(TX) Man Who Shot Musician May Not Be Charged

[Browning]

Browning, if you listen to the audio from the link I have posted above, you will hear the woman say she saw the man and described the man as white, short hair, wearing a t-shirt. She most definitely put eyes on him. The husband also said he saw him through the window. Both said they yelled at him. I would not call it a half assessed identification. They both saw the man and identified him as trying to get in. What more do you want.

DNS, I was going by what was printed, the audio won't pull up for me so I have no way of listening to it. I had already seen it (the audio link), I'm just on a crappy computer at work since I'm on shift, so audio and some video is out. Besides, I was saying that they more than likely set eyes on him, why don't you relax a bit? If that's what really happened then what I thought turned out to be true (they saw him).

As for your comment that the homeowner had reason to be concerned and your article talking about recent increased crime, it really did not matter if crime was increasing or not. Their reason to be concerned was because some maniac was trying to kick in their back door at 4:00 AM in the morning and was unresponsive to verbal warnings and commands.

You're trying to find fault with me because you misunderstood what I said about the possibility that they set eyes on the guy, you didn't know that I couldn't listen to the audio and that I was going by what the article said all by itself using the short transcript provided (which is what I highlighted).

I'm pretty sure that you knew that I was saying that they might have heard about the recent robberies in the area IN ADDITION to the pounding and screaming drunk guy at the door who was trying to kick it in to get in their house. It was just a minor addition that might have made them a little more cautious because of the recent rise in local crime of this sort, nothing else.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sorry Browning. Since you failed to note that you could not get the audio, your post gave the impression that you were questioning the ability of the homeowners in identifying their attacker in referring to it as half-assed when it was not.

 

[Browning]

Double Naught Spy : Sorry Browning. Since you failed to note that you could not get the audio, your post gave the impression that you were questioning the ability of the homeowners in identifying their attacker in referring to it as half-assed when it was not.

That's fine, no problem.

I just didn't think to note that I couldn't get the audio to come up, I just figured that the short written transcript would do for what I had to say. I just meant that it was my belief that they looked out the door at some point before they shot, but that they weren't looking out the window at him at the time of the actual shot which was meant to scare him into retreating.

Since the husband wasn't looking at him directly at the time of the shot (but that they had looked out and confirmed who it was shortly before) that this at least equaled a partial indentification rather than the contention that he was shooting completely blind relying only on the sound of him kicking in the door and screaming.

That was what I meant by "it was kind of a half assed identification" because the husband wasn't looking directly at him at the actual time of the shot, but was going by his previous look through the window (that I was guessing that he took from the words written of the transcript) and the current banging on the door before he fired the warning shot. Sometimes you can tell alot by a quick look to see who's out there and then by the sound and seeing the door vibrate when someone's banging on it. At the very least you can kind of tell where they are in relation to the door and you can hear how angry they're getting over not being let in.

It was a miscommunication, no big deal.

 

[roo_ster]

I will not condemn the man for shooting through the door, especially after he got a peek at the drunk and considering the circumstances.

Cosmo made some good points, to which I will add my situation:

Our front door is situated such that a wall of brick is to the left of someone at the entrance. This effectively blocks shots from going into my daughter's room and the MBR. The only thing between my son's room and the front door is drywall, door, and maybe glass.

Were someone to pass through the doorway, their shots could go into all the house's interior with only drywall and the odd stud to impede a projectile.

So, were I defending against a hostile trying to break my door down at 0400, I would increase the risk to my wife and daughter by waiting until the hostile(s) came through the door. Also, my bullet's paths are now closer to my daughter's bedroom (given the most likely defensive positions).

I'm thinking that a shotgun & slugs might be appropriate.

 

[JohnBT]

"They both saw the man and identified him as trying to get in. What more do you want."

If the shooter had identified his target then how did he manage to hit him with a warning shot? A warning shot? Put it in the floor, not out the door. Obviously he knew there was a man out there, but he didn't know precisely where his target was. Therefore, to my way of thinking, he had not identified his target at the time he took the shot.

He might as well have been at the range shooting with his eyes closed and claiming "I knew there were targets out there somewhere, I saw them a minute ago."

John

P.S. - Actually, I think he knew where the guy was and was aiming at him. The claim about the warning shot came later.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay John, I am a little unclear as to how you aim at something you can't see, but certainly maybe then it was a hopeful shot?

