San Antonio Man Kills Intruder Not Charged

Status
Not open for further replies.

beaucoup ammo

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
1,216
Location
San Antonio
'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting

Web Posted: 04/29/2008 11:14 PM CDT

Robert Crowe
Express-News
After his home was burglarized earlier this week, Thomas Thames decided to arm himself in case the intruder returned, police say.

The following night, he heard another noise at his home in the 5800 block of East Midcrown, so Thames, 39, walked downstairs. It was about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday when he once again saw a young man in his kitchen. The back door was open.

This time, Thames fired a gun at the man, who ran into the backyard, where Thames shot at him again, police said.

Ronnie Scarborough, 18, was pronounced dead at the scene.

San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.

Police said the man killed at Thames’ Northeast Side home Tuesday matched the description of a burglary suspect the resident said he chased from the home the night before.

Police said Tuesday that Thames likely won’t be charged with a crime because Texas law gives homeowners latitude in protecting their property and themselves.

“A property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,” Trevino said.

For many years, Texas law has permitted residents to use deadly force to protect themselves and their personal property. Last year, the Legislature broadened the law to include a “castle doctrine,” allowing a person to use deadly force in self-defense against an intruder without having to retreat into his home."
 
I wonder if he shot him with a 9mm...then we can end the debate once and for all.
 
San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.


Sounds like he listens to too many Internet Rumors :barf:

Lucky he didn't get charged for disturbing a crime scene.
 
Although he may have been justified shooting the intruder under Texas law, I'm sure he could be charged with a number of violations by moving the body.

Not a good idea.

Biker
 
"Remember the good old days when it was ok to burglarize anyone you wanted to?"
"No."
 
See in this case, I think bird shot is appropriate...even if the guy gets away, he's gonna be full of holes and very identifiable.
 
when i lived in san antonio, after a burglary, the responding officer recommended dragging the SOB back inside after shooting him to make sure he is dead. You people out of state will be disgusted by this and will say thats terrible advice... but thats how they do it in san antonio. its crime is just high enough where the leos don't care about the bg anymore. IMO if everyone who robs a house in san antonio receives proper treatment there will be no room in hospitals or prisons for people who deserve the space. my .02
 


glocker82 said:
See in this case, I think bird shot is appropriate...even if the guy gets away, he's gonna be full of holes and very identifiable.

Wrong, glocker. Either you use deadly force or you don't fire at all.

And 30 years ago I got the "drag him inside advice," but, even then, knew it was wrong.
 
I wonder if he shot him with a 9mm...then we can end the debate once and for all.

Nope, would have bounced off. I support the Castle Law fully, but I'm not sure I could shoot a guy running thru my back yard, even if he had been in my house.
 
Doesn't take CSI to see the blood trail from the yard to where the body lies in the house. Altering the scene after you kill someone is not a good idea.
I'm glad the reporter didn't call it the "shoot first" or "make my day law" or any other such nonsense.

Birdshot might be good if you know for certain they'll flee. If you suddenly realize the bad guy is going to turn violent it wouldn't be fun to ask him to hold on for a minute while you reload the shotgun with shells that'll actually penetrate deep enough to physically stop him instead of peppering him with the stuff for little birdies.
 
I wonder if he shot him with a 9mm...then we can end the debate once and for all.

Not sure about the 9mm debate.

My topic for debate would be:

If you were a criminal, would you really want to keep your occupation based in TX?

I know I would move from TX lickity-split...
 
/

San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.

Speaking only for myself, I could care less if the property owner pulled the man in or out of the house, or propped him on top of the chimney in a Santa suit.

I'm just happy the property owner was not hurt.:uhoh:
 
thats what i was thinking... what if the guy was still alive and the guy dragged him inside to try to render aid?
 
Now he can look forward to the civil suits that will probably bankrupt him.

In Texas, theoretically you have statutory protection from civil suits in the event of a justified shooting like this.
 
Justified in shooting a fleeing perpetrator? According to your fellow men on a jury, there may be such a thing. I don't know if that kind of "justification" really counts in front of the only judgment seat of any real importance.

When it comes to that seat, that 18-year old better have been armed and posing an active threat when the homeowner shot at him.

I always thought that being armed for self-defense was to neutralize an immediate threat to one's life, limb, or in extreme cases, property: not to shoot at a fleeing burglar to "clean up society," as some here seem to feel.

-Sans Authoritas
 
maybe he was running out to get his weapon that he left stashed in the bushes?
As a home owner you dont know what this guy is going to do and he is obviously an idiot if he burglarized the same house twice.
I say fire away. +1 for the good guys
 
Can't sue the homeowner under Texas Castle doctrine.

I'm sure a savvy lawyer can come up with a case. The guy was running away and was shot. The guy that shot him drug the body inside for some reason.
 
He should not have shot the second shot, outside. But then again, the outcome does not upset me too much. Whether he is sued depends upon how the castle doctrine law is written, and thus whether the shot was justified, which in turn will determine whether the tort liability protection with justifiable self-defense kicks in. Prior to castle doctrine, that's murder (shooting a fleeing suspect outside the home.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top