hope never to deal with anything like this

[cassandrasdaddy]

Family struggles to understand son's slaying

Carmen and Burnell Glass, two God-fearing cotton farmers from the fields of West Texas, are looking to a higher law these days in grappling with the sudden, violent death of their son.

For others, the slaying of Tracy Glass raises questions embedded firmly in the Texas Penal Code.

The case, experts said, hinges on whether a Northwest Side homeowner thought deadly force was his only option to protect himself or recover property when he chased the unarmed college student to the street and shot him to death.

Raymond Lemes, 48, found Glass inside his house early Saturday morning. Believing Glass was an intruder, Lemes grabbed his .40-caliber handgun and chased the young man outside, where he shot him in the neck, arm and chest, according to a police report.

The report does not indicate whether Glass, 19, took anything from the home. Lemes later told police he meant to detain Glass until authorities arrived, but he fired when Glass "lunged at him," the report says.

Buoyed by their Christian faith, the Glasses already have forgiven Lemes, whom they've never met. But the grieving parents also believe that the slaying of their son was a terrible mistake triggered when he mistakenly entered Lemes' house and then turned to face the homeowner.

"Tracy was not a violent person. He was not a thief," said Burnell Glass. "He was taught when you step on somebody's toes, you turn around and say, 'I'm sorry.'"

Glass, a sophomore at Angelo State University who grew up on his family's farm, had been staying at his sister's house on Autumn Evening the night he died.

That house is painted white with blue trim and is on the right side of the cul-de-sac. Lemes' house is also white with blue trim and is on the right side of another cul-de-sac, Autumn Star. One home is directly behind the other.

Living in a rural area, Glass had picked up the habit of taking late-night walks to get better reception on his cell phone, his father said. On Saturday, he sent a text message to his girlfriend and left his sister's house.

"When she called back, there was no answer," Burnell Glass said.

What happened next remains under investigation, said police spokesman Gabe Trevino.

(More, including several sidebars of interest)


what a nightmare

 

[Kentak]

Wow. That is very sad, especially if the guy just got confused and wandered down the wrong cul-de-sac. I can see how that could easily happen in the circumstances described.

Regardless, I guess the germane issue is whether the shooting was justified. That will have to be sorted out after the investigation, but it appears the only witness is the shooter.

As for me--if I found an intruder in my house, and if I did arm myself and chase him out the door, my obligation to defend myself and my home and family is done as far as I'm concerned. I'll lock the door and call the cops. The rest is their job.

K

 

[Skirmisher]

Once the young man was outside, any perceived threat to the homeowner was gone. A call to the police was in order. Once a threat to you or your loved is gone, there is no need for deadly force unless the perp is armed and dangerous and letting him go to harm someone else is a sure thing.

 

[MaterDei]

I agree that this is tragic but I don't agree that once an intruder crosses your threshold that you are no longer in danger or that he is no longer a threat. As long as somebody is trespassing on my property he is a threat. Perhaps he was to just run out the front door only to come back in the rear.

My $.02 cents worth on this sad story.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

This happened to me, or something like it.
I heard someone coming down the side of the house, turned the motion lights in the back on and heard the guy messing around in the back yard then come up the stairs to the back door.
When he tried the knob, I drew my .45 and sat there waiting for him to come through the door.
This was in a neighborhood where we'd had our convertible top sliced open by some crackhead so they could steal the battery, had our wheels stolen, and had my truck rifled through for loose change and what not. Crackheads were everywhere so I assumed it was one of them.

I let him know I was there and I was going to shoot him if he didn't leave.
He hightailed it across the fence and through two other yards and stopped about 100 meters away in a vacant lot.
I kept him in view and called the cops. They didn't catch him, but were extremely nice and let me help them look for him.
I certainly wasn't about to chase him into the street and gun him down for trespassing. But, I don't know all the details of the other story here, so I'm not being judgemental. Just saying.

 

[wdlsguy]

Living in a rural area, Glass had picked up the habit of taking late-night walks to get better reception on his cell phone, his father said. On Saturday, he sent a text message to his girlfriend and left his sister's house.

