yourself from such a suit. The new law, which took effect on 1 Sept., the family, friends, known associates and second cousins (twice removed) can still sue, but cannot win. This is only if ONE of several things happen.:D

1. The case is given to a Grand Jury, with out charges, and is dismissed by the Grand Jury.

2. The case is given to a Grand Jury with charges, and the Grand Jury dissmisses the case.

3. The case goes to trial, and the defendent is found not guilty.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
 
(How much of a threat is a guy halfway into the store coming in thru a pryed-open window?!?
Ask yourself how the perp pried the window open in the first place. Probably with a crowbar. If I found someone inside my house with a crowbar you better believe I'm eliminating that threat ASAP. Crowbars are nasty weapons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top