Retired man shoots two robbers at his home - did he overreact?

[Min]

Retired HPD employee shoots alleged robbers at his home


A retired Houston Police Department employee shot and injured two men he says were trying to rob his north Houston home Monday afternoon, authorities said.

One man was shot in the head. He was at Ben Taub General Hospital in critical condition Monday night, Police Department spokesman Victor Senties said.

The retired employee was a police communication specialist who fixed handheld radios for the department, Senties said. He was at his home in the 500 block of Van Molan, near Northline Mall, when at about 2:45 p.m. he saw on a surveillance system that a red van had backed into his driveway, Senties said.

He saw two men, carrying bolt cutters, get out the van. They then tried to take a generator, Senties said.

The former employee, a licensed peace officer, grabbed his handgun, came onto the porch and told the men to stop, Senties said. The two men ran to the van.

"They then put their hands inside the van as if they were going to get weapons from there," Senties said.

Fearing his life was in danger, the former employee fired at the men, striking one in the head and the other in the arm, Senties said.

The man shot in the arm left in the van. A motorcycle officer later arrested him and took him to a hospital.

No charges had been filed on Monday.

 

[cochise9424221]

needs to work on his marksmanship, arm isnt center mass. All joking aside if they reached into the van as if for a weapon, he didnt over react. He will have to defend his actions in court though, first criminal and then probably civil

 

[Titan6]

(dons IBA)

I would say probably so. But I was not there.

(now I have to get shouted down by 2/3 of THR community)

 

[Min]

Forgot the link.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6185957.html

 

[armedandsafe]

He will have to defend his actions in court though, first criminal and then probably civil

In Texas? Case will go to grand jury, be no-billed and all forgotten.

Pops

 

[ArmedBear]

Overact?

Maybe he did.

Do I care?

No.

An innocent, law-abiding citizen shouldn't have to live in fear of criminals, or to gamble his life on whether they are getting weapons or not.

 

[Titan6]

Absolutely Pops but he will still have to hire a lawyer for the Grand Jury. I don't see a civil lawyer wasting his time with a civil case. Especially if there is a video of the whole event from the camera.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

If your life is so meaningless that you try to steal from homeowners in Texas, then you get what you got coming to ya !

Until there are more serious consequences for this type of theft it will never cease.

 

[twoclones]

Once he suspected they were reaching for weapons, what other option did he have? I don't think waiting for 2 bad guys to point weapons at you is a good idea...

 

[nalioth]

Please don't bring this "did he overreact" static here.

The suspects had impact weapons in hand (bolt cutters) already.

The property owner was in fear for his life. End of story.

 

[shooting4life]

I don't think he over reacted once outside. I think the only area that he might catch a little flak on the civil side, at least if he was in the state I live in, was that he went outside when he was safe inside. Again, if he was in my state, I do not know the laws regarding this are in texas.

 

[jakemccoy]

If the term "rob" is being used correctly in the article and the homeowner reasonably believed he was being robbed, then the homeowner absolutely did not overreact.

 

[Wolfebyte]

Texas?

Viva la Castle Doctrine

Remember Joe Horn? ....

 

[Thin Black Line]

(dons IBA)

I would say probably so. But I was not there.

(now I have to get shouted down by 2/3 of THR community)

Don't you regard your driveway like it's part of the serpentine into your FOB?

 

[Kleanbore]

FRom jakemccoy:

If the term "rob" is being used correctly in the article and the homeowner reasonably believed he was being robbed, then the homeowner absolutely did not overreact.

And if the authorities, and should it come to that, a grand jury and possibly also a jury, agree that his belief was reasonable... Here's the definition of robbery as set forth in the Texas Penal Code:

29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

The use of deadly force is justified (in Texas) if the actor reasonably believed that the person against whom force was used was committing, or attempting to commit, robbery.

There's another part of the Texas penal code that provides for the use of deadly force in defense of property, but it only applies at night.

From Wolfebyte:

Texas? Viva la Castle Doctrine

The (amended) Castle Doctrine part of the law applies when one is inside his home, place of business, or automobile.

I don't think anyone who does not know all of the facts, and who is not knowledgeable about how courts have ruled in similar circumstances, is in a position to offer an educated opinion on the OP's question.

I know that I would not have gone outside, and I would not have fired. Where I live it would not have been legal to do so. I will not try to interpret Texas law. But for me, a generator, or the "deductible" on my insurance, is not worth using deadly force.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i think the only way to know is to be there, or at least hear the man himself describe it. and hopefully he's smart enough to keep his mouth closed

 

[Bailey Guns]

shooting4life...

Let's just say the laws in TX and the laws in CA regarding use of force and protection of self and property are slightly different. I'm with the others who say this whole thing will be presented to a grand jury, they'll deliberate about 10 mins then no-bill the shooter.

I'm still trying to figure out the "did he overreact?" question.