Or maybe he was up to no good during his late night walks?

A sliding door at Lemes' house was broken and could not be locked. About 2:30 a.m., Lemes awoke to the screams of someone else in the house, grabbed his gun and found Glass inside, according to the report.

He chased the young man outside and fired his gun, then laid the weapon on the asphalt and waited for police.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA081007.01A.parentspuzzle.34a5cdd.html

 

[Geno]

Why didn't the homeowner have his doors shut and locked?! Even in summer, the screen door should be latched shut so this cannot happen.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

that's bad, real tragedy for all concerned. just myself if there is no weapon present I would not fire a center-mass shot. if threat was retreating no shot at all, that's the biggest reason I keep my double bbl 12 loaded with #6 right bbl, 000 left. and Makarov velcroed to bedpost.

 

[edman]

Well, being a Christian myself, it infuriates me that just because your are a Christian that if your child does something wrong that they should get a free pass.

There was another story where the boys father was a Minister and was angry the store owner was not tried for murder when he shot and killed the poor Christian boy.

Oh, I did forget to mention that the boy was in-fact armed with a handgun, and threatened to KILL the store clerk with the handgun if he did not handover the cash.

But, But this boy was turning his life around and living for Jesus.

It is tragic, but most Christians I know, are lured into some kind of idiotic trance, and can barley take care of themselves, this is NOT what Jesus wanted!!!! You are supposed to take care of your family AND TAKE CARE OF OTHERS ALSO!

Christians, STAND UP and set a REAL example!

 

[Caimlas]

The situation sounds to me like the shooting was not justified. There is reason to believe the guy wasn't breaking-and-entering (he had reason to be doing what he was doing), and it's probable that the shmuck who shot him hadn't locked his doors.

 

[Kentak]

I agree that this is tragic but I don't agree that once an intruder crosses your threshold that you are no longer in danger or that he is no longer a threat. As long as somebody is trespassing on my property he is a threat. Perhaps he was to just run out the front door only to come back in the rear.

MaterDei,

That may be. But, the law does not allow you to use deadly force against an unarmed intruder who is retreating from your home because you think he *might* be a threat in the future. You are allowed to stop an imminent threat, not be judge, jury, and executioner. Is your goal to stop an immediate threat, or to shoot someone? If it's the former, and the intruder is retreating, the *smart* and morally justifiable thing to do is secure the premises and call the cops. If it's the latter, good luck dealing with the consequences.

K

 

[cracked butt]

They should make a law barring Homeowners' associations and subdivisions from requiring that every house look exactly the same, not to mention giving every road a very similar name

 

[Kevin108]

Somehow I think that's just coincidence.

Have you ever not known where your own house was?

 

[striker3]

Well, being a Christian myself, it infuriates me that just because your are a Christian that if your child does something wrong that they should get a free pass.

Edman, I did not see anything in the article to support your anger in this instance. The parents said they thought the shooting was a mistake, which, from the details of the story, it could have been. Remember, Glass has the right to a presumption of innocence, just as does Lemes. I understand and agree on your position that being a Christian means acting like one, but unless you have facts corroborating your statements in this instance, they are unwarranted.

 

[joab]

There is reason to believe the guy wasn't breaking-and-entering (he had reason to be doing what he was doing), and it's probable that the shmuck who shot him hadn't locked his doors.

There may be reason to believe that now, but what reason did the homeowner have to believe that then?
What law says that another can enter your home if the doors are not locked.

Some questions that may never be truthfully answered

If the young man had a habit of taking late night walks did he also have a habit of leaving that same sliding door unlocked at his sisters house?
If so wouldn't he have also been a "schmuck" for endangering his sister?

If he did not habitually use the same sliding door at his home, wouldn't he have had a key to the front door, which would not have fit into the home he was intruding into?

Have you ever not known where your own house was?

