Oh oh; "questionable" shooting in Pasadena, TX....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Too bad he's not in Texas because we all know at THR that he would be facing no legal consequences for doing this in Texas.

Good thing Problem #2 is only the creation of El Tejon who wants to ruin everyone's fun and says inane things like "owning a gun does not make you Batman".
 
for those with slow connections--

Here's the text of the article linked above:

By RUTH RENDON and PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

In a case legal experts say may "stretch the limits" of the state's self-defense laws, a Pasadena man shot and killed two suspected burglars during a confrontation as they attempted to flee his neighbor's property Wednesday afternoon.

In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.

"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'

"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."

After the shotgun blasts, the telephone line went dead. But the neighbor called police again and told a dispatcher what he had done.

When police arrived moments later, they found two dead men in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive. One was across the street, and the other had collapsed two houses down behind a bank of mailboxes in the Village Grove East subdivision.


Up to the grand jury

Police said the neighbor, whose name was withheld Wednesday, appeared calm as he retraced his steps for police.

"He was well composed and knew what he was doing," Mitchell said. "He was protecting the neighbor's property."

It will be up to a Harris County grand jury to decide if the man committed a crime by opening fire, police said.

Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor.

If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in his favor, LaFon said.

"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.

The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection.

The neighbor, however, would have been on much safer legal ground if he had been trying to protect his own property, LaFon said.


Failed to stop
Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said the neighbor told investigators that he knew the next-door residents were not home. The man told investigators that he encountered the pair when they exited his neighbor's through a gate leading to the front yard.

Corbett said the neighbor asked the men, one of which was carrying a white bag, to stop, but they did not.

When police arrived the shooter was sitting on the ground and appeared to be very upset, Corbett said. "There was some discussion about calling an ambulance for him," Corbett said.

As of noon Thursday, no charges had been filed, Corbett said.

The shooter was very cooperative with police and lead officers though a run-through of what happened at the scene and later made a statement at the police station.

The white bag one the dead men had been carrying contained a large amount of cash that had apparently been taken from the house, Corbett said.

Two windows in the back of the house had been broken, one possibly as an entrance and the other as an exit, Corbett said. One was a regular window, but the other was translucent glass blocks. It was the sound of breaking glass that alerted the shooter, Corbett said.

Police have not found the families of the dead men, who both are in their 30's. One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had paper indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, he said.

Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with blasts from a 12-guage shotgun.

The neighbor fired twice. One shot struck one of the suspected burglars in the chest, and the other was struck on the side.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

But the person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.

A state senator who authored a law passed this year giving Texans stronger rights to defend themselves with deadly force said he did not believe the legislation he spearheaded would apply to the Pasadena case, based on the sketchy facts that have emerged so far.

Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, said the so-called castle doctrine law he wrote doesn't apply to people protecting their neighbors' property.

The measure "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Wentworth said. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."


A quiet neighborhood
On Wednesday afternoon, other residents were stunned to exit their homes to find police cars and yellow crime scene tape

Lacey Hernandez, who lives one block from the shooting, was home when she heard two loud pops, but couldn't identify the noise. A short time later, she was leaving to pick up her children from school when she noticed the police cars.

"I was in shock because I never heard a gunshot before," Hernandez said.

She described her neighborhood as very quiet. The subdivision is lined with two-story brick homes with trees in the front yards.

"We leave our garage door open," she said. "We let the kids run the streets just like nothing. Now they will not be playing in the streets."


No editing has been done, save for adding text enhancements to replicate the published formatting.

Jim H.
 
Interesting, I'm curious to see how this one ends up. To be fair El T, while I don't normally jump on the "this wouldn't happen in Texas" bandwagon, it would appear that he has a better chance of getting away with what he did here than in many other states.

If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in his favor, LaFon said.

I would like to take this moment on a public forum to let everyone know that my neighbors have my permission to "watch over" my property.
 
Good on the old codger! If more people stood up and refused to allow criminals to have their way with us we would have fewer criminals if only through atrition.
 
while I don't normally jump on the "this wouldn't happen in Texas" bandwagon, it would appear that he has a better chance of getting away with what he did here than in many other states.