Maybe, just maybe, when there are enough of these type incidents where the good guys win, some scumbag will stop and think of the consequences before doing something stupid. I mean, if it saves just one life...

 

[TCB in TN]

Here locally I would not be legal to shoot in defense of property, but when the two suspects "reached" for something I could reasonably feel was a weapon I would be justified. IMHO from what information we have it sounds like a good shoot. Further more, if folks want to keep from getting shot they need to quit stealing! It is a simple fix!

 

[jerkface11]

It's nice to see one of these threads where texas law really does apply.

 

[CoRoMo]

Maybe it's just me, but these types of threads (did he overreact) seem like an anti trying to show us how irresponsible it is to own guns, protect yourself, carry, etc.

 

[Min]

Personally, if it were me, I would get the van's description and license plate, dial 911 and wait for the cops to nab them while I stayed safely inside.

Just because I have a gun, does not mean I have to use it. I would be taking a big risk in confronting two strange men by myself with a handgun no less (at least a shotgun).

Not only that, but I would not want the civil liability that comes from having killed or maimed someone.

But that's just me.


I would only be shooting if they came into the house. If they stayed outside, I would stay inside.

 

[nalioth]

Not only that, but I would not want the civil liability that comes from having killed or maimed someone.

As of September 2007, we no longer have that here.

If you justifiably shoot someone, you cannot be sued civilly.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Maybe it's just me, but these types of threads (did he overreact) seem like an anti trying to show us how irresponsible it is to own guns, protect yourself, carry, etc.

Sometimes it's just different perspective and experience. Let me re-quote
myself from months back:

True story:

Once when I was 12 my mom saw someone in black outside poking around
our detached garage in the wee hours --the person then entered the unlocked
side door of the garage. (Yes, my mom has ears and eyes like an owl).

Her response was to flip on the garage lights from the inside of our house.
Next thing you know the guy is running away down the street of our sleepy
little town. She goes back to bed. A few hours later we're all awake and
she tells us about it at breakfast. Of course, little bro and I are like "why
didn't you leave the lights off, call the police and let him get caught?" My
mom said this would have been too much excitement for a school night
and "besides, he won't come back here." Dad wasn't at all disappointed
that he didn't get to pull the shotgun from the closet. (I'll skip the full
tangental story of the time someone broke their hand on my dad's face and
he said "you had enough yet?"). We kids still felt like we missed out on the
excitement.

In any case Mom was right and no one ever came back.

I later got all the "excitement" I ever wanted on deployment.

So should my dad have grabbed the shotgun, let my mom flip the lights
on to surprise the guy, maybe he wouldn've gone for something, and my
dad could've sent a slug thru his chest killing him right there?

Would that have been the "end" of it all in our little town or just the beginning
after he found out we had killed some dumb@ss 18 year-old kid from 4 blocks
away? Someone whose sibs we went to school with and whose parents my
dad went to work with?

What do you think life would be like for everyone involved after that?

It's a big decision to take a life.

It's not the movies. Forget all the prime-time no-consequence programming.

Even if it's a "righteous" shoot with no legal consequences, it will still affect you.

 

[WardenWolf]

Overreact? It looked like they were going for weapons in the commission of a crime. I'd say he didn't overreact.

 

[rbernie]

Personally, if it were me, I would get the van's description and license plate, dial 911 and wait for the cops to nab them while I stayed safely inside.

Just because I have a gun, does not mean I have to use it. I would be taking a big risk in confronting two strange men by myself with a handgun no less (at least a shotgun).

This type of thread comes up often, and the forum usually splits into two camps (shoot/no-shoot). Neither camp ever convinces the other to switch sides.

The decision has both moral and legal implications.

First, everybody has to make their own MORAL decision on shooting to protect property or shooting potential intruders who are clearly trespassing and who may present a threat.

Once that's been done, you need to determine the legalities of such actions. Fortunately, in Texas the law is generally more supportive of shooting to protect house and/or property than it might be in other states, allowing TX state residents some latitude to implement their moral position. Many other states do not provide the luxury of allowing an individualized decision, but instead codify the expected reactions into law.

Everyone should take great pains to know their state laws pretty well in these areas before settling on a predetermined course of action. If the law conflicts with your moral positions, you have two choices; abandon your moral position, or be willing to defend it and accept the punishments for violating the law.

Not only that, but I would not want the civil liability that comes from having killed or maimed someone.

If the shooting falls under the umbrella of Castle Doctrine laws and is regarded as a good shoot by the criminal justice system, the shoot is generally immune to civil liability issues.

It's a big decision to take a life.

It's not the movies. Forget all the prime-time no-consequence programming.

Even if it's a "righteous" shoot with no legal consequences, it will still affect you.

Well worth repeating.

Just because you *can* shoot doesn't mean you have to. But you shouldn't be afraid to shoot, either, if you believe that actual harm may befall you if you don't.