Yes, but then I also usually could not have give an accurate account of how many beers I had that night also
But then again it is at least implied that he was a country boy new to the city where everything looks the same

You are allowed to stop an imminent threat, not be judge, jury, and executioner. Is your goal to stop an immediate threat, or to shoot someone? If it's the former, and the intruder is retreating, the *smart* and morally justifiable thing to do is secure the premises and call the cops. If it's the latter, good luck dealing with the consequences.

You can't apply your laws to other regions
In Florida the guy would not have a leg to stand on
In Texas he may
It may be a weak and unstable leg, but it's still an affirmative defense allowed by Texas law
All he would have to do is convince the powers that be that he reasonably believed that the young man took something.
The smart thing for him to have done would have been to put the gun on the asphalt and wait for his lawyer, not the cops, before he started talking

 

[Kentak]

Whether the guy was in the wrong house accidentally or on purpose, does that really have anything to do with the S&T discussion of the shoot?

Based on the information in the article, here's what we know:

1) Glass was in a house he didn't belong in late at night.

2) No mention of Glass being armed.

3) No mention of Glass making any threatening moves in the house.

4) Armed homeowner confronts Glass and chases him out of the house.

5) Outside of the house, something happens and Glass is shot several times.

6) The shooter states that Glass lunged at him.

Questions to consider:

1) What was the wisdom of pursuing Glass once he was out of the house?

2) What actually happened at the moment of the shoot? What are the points of entry and trajectory of the bullets through the deceased?

3) Justified shooting or not--might the better course of action have been to secure the premises once Glass was out of the house and call the police?

May take, based on what we know by the account. The intruder is out of the house. Lock the doors and windows. Arm any other responsible person in the house. Immediately call the police, giving the best description of the intruder as possible.

After giving my statement to the police, that will almost certainly be the end of it. I go peacefully about my life.

I suspect the shooter in this case is in for a lot of very expensive trouble. And, for what?

K

 

[joab]

Whether the guy was in the wrong house accidentally or on purpose, does that really have anything to do with the S&T discussion of the shoot?

No actually it doesn't
It may lend credibility to the homeowners assertion the he lunged at him, but then again maybe it wouldn't
It may also change the jury's all important perception of what happened


Personally I can't think of a reason the shoot someone who I knew was unarmed while outside my house in the street
According to the article there was someone else in the home
They should have been on the phone to 911 as he was chasing the guy out

Putting myself in the dead guys shoes I think I would have quickly backed out of the house with my hands up, and I would have been screaming please don't kill me
Seeing house lights come on in the neighboring homes may make the gun wielder think about what others will see

 

[lee n. field]

"Tracy was not a violent person. He was not a thief,"

Okay. So what's he doing in someone else's house without permission?

 

[JWarren]

I've been reading this thread for a day with interest. I'll probably post something more detailed later, but I think that this bears mention now:


Frankly, I do NOT buy the premise that Glass accidently went into the wrong house.


Sure... Many houses-especially track-houses look alike. Some may even be painted alike. They can be side-by-side. But once someone moves into a home, it becomes personalized with furniture, their things both inside and outside the house, and other miscellaneous personalizing effects.

I am trying to envision a scenerio where a person would enter a house and not realize that it wasn't their own once they saw the inside. The instant they see it isn't theirs, I would think they'd be gone FAST.

I'm not buying it.

Now, it is possible if he were intoxicated-- but that puts him in a position of having to own the situation. If a person purposely poisons his brain to the point that he cannot use judgement, he ultimately is responsible for the results of his ill actions.


I'm in a position where I am asked to judge the actions of a person that I believe was sober and using rational thought when faced with an intruder in his house.

Remember, it is an undisputed fact that the person WAS in his house. The homeowner was put-- by no actions of his own-- into a situation where he had to assess threat levels on the fly. Mistakes can be made.

Now, something doesn't set well with me about the way this turned out, but I suspect that there is A LOT more to the story than we know.

Still...

I am back to having to look at the credibilty of the two people.

We have the homeowner who has met an intruder in his home. He claims a lunge at him that would constitute an actionable threat.

