Houston Neighbor Intervenes In Home Invasion

[Berger.Fan222]

The point that I was trying to make (unsuccessfully, it seems) is that intervening in a third-party dispute (altercation, assault, whatever you want to call it) goes beyond the scope of pure self-defense. That is, your life is not directly threatened. The stated justification for carrying weapons -- by civilians -- is self defense, not the defense of others or general policing. What "self defense" is, is defined by state law. Some states apparently broaden the parameters of "self defense," beyond pure self defense, to include situations like the one in the OP. OK. But we have to be careful not to jump into the middle of situations where we may not know all the facts. That's all I'm saying.

That may be all you are saying now, but you've said a lot more earlier in the discussion.

And my personal motive for being armed has never really been "self" defense. I'm a young, healthy, strong guy. My stated justification for being armed has always been more the defense of my family and others under my care than concern for my personal well-being.

I agree that armed citizens should be careful not to jump into situations where the pertinent facts are unknown, but you've said a lot of stupid things, and now you are trying to walk it back to a more defensible position.

 

[flphotog]

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

Same in FL. But it is best to be sure you understand what you are getting into and who the aggressors are, at times it's hard to know.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm well aware of that. I don't at all see how that has anything to do with intervening as a third party in a hypothetical scenario.

The point is that there are people who consider your defending yourself just as "evil" as defending somebody else, and in fact MORE "evil" than the attempt to murder you or your family. NOTHING besides absolute, craven submission will satisfy them.

 

[Deanimator]

Yes your right, but depending on the situation in which you intervened, and the details discovered afterwards along with the jury/media/etc., it could very well be a big gamble with your fate.

EVERYTHING you do depends upon the situation.

For example, I have no idea what would happen if one drug dealer happened to be hacking up another drug dealer in public and you shot the one doing the hacking, having no knowledge of the details of the situation. But I certainly wouldn't want to be in that position.

I'm pretty confident that if I shoot a guy hacking an eighty year old woman to death with a machete while screaming "Allahu akhbar!", I'll be in the clear... at least if I stay out of Raqqa.

If you feel comfortable acting as a vigilante more power to you.

 

[AlexanderA]

AlexandrerA: 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.
If the home invader is turning with a gun in his hand, how is he "fleeing"? He's a threat. AlexanderA using the phrase "rhetorical bait" ... are you at all self-aware? Stop before you shoot yourself in the foot again.

That particular quote was misattributed to me. I didn't write that.

 

[alsaqr]

Yep, ensure that you understand any situation prior to using deadly force: That's a given. That's how i was trained. Most states have laws that allow armed folks to assist others. If you' don't understand the situation or decline to assist, just don't do it. No one cares what you do.

i'm an old healthy guy who will turn and walk away from trouble in a heartbeat.

BTW: 52 years ago ago i survived two home invasions within a short time period. The first time two scumbags with long rap sheets followed my wife home from work: They kicked in the front door. My wife shot one between the eyes with my registered S&W .357. i badly wounded the second guy, who died in prison many years later. The first policeman on the scene was the wife's bowling partner and state trooper who said: " ......... you did a trick on this sob!!!!."

Was not indicted in either case and our guns were returned by the police. In that state today prosecutors go after similar cases with a vengeance.

 

[alsaqr]

For folks who don't understand the term "vigilante".

vig·i·lan·te
[ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē]
NOUN
vigilantes (plural noun)

1. a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=vigil...s=n&sk=&cvid=c47f192241de4c3fb766daba20ac69e1

 

[steve4102]

The point that I was trying to make (unsuccessfully, it seems) is that intervening in a third-party dispute (altercation, assault, whatever you want to call it) goes beyond the scope of pure self-defense. That is, your life is not directly threatened. The stated justification for carrying weapons -- by civilians -- is self defense, not the defense of others or general policing. Whats "self defense" i, is defined by state law. Some states apparently broaden the parameters of "self defense," beyond pure self defense, to include situations like the one in the OP. OK. But we have to be careful not to jump into the middle of situations where we may not know all the facts. That's all I'm saying.

I think you are tying yourself and others in knots with the term "Self Defense".

This is not about self defense so the definition under Texas law is irrelevant for part (A), his intervention. What you should be focusing on is the definition of "The use of deadly force" and when it is justified, not self defense.

Was he justified in the "use of deadly force" under Texas law for shooting the BG in the leg?

As to him chasing the BG, what does Texas law say?

Is it a crime to chase someone that has just committed a felony, whether the chaser is armed or not?

Is it justified "use of deadly force" in Texas to shoot at a BG that is pointing a firearm at you? Does that justification go away if the BG is fleeing and being chased? Does that justification go away if the BG also feared for his life as he was being chased by a man with a gun? Even though the BG was in the process of committing felonies?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Was he justified in the "use of deadly force" under Texas law for shooting the BG in the leg?

I know you are asking rhetorical questions to direct the discussion onto the correct path, so I'm not directly answering you, but merely providing the place for the proper answer to be determined:

Applicable section of the Texas Penal Code

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.


Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Getting to the point of there being more heat than light. We'll end this here.