It very well may have been a warning shot. Where do you place a warning shot so as to make an impression on the person outside your abode? You don't shoot through the ceiling or into the floor because he likely won't get the meaning of just the loud noise inside the home. So you shoot where his attention is focussed. In this case, it was out the door. You shoot high because that is the place the aggressor is least likely to be. Besides you know from all sorts of TV shows that warning shots are fired into the air. So "high" (on the door in this case) is the best place for the shot for the shot to be effective as a warning.

 

[Thumper]

So you shoot where his attention is focussed. In this case, it was out the door. You shoot high because that is the place the aggressor is least likely to be. Besides you know from all sorts of TV shows that warning shots are fired into the air. So "high" (on the door in this case) is the best place for the shot for the shot to be effective as a warning.

Hogwash.

Not to belabor the ridiculously obvious, but a warning shot isn't fired "at" an individual, regardless of what the distraught shooter said.

 

[Thumper]

In fact, let's consider it a moment:

Where do you figure the hole was in the door? I think the article said the guy was 6'5", right? He was head shot.

• How far back was he from the door?
• If he's pressing against it with his shoulder, do you think he was at his full height?
• If he's kicking it, how far away is he?
• If he's kicking it, what's the angle from his head to the shooter's shoulder?

Stuff to think about.

I'd love to see a pic of the door.

 

[ozwyn]

Warning shot onthe floor increases the chances of a bad ricochet if the floor is concrete.

It was a tough situation but I can't fault the homeowner for his decision.

I am not sure I can second guess that shoot and feel comfortable with any results given the 4am time of the event, the backdoor as point of attack, and repeated warnings. At that point the shoot, while not perfect, fits the reasonable man test.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Hogwash.

Not to belabor the ridiculously obvious, but a warning shot isn't fired "at" an individual, regardless of what the distraught shooter said.

Sure it is. The Coast Guard and Navy put shots across the bow of vessels fairly often. Those shots are "at" the target, but meant to be close to the target so as to prove intention, capability, and resolve. They are done in close proximity to the target so that the target does not misunderstand the message. This very well might have been what the homeowner was doing.

Thumper, you write like you have a rules source for making warning shots and that apparently you think the homeowner violated the rules of warning shots. Might you reveal your source to us and how it is that the shooter would have come to know these rules of warning shot engagement?

 

[Thumper]

A "rules source?" I do.

Rule 2-Never point your weapon at anything you don't mean to destroy.

I'm sure you might have seen the reference on occasion. Bullet went through the guy's head.

Good shoot. Claiming it was an accident was dumb on his part.

 

[Thumper]

Naval warning shots are to miss by 200 meters or more. Over the bow is Hollywood.

Though this doesn't apply in North Texas, I thought it was especially good: UN rules for Bosnian Warning Shots...make sure you read the bold print, it's neat.

Warning Shots: A warning shot is used in the challenging procedure (See paragraph 15). It is limited to single shots in the air (and not aimed shots above the target).

 

[JohnBT]

"Okay John, I am a little unclear as to how you aim at something you can't see, but certainly maybe then it was a hopeful shot?"

I don't know, but everybody says the shooter had seen his target, so I'd guess he had a real good idea how tall the guy was. He did hit him in the head with one shot, so I'm just having a little difficulty with the coincidence theory that the guy's head got in the way of the warning shot.

I'm not saying I'd like to see him charged, just curious about the facts.
______

"Warning shot onthe floor increases the chances of a bad ricochet if the floor is concrete."

You're right, the ricochet might have gone through the door and hit the guy. Seriously, it's the shooter's responsibility to know what he's shooting at - floor, ceiling, door, etc. - and what's below/above/behind it.

 

[MechAg94]

I thought movie naval term for an intentional near miss was a "shot off his bow" not over it. I am trying to remember if they said across or off. Off comes to mind for some reason. Oh well.

 

[MechAg94]

The question is how much the shot was deflected by the door. He may have aimed high but not enough and had the bullet deflected down by the door.

I am sure the police could look at the hole in the door and figure that out. Hard to say without the physical evidence.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I thought movie naval term for an intentional near miss was a "shot off his bow" not over it. I am trying to remember if they said across or off. Off comes to mind for some reason. Oh well.

As I understand it, it depends on the location of the shooter relative to the vessel being "notified" and the type of weapon being used. If both are boats, broadside, and cannon are being used, it is a shot over the bow. It was placed over the bow to show the opposition that they were within range of the cannon. If the cannon fire failed to cross the bow, it gave the impression of being out of range.

If a flat trajectory weapon and/or if the shooter is trailing, then it may be a shot off the bow, ideally off to the side and forward of the bow.