Since it is impossible to get Glass' side of the story, we DO know that he was intruding into the home as an undisputed fact. Since I do not buy the premise that it would be something a thinking person would do haphazardly, I am forced to suspect that he was either there with ill intent or was intoxicated. Neither of these would instill me with confidence in his actions.

Until I know otherwise, I'll lean towards believing the homeowner's account.


-- John

 

[Bezoar]

within reason the homeowner should not have followed the criminal to try to aprehend him. However he did have reason to fear for his own safety when the person he had chased out of his home, suddenly turned around and came in his direction.
Howeverits up to the lawyers now. I only hope that the true victim here can get a good lawyer to save him from the criminal justic system. He made his decision to put himself into the hands of 12 jury members and not into the hands of 6 pallbearers.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

It's interesting that the motives and character of Glass are so easily impuned, but the Homeowner seems to be getting a free ride as if everything he reported was factual...


S&T wise: There's no way I would chase someone out into the street and execute them (they're unarmed and running away: it's an execution not SD) for breaking into my house or walking in mistakenly, or whatever the situation.
Even if their response isn't ideal, I still have a hard time justifying it from a moral and strategic point of view.
What if he has buddies outside waiting to blindside you? To me, It just doesn't make sense to chase him into the street.

 

[Kentak]

Frankly, I do NOT buy the premise that Glass accidently went into the wrong house.

And that may be. The point I've been making is that that is irrelevant to the discussion on the S&T board about how to act if we are in a similar situation.

I maintain that the homeowner made a tactical error by pursuing the intruder after he had left the house. Yes, I know it's 20-20 hindsight. But, we are supposed to be able to learn from these real life examples. Look what he accomplished by doing so. A young man is dead. The homeowner very possibly could be facing the traumatic experience of being charged with homicide. Regardless of that outcome, he could be sued for wrongful death. He will have to deal with the psychological consequences of taking a life--a known effect even in perfectly justifiable shootings.

Back to tactics, pursuing an intruder outside of the house presents the possibility that the intruder may have accomplices outside. Then, you are facing multiple threats. Also, what if there had been a second intruder inside unbeknownst to you? You've left your family alone with him.

I maintain that the smarter tactic would have been to secure the house once the intruder had retreated outside. Call the police. You can ensure your home is secure and ensure there are no other intruders.

There is *no* downside to what I'm advocating. I'm safe. My family is safe. The cops are on the way. I didn't have to kill anyone. No legal hell for me. No financial ruin for me.

Discuss.

K

 

[Kentak]

He made his decision to put himself into the hands of 12 jury members and not into the hands of 6 pallbearers.

A totally unnecessary choice had he done what I advocated in my post above.

K

 

[JWarren]

Ken,

Oh, I agree with you to a degree.

And I maintain that there is a lot the we don't know about this story-- including me and including you.

Right now, I am going to withhold judgement on whether he had a reason to pursue the person outside. There are times that I can see where it would be a thing I would do. Then there are times I wouldn't.

As for leaving my wife inside with the potential of other intruders, well I feel sorry for them. Joking aside. I don't leave my wife inside. Now we are in situation where we don't have children yet so she doesn't need to protect them. When we have had concerns over threats, she has covered me and moved with me. GRITS, you know... (Girls Raised In The South.)


Like I said, I reserve my judgement and my sympathy until I know more.


And I agree with Ken that a pursuit is a tactical gamble, could get you in legal hot water, and even more importantly could put your family at risk while you are not there to protect them.

Good points Ken.


-- John

 

[lanternlad1]

The laws of Texas are pretty clear. If someone is ON YOUR PROPERTY AFTER DARK without your permission, they are taking their life in their hands. They don't have to be inside the house. The yard is also property, as are your vehicles, and the owner has a right to protect all of it.

When I first moved to Houston, I saw a story on the news where an apt dweller had heard someone messing around in his truck. He looked out the window, saw someone trying to steal his truck, and promptly blew the thief's head off with a 30.06. (It turned out to be a repo-man) He was no-billed by the Grand Jury, as he didn't break any laws.

Gotta love Texas.