XD-45 made my money back

[bigcim]

I caught a peeping tom out side my bathroom window in the alley while my wife was showering. The window was high enough so he couldn't look in. She told me she heard a noise outside so looked outside and seen the top of a hat under the window, I ran around the house with my xd hopped the wall and caught him with his pants down on his way up the alley in a hurry. I yelled at him he turned around and seen what was pointing at him and stopped dead in his tracks. My wife called the cops. the neighbor heard the noise of me yelling and came out and beat the guy till the cops showed up. The xd was put away by the time they showed up which was about 15 min later. They said they couldn't arrest him because he was in public property .For the pants being down he told the police that he was peeing and the officer told me that it wasn't illegal in LA county. The officer wanted to see my xd to check if it was registered; he liked the gun a lot and said he wanted one. the perp was taken to get fingerprinted i guess but wont be around any more.This happened on saturday 8/12

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

LA? As in Los Angeles?

You went onto public property and pointed a handgun at somebody who was in retreat and all the cop said was that he liked your handgun?

 

[ugaarguy]

For the pants being down he told the police that he was peeing

He probably was peeing; I think the sight of you behind that big bore scared the pi$$ out of him.

All joking aside I'm glad that he couldn't see your wife thru the window, that you and the neighbor detained him, and that the cops didn't give you too much trouble. I think there was probable cause to arrest him for tom peeping, but thats out of my hands. I think, and hope, that the threat of being shot, plus the new found knowledge that neighbors look out for one another, that he'll at least stay out of your neighborhood. Hopefully whatever neighborhood he prowls next will meet him with a similar response and he'll realize that its not worth it. Glad to hear the cop was cool with you too, and wanted an XD of his own.

 

[10-Ring]

Sounds like a little more street justice was in order prior to your call to the PD Good to hear that everything worked out

 

[NineseveN]

I hate to be the first jerk in a thread, but, IMHO, what you did was fatally foolish.

You took the word of someone else as to who or what was out there. Did your wife look for a gun or a weapon, or did she just see a hat? Now, this wouldn’t be so bad, except that you apparently ran outside without thinking to confront a strange person that you did not know whether or not they were armed. What if they were? Are you bulletproof? Best to stay out of gunfights if you want to survive them. How did you know it was not a cop investigating a prowler complaint or looking for a fleeing felon in your bushes? What do you think an LEO would do if they saw you come flying into the yard with a gun in hand? That's a bad situation to put yourself in without giving it a lot of thought.

Second, not only did you endanger yourself by running out to confront an unknown person on your property without sufficient information, you ran out with a handgun. Handguns are compromises, you use them when you have to (i.e. concealment), never, ever enter a possible armed conflict by first making the choice to take a handgun. A rifle or shotgun is always the better option if you can use it and if you have it. If you don't have one or the other, get one, now.

Then, you pointed a gun at a fleeing person that had not confronted you with deadly force, nor were they committing a felony. Peeping tomming isn’t a felony in your area, is it? Trespassing? There is no state that I know of where peeing on someone's property a felony either. Had the man reacted differently and came at you, and you shot him, off of your property, when he was no longer an immediate threat to you or your family and was in the process of fleeing after having committed no felonious activity, you just might be behind bars right now (or at the very least, looking at a nasty legal bill)...or worse, he could have had a gun and been a better shot than you. When he tells the cops he was peeing, and then a stark raving mad guy with a gun chased him through the alley and that he tried to run but wasn't going to outrun your bullets so he had to draw and fire, he might very well get away with no charges, or at least no felony.

I hate to second guess anyone protecting their own home, but unless I knew for sure a felony was being committed by the person in question or that someone was in immediate danger, I'd have called 911 and hunkered down with the 12guage and a rifle with my household members in the safest room in my home. Had the person broken into a window or door and made himself a threat...that's when the guns would have been in play.

I applaud your enthusiasm to protect your family, but I do have serious issues with your judgement.

 

[NineseveN]

Sounds like a little more street justice was in order prior to your call to the PD Good to hear that everything worked out

Are you seriously advocating what it appears that you are? Sounds like assault to me.