Except the Harris County DA is the same guy that said he was going to ignore state law regarding carrying handguns in cars without a permit.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out, it's on the ragged edge of "maybe legal" that's for sure....
 
Listen to the 911 tape.

"They got a bag o' loot. This ain't right, buddy. I'm gonna kill 'em!"


That right there will hang this guy. As much as I like to agree with what he did, I think that he's seriously screwed.
 
Except the Harris County DA is the same guy that said he was going to ignore state law regarding carrying handguns in cars without a permit.

If I were the old guy shooter involved, I'd still rather take my chances with the Harris County DA and the Texas laws on the books than be sitting in any state that says you can't use deadly force to protect property.

Here he is certainly "on the ragged edge of 'maybe legal' ". Most other states he would be well over the edge and tumbling down the mountain.
 
Good guys stayed alive, criminals died being criminals. I hope there are twelve good people left in Texas to give the right verdict in this case. Note I didn't say the correct verdict, I said the right one.
 
Personally, I wish I had that guy as my neighbor. I hope it works out for him. Talk about an effective neighborhood watch program.
 
Definately looks like a case where one would hope for jury nullification. I can't say that what he did was legal, but I also can't say I hold anything against him for it.
 
Self Defence does not equal vigilantism.

Why even bother having police, lets disband them and form neighborhood militias like they have in Baghdad.
 
Why even bother having police, lets disband them and form neighborhood militias like they have in Baghdad.
As long as the people in the militia are kept in check by each other, why not? Look at what the Free Staters are doing in New Hampshire as an example.
 
As long as the people in the militia are kept in check by each other, why not? Look at what the Free Staters are doing in New Hampshire as an example.

Picking up litter while wearing a gun on your hip is hardly vigilantism. Neighborhood militias? Yup sure, go right ahead...don't come crying to me about your constitutional rights. You just told everyone you didn't need no stinking constitution...sheeesh...

Jeff
 
Picking up litter while wearing a gun on your hip is hardly vigilantism.
No , but if it happened weekly by the majority of the community I bet the number of officers needed to investigate crime in the area would go down tremendously. Your also missing the point that we are supposed to have neighborhood militias. They work too. A pic is worth a thousand and all that. no-looting.jpg
 
Good guys stayed alive, criminals died being criminals. I hope there are twelve good people left in Texas to give the right verdict in this case. Note I didn't say the correct verdict, I said the right one.

My sentiments exactly.
 
Last edited:
I would not be surprised to see the grand jury decide that they have no interest in having the old guy charged.

I don't applaud him for what he did, but I can understand it.

Maybe the "no harm-no foul" rule should apply in these kind of cases.
 
The 911 operator seems to be concerned for the shooter "don't go outside, you'll get shot"more than the fact that he was going to kill the burglars. The guy then walks outside and tells the burglars "you're dead" and shots commence. This stuff is only supposed to happen on tv. So we have people in commission of a crime, maybe a felony. They get shot by a watchful neighbor when the cops don't instantly arrive. I don't support vigilantism or people playing the cops, but this was a case of someone doing what was right, instead of what was legal. I know that I honestly couldn't serve on that jury.
 
I know that I honestly couldn't serve on that jury.
Why not? You could listen to the totality of the evidence and then vote your conscience as well as the next guy.

The 911 operator seems to be concerned for the shooter "don't go outside, you'll get shot"more than the fact that he was going to kill the burglars.
At least the operator's priorities were straight.
 
I think the guy was within the Law...

I think the man who shot those burgalers was well within the law. According to Texas Law:



§ 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.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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



§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
 
Last edited:
Well, read what you posted, especially:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


That's going to be the point of contention. It's clearly not (C) or we wouldn't be having this conversation, leaving A and B. B's out totally in this case, leaving only A.

Did the neighbor say "Hey man could you watch my house for me?"

If it's my house and I return to find this, I'm gonna say I asked whether I did or not.

The most interesting thing here will be whether or not his neighbor returns the favor.
 
Notice that in Section 9.43 there is the Big "OR" - so 2(A), (B) and (C) do not apply so long as condition (1) is met:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Thanks.

NASCAR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top