Either way, the warning shots are "at" the opposition, reasonably close, but not supposed to hit.

 

[joab]

I thought movie naval term for an intentional near miss was a "shot off his bow" not over it. I am trying to remember if they said across or off. Off comes to mind for some reason. Oh well.

Proper terminology is
"A shot across the bow"

It was originally the naval equivalent of throwing down the gauntlet
Now days it simply means a warning shot

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Naval warning shots are to miss by 200 meters or more. Over the bow is Hollywood.

Thumper, I don't believe you have ever seen any Coast Guard drug interdiction videos of stopping boats out in the Gulf of Mexico. The shots don't miss by 200 yards or more. Look at the first sets of warning shots here that stitch alongside and then in front of the fleeing boat twice.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...14&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Here are examples from Afghanistan for land based warning shots at about 2:50, 3:14, 4:10.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...14&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

As for the UN rules for warning shots, why do you expect the guy would have read them? Good reference, but he would not have seen it. For that matter, he may not have seen these vids I have posted here, although such imagery appears on the news on a regular basis.

So my point is, contrary to yours, that there is definite precedent for firing warning shots "at" the opposition. It ain't just Hollywood.

 

[Thumper]

DNS,

My understanding is that you don't think the homeowner should be charged, right?

At the same time, you're trying to make the point that he accidentaly shot the guy. That's against the rules. Same as if he fired a warning shot and killed a neighbor. That's my first point.

My second is that I don't buy that it was a warning shot. I don't have to explain to you the dynamics involved (post shooting) that would make him say such a thing. You already know them.

Think about what you're trying to argue:The guy shot at a door that he knew a very tall guy was standing behind as a warning shot?

Come on...

 

[Deavis]

You aren't REALLY "in deadly danger" until that door is breached

Really? Tell that to the guy who is dead right now. I bet he will be comforted to know that he wasn't in danger of dying. I find it ironic that some people will wait for the door to pop before shooting, what makes you think they will pop the door before they start shooting in?

Rule IV wasn't violated, his target was the guy behind the door and he did a great job hitting it. The rules are for the range, they just happen to be useful in most situations.

 

[Thumper]

Rule IV wasn't violated, his target was the guy behind the door and he did a great job hitting it. The rules are for the range, they just happen to be useful in most situations.

That's my point, Deavis. DNS' contention is that the homeowner wasn't trying to hit the guy.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

That's my point, Deavis. DNS' contention is that the homeowner wasn't trying to hit the guy.

Not my contention, the homeowner's.

Rule IV wasn't violated, his target was the guy behind the door and he did a great job hitting it. The rules are for the range, they just happen to be useful in most situations.

No, rules are not just for the range. The homeowner's demonstration of his willingness to use lethal force against the Bohemian was just that, proof that he was willing to use it. He may not have wished for the shot to impact the guy at the time, but that is how his demo turned out.

Think about what you're trying to argue:The guy shot at a door that he knew a very tall guy was standing behind as a warning shot?

Come on...

Since the homeowner could not see the guy behind the door when he fired high on the door, then I really don't think the homeowner was trying to shoot the Bohemian. If he was trying to shoot the Bohemian, he would have aimed where he most expected the Bohemian to be, somewhere more central (lower) on the door.

You can't possibly be trying to argue that the homeowner was actually trying to make a head shot on a person he would not see at the time, are you?

 

[Thumper]

I'm saying he shot a door he knew someone to be standing behind. We both know that there's no room for error there.

We both know (as any reasonable person would) that it would be negligent to fire at a door if you don't mean to hit the person standing behind it.

Good shoot. He shouldn't have claimed it was an accident because he then assumes criminal liability.

You are reduced to arguing silliness. You know that, too. I admire your tenacity, but you're making no sense.

Emails to me indicated you have a history of this kind of thing, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, this has become a waste of time.

I'm out.

 

[JohnKSa]

Based on a recent re-read of the newly passed TX Castle Doctrine Law, even his comments after the shooting probably don't matter.

 

[btucker1947]

My choice would have been, the first weapon I got my hands on; which wouldv'e been a 1911, 45. I would be waiting for my wife to get the Winchester 12 Defender.
Then I would take down my own door and settle it that way.
It just goes to show that if you want to act a fool here in Texas, it may be your last. We have had enough of car jackings, our houses broken into by kicking in the doors, and innocent people murdered, raped or robbed in thier own homes. We just had enough, and that's why we all banned together and got the lawmakers to change things so we can defend our homes and property legally.

Texan and proud of it!