 

[bigcim]

NineseveN I under stand your concern. It went threw my head I had went shooting a cay before shot gun was disassembled after cleaning the 45 was all that I had loaded. I Knew it wasn't a police officer because i seen the top of the guy. He was wearing a big blue Gilligan hat and when I first confronted him I was behind a 5 1/2 ft cinder block wall until I was sure that he wasn't armed I was still standing on my property. I'm glad I didn't have to chase him. Again his pants were down and when I knew he wasn't a threat I put the gun away. theres nothing between my house and the alley if i stuck my hand out the bathroom window and dropped something it would be in the alley. Three months ago my neighbors house was broken into. A tenant in the front house on my property seen a man looking in her window two separate times a little over a year ago. So you see my concern. Yes Los Angeles. by Dodger Stadium. I didnt touch him. I have a seven year old little girl and a 9 month old little boy god forbid if I did have to get in a gun fight I would want to be away from them. As long as they werent in danger of course.

 

[NineseveN]

Okay, thanks for clarifying that, it helps. Glad you and your family are safe in any event.

 

[Frog48]

Regardless what others say, I think you did the honorable thing. That scumbag deserves to be registered as a sex offender.

 

[bigcim]

the officer told his boss that showed up a little later that I drew a registered firearm until I assess the threat of the situation. I thought it sounded cool. glad to see your enioying your 1911 NineseveN

 

[SnakeEater]

the officer told his boss that showed up a little later that I drew a registered firearm until I assess the threat of the situation. I thought it sounded cool.

Well, to someone living in a somewhat free state, that comment makes me wanna puke. It is a mans right to protect his family, registered or not.

 

[Slvr Surfr]

Im with Grant on this one. The man was protecting his home. Shame on anyone who rags on a person for attempting to do so. Its sad to me that some people dont understand that this is the kind of deligence required to keep the bad guys honest. I would have done the same thing. The POLICE CAN NOT BE EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME. Its up to you the regular citizen to be the first line of DEFENSE. Its a good thing that I live in TEXAS where law abiding citizens are still allowed to protect themselves. Whether or not that asshat had retreated to a "public alley" still doesnt remedy the fact that he had just been in my backyard looking at my naked wife in the shower at night. Peeing my ass. I would wager a large bet to see if there was at least urine anywhere near that window. Its a well known fact that sexual predators start out as peeping toms. They gradually escalate to higher forms of sexual deviance.

Kudos to you BIGCIM. Im glad it all worked out, and you and yours are here safe.

Flame suit on!

 

[NineseveN]

Im with Grant on this one. The man was protecting his home.

Protecting it from what? An unarmed, non-confrontational, fleeing person? If he would have shot, he would have been wrong unless peeping in someone’s window is a felony in his jurisdiction.

Shame on anyone who rags on a person for attempting to do so.

I didn’t rag on him for his moral decision, but what he did was tactically foolish, questionable as to its legality and takes a very dangerous risk had he actually used his firearm. You cannot legally fire at a fleeing person that poses no immediate threat to anyone who has not committed or is engaging in a felony in any jurisdiction I know of. But maybe I’m wrong…show me.

Its sad to me that some people dont understand that this is the kind of deligence required to keep the bad guys honest.

It’s sad to me that so many want to advocate rushing out and confronting someone who poses no direct threat to them. That’s a good way to get yourself arrested or killed and it’s unnecessary.

I would have done the same thing. The POLICE CAN NOT BE EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME.

At the time that he confronted the perp, how was he a threat that legally justified self-defense via employing deadly force?

Its up to you the regular citizen to be the first line of DEFENSE.

When the adversary is fleeing, you become offense, not defense.

Its a good thing that I live in TEXAS where law abiding citizens are still allowed to protect themselves. Whether or not that asshat had retreated to a "public alley" still doesnt remedy the fact that he had just been in my backyard looking at my naked wife in the shower at night.

That does not justify deadly force, not legally, and it’s questionable morally depending on who you are. Looking into a window does not make the person a deadly threat. It sounds like vengeance and bloodlust, not self-defense. There are better ways to handle this kind of thing that don’t take such unnecessary legal and lethal risks.

Peeing my ass. I would wager a large bet to see if there was at least urine anywhere near that window. Its a well known fact that sexual predators start out as peeping toms. They gradually escalate to higher forms of sexual deviance.

So we skip the process and execute peeping toms? The fact that the peeper was wrong does not justify deadly force…nor does it make it smart to run out to confront someone with a firearm in a potentially lethal confrontation. I see a lot of this kind of macho stuff on the net, most folks that advocate this kind of action don’t know what the other end of a gun barrel looks like when it’s pointed at them in anger. Most of us that do don’t salivate over rushing off to confront someone when they pose no direct lethal threat to us or anyone else even when their conduct is despicable and illegal but not felonious. But hey, I believe it to be everyone’s right to act foolish on their own time and their won dime. Bigcim’s clarification made things a little better, but if he hasn’t learned anything from his mistakes in the encounter, then that’s a shame.

 

[Slvr Surfr]

Nine,

Ask yourself one question. Why did that man, pick that window to "pee" in front of ?

I can tell you that I believe he was most likely up to Nothing good. He was standing in front of a window of a bathroom, of a PRIVATE residence that just happened to be occupied by a naked women taking a shower. That to me is extremely suspicious. I think it is reasnable to believe that this person standing on the outside with his pants around his ankles, is there for more than just peeing.
Is peeping into a window a crime ? Yes. Is urinating in public a crime, yes at least in Texas. The first two examples are Class C Misdemeanors in Texas. Is it illegal for someone to be on your property without your permission ? Hell yes. Its called Criminal Trespass which happens to be a Class B Misdemeanor . That is a jailable Offense. The person is violating the sanctity of another persons home.
Is a homeowner justified in confronting someone on their property committing an illegal act ? I believe so. Is it possible that the guy on the outside is a lookout for another suspect who may also be in the process of committing a crime ? I believe its very possible.
Did BC use the safest most tactical way of confronting the guy? Maybe not. BC believed that the man was in the process of committing a crime. He was right and justified in detaining the man for the police. Im not going to argue over whether or not what he did was the smartest way of doing it. He believed he needed the protection of his weapon. He used the threat of deadly force to detain a person he believed had just commited a crime.

What was the alternative?

Allow the guy/s to getaway without any consequences? At least now the peeper has been identified and may be related to other offenses that have been committed in the area. I agree that BC pointed his weapon at another human being. This is considered Agg. Assault in Texas. Was he justified in doing so for the sole purpose of detaining the person? This being the person he just saw exiting his property after peeping into his bathroom window at night ? I believe so. I assume the only reason that BC is not typing this from prison is because the officer agreed on scene.

Criminals get away with committing crime because good people do nothing to stop it. I think today BC stopped a sick individual that most likely will never come back again due the the consequences which may occur if he does.

SS

 

[NineseveN]

Nine,

Ask yourself one question. Why did that man, pick that window to "pee" in front of ?

I can tell you that I believe he was most likely up to Nothing good. He was standing in front of a window of a bathroom, of a PRIVATE residence that just happened to be occupied by a naked women taking a shower. That to me is extremely suspicious. I think it is reasnable to believe that this person standing on the outside with his pants around his ankles, is there for more than just peeing.

I don’t know, and neither does anyone but him. It doesn’t matter, even if he were up to no good, by the time Bigcim confronted him, he was no longer engaging in an illegal act against Bigcim, he was fleeing. I’m well aware that the person in question was likely a sick puppy that needs to be put down, but I’m also aware of what the law says (for the most part) on whom you can and cannot shoot. Advocating, on a public board, to shoot a fleeing person when it is clearly not legal in the majority of cases is dangerous. Advocating that one put themselves at risk by running out to confront an intruder without first thinking about it, especially with a handgun instead of a long gun, when you do not know whether or not the person in question is armed is stupid. I don’t know about where you guys are, but where I am, the criminals have guns too, and contrary to popular Internet rumor, they can hit you from 25 feet as easily of most of us here can hit them.

So he needed to be punished, he needed to be taught a lesson, okay, I agree. But tell that to the surviving family of the guy that made an honest mistake in trying to protect his family and ran outside to confront a non-violent intruder that posed no direct threat who happened to have a gun too and gave Mr. Homeowner a gunshot wound.

Is peeping into a window a crime ? Yes. Is urinating in public a crime, yes at least in Texas. The first two examples are Class C Misdemeanors in Texas. Is it illegal for someone to be on your property without your permission ? Hell yes. Its called Criminal Trespass which happens to be a Class B Misdemeanor . That is a jailable Offense. The person is violating the sanctity of another persons home.

Is a homeowner justified in confronting someone on their property committing an illegal act ? I believe so. Is it possible that the guy on the outside is a lookout for another suspect who may also be in the process of committing a crime ? I believe its very possible.

Look up the law in Texas and show where you can shoot someone for committing a misdemeanor when they pose no threat to you or your property. I believe, with the exception of trespassing at night under certain circumstances, you cannot use deadly force against the perpetrator of a misdemeanor, the conduct must arise to felonious level or pose a serious and imminent threat of grave bodily hard to either yourself or another (in states that allow defense of others). In CA, where this event took place, I am quite sure that this is also not the case, one cannot use deadly force to stop a misdemeanor in action. If you want to argue this, post the relevant statutes for Texas first, I am willing to bet you’ll be surprised.

Did BC use the safest most tactical way of confronting the guy? Maybe not. BC believed that the man was in the process of committing a crime. He was right and justified in detaining the man for the police. Im not going to argue over whether or not what he did was the smartest way of doing it. He believed he needed the protection of his weapon. He used the threat of deadly force to detain a person he believed had just commited a crime.

What Bigcim did is probably exactly what I would have done a few years back, so don’t think I’m knocking him, he did something, and his heart and intentions were in the right place, and it worked out well in the end. But, because I do care what happens to folks in the shooting community, I am most definitely going to discuss what he did wrong and could do better next time because part of the reason this worked out okay is because he got lucky. An armed perp or a different LEO might have changed this from a good story to a tragedy befalling one of our own. I’m not gonna pat him on the back just so I don’t bruise his ego, Bigcim’s an adult, we all are and we need to man up and learn from our mistakes, otherwise the other finches get the nod.

He was right and justified in detaining the man, I agree, he just did not approach the situation in the best way that he could have and put himself in unnecessary danger in doing so. However, especially in place such as CA, detaining someone at gun point that has only committed a misdemeanor can backfire on you. Not saying whether or not someone should do it, only that they should be very aware as to what they’re getting into by doing so.

What was the alternative?

Stop for a moment and think about the situation. Load a rifle, make sure you have the best line to the intruder before you go running outside with a handgun and really decide if risking your life right at that moment is worth it.

Allow the guy/s to getaway without any consequences? At least now the peeper has been identified and may be related to other offenses that have been committed in the area. I agree that BC pointed his weapon at another human being. This is considered Agg. Assault in Texas. Was he justified in doing so for the sole purpose of detaining the person? This being the person he just saw exiting his property after peeping into his bathroom window at night ? I believe so. I assume the only reason that BC is not typing this from prison is because the officer agreed on scene.

BC was fortunate, and I’m glad. I like Bigcim, I like most every shooter. You’re making the case that he was morally justified in doing what he did, there’s no argument, you protect your own, I agree. The issue is whether or not it was the best idea legally from a standpoint of using deadly force and detaining someone at gunpoint for committing a misdemeanor or tactically by rushing out without preparing and taking only a handgun.

Criminals get away with committing crime because good people do nothing to stop it. I think today BC stopped a sick individual that most likely will never come back again due the the consequences which may occur if he does.

If he truly has a sexual perversion issue, the drive to commit such acts will outweigh the fear of being shot. Folks with metal issues do not abide by our realities; they are wholly capable of ignoring all kinds of things just in order to go about their daily business. It worked out for Bigcim, and he desrves a beer and a pat on the back, but he should also be thinking about what he did that was not optimal and how he can do it better if there ever is a next time...so should everyone reading this thread.

 

[JaxNovice]

Here is the $64,000 question: Was there urine on the ground or not?

I am not going to disclose much about my profession, but I am stunned you are not in jail right now. I applaud your desire to defend your family, but in this situation you were in no legal position to produce a firearm and chase someone. I live in Florida (which has very liberal home defense laws) and if I pulled this stunt the JSO would haul my ass to jail!

 

[HMMurdock]

Investigating such a scene outside of your home --while armed-- is not illegal. Unless you make a threatening gesture or shove it in his face, you have every right to protect your home and I suggest being armed while you do it. I'd have done nothing else. I dont run into my "Panic Room" and lockdown the fort at the first sign of trouble, I try to eliminate the threat before it begins. For all you know that guy was there to abduct your child. You did the right thing to investigate and in doing so you were right to be armed. You aren't bulletproof, so you shouldn't be defenseless. And just because he wasn't waving around a Tec-9 doesn't mean he wasn't armed. You don't know. Again, you were right to investigate. Just make sure you don't shove a gun in someones face that may turn out to be some lost guy with a mental illness or something... god forbid there IS a next time...

If anyone "pees" on or near my property, they're going to wish they had used the public RR at the 7-11 because the next puddle he makes is going to have a strong reddish tint to it.

I'm glad you're safe and you did the right thing. But, yes, caution is necessary in this "PC-friendly" world we live in

More power to you. If I were the cop I, too, would have complimented your willingless to defend your family and your choice firearm and let you on your way. But I do know plenty of guys who would have happily throw some BS charge against you and confiscated your XD. With my luck thats what would have happened to me.

Nice piece, by the way.

TRL

 

[jashobeam]

Most of the responses so far have a very un-THR-like flavor.

I'm shocked that a greater number of senior members haven't posted. For if they had they would certainly echo NineSeven's point of view. How is it that the neighbor who beat the peeping tom until the cops arrived isn't facing assault charges?

I caught a peeping tom out side my bathroom window in the alley while my wife was showering.

I'm not sure what type of "property" you guys are envisioning, but when I hear that this peeper was in an alleyway behind the house I don't picture an acre lot in a rural setting. Did this happen in an apartment? Is the alley part of your property, or does your property terminate at the alley?

To me it doesn't sound like he was even on your property, but in a common area that abuts your building. I understand that he was possibly attempting to peep in on your showering wife, but like NineSeven I question the legality of confronting someone outside your house (and quite possibly off of your property) while openly displaying a weapon--IN CALIFORNIA!!

I have learned quite a bit here on THR, and I am extremely surprised that more members have not expressed a frowning opinion of your actions and those of your neighbor.

While most of us would very much enjoy scaring and/or beating a peeper peeping on a loved one, THR is a forum where tactics and legalities are discussed, critiqued, and criticized--for our benefit!

 

[bigcim]

there was no urine and I would hate to have confronted the perp and i only have a pocket knife i can her my dad now "leave it to a wap to take a knife to a gun fight." the gun was put away when I knew there wasn't a threat. his bike was two house up he passed my house probably heard my wifes voice in the shower and came back. Why in the world would you walk over 75 ft away from your bike to pee under a bathroom window. Again its happened before to my neighbors

 

[Slvr Surfr]

Nineseven,

I think we agree on the majority about how Bigcim was justified in protecting his home. I also agree that how he did it was not the "smartest way" either. He did what he thought he needed to do. I dont have a script for this scenario. I dont think you can be prepared for every single instance. My dad always taught me to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
In Texas he would not be charged with anything. I cant speak for Cali. Cali is another planet as far as the legal process goes.

Here is the Texas Penal Code if your interested.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.04.00

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[NineseveN]

If anyone "pees" on or near my property, they're going to wish they had used the public RR at the 7-11 because the next puddle he makes is going to have a strong reddish tint to it.

That's called homicide...we don't execute people for urinating on the property of others in this country.

 

[NineseveN]

Nineseven,

I think we agree on the majority about how Bigcim was justified in protecting his home. I also agree that how he did it was not the "smartest way" either. He did what he thought he needed to do. I dont have a script for this scenario. I dont think you can be prepared for every single instance. My dad always taught me to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

I agree, I think where we’re failing to meet is where I suggest we do criticize what was done wrong in order to do better next time. I’m not saying what he should have done per se, so much as, these are the lessons to be learned so that we’ll all know to do better next time.

In Texas he would not be charged with anything. I cant speak for Cali. Cali is another planet as far as the legal process goes.

Here is the Texas Penal Code if your interested.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...00.htm#9.04.00

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Does urinating on property fall under “criminal mischief”? The person is not fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property…nor is he a lethal threat, nor is the person in the act of committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery or theft during the nighttime. I’m curious here…maybe I am missing something?

 

[Q-Lock]

I yelled at him he turned around and seen what was pointing at him and stopped dead in his tracks.

the gun was put away when I knew there wasn't a threat.

I'm with everyone else in that you were fully justified in protecting your home. Like others have stated though; you drew your weapon and pointed it at the FLEEING peeping tom before you established whether or not deadly force was needed. Yes, you put your firearm down once you realized that it was not necessary, but you'd already done the damage (legally)...you drew your weapon and pointed it at a fleeing target.

Remember the 4 rules? We're not supposed to point a firearm at anything we aren't fully intent on shooting.

I believe that is the main problem with how you handled the situation. We all know it's easier to dissect the problem after it's over and done with...20/20 hindsight. All that matters now is that you and your family are safe and hopefully you've/we've learned something from this.


edit: bad spelling

Regards,

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. This is more of a "legal political" thread rather than autoloaders at this point.

Best.