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

[cassandrasdaddy]

The reality of that aftermath is far different than the hollywood BS pablum
that has been served up.

one of the best summations wish i had said it

 

[tpaw]

With that in mind, the homeowner had the right to try to stop the burglars. At which time they made furtive movements, however, that all became moot. At that point, he was shooting to prevent injury or death to himself (as by what is reported in the article).

There was no break in. Property was attempted to be stolen from outside. It was a attempted theft of property, not a burglary. The article also calls them robbers, that's not accurate. A robbery is when the victim is personally confronted. These guys did not rob or burglarize anything or anyone. They attempted to steal property from outside the house. It was an attempted theft of property.

 

[CentralTexas]

I've tended to notice a trend

That folks who are raised in the South and Southwest tend to uphold the stance that people can be shot for stealing, breaking in etc., whilst the Eastern Seaboard and North feel nothing short of self defense level crimes warrant criminals being shot.
Huge cultural differences in this country, Hmmm maybe a poll is in order.

 

[Crunker1337]

Would I have acted the same? Possibly. Maybe not. Did he overreact? Maybe a little.

Should he face any punishment, civil or criminal, for what he did? Resoundingly: no.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

That folks who are raised in the South and Southwest tend to uphold the stance that people can be shot for stealing, breaking in etc., whilst the Eastern Seaboard and North feel nothing short of self defense level crimes warrant criminals being shot.
Huge cultural differences in this country, Hmmm maybe a poll is in order.

You might find this paper interesting: http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~broberts/Cohen et al., 1996.pdf

 

[camies]

Was he right or wrong?

He was right! Pity we can't protect ourselves in the UK like that.

Use anything more than harsh language at someone and here the police arrest you.
We have to use "reasonable force" to protect our families and homes.
The guidelines are:- In England and Wales, anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment.
"Fine judgments" over the level of force used are not expected.
These guidelines still apply if something to hand is used as a weapon but, if that's a baseball bat, knife or something kept for home defense, you are most likely deemed to have planned to use a weapon so it's not "instinctive". Result, you are arrested!

Pathetically, if a burglar or assailant is hurt or hurts themselves in your home they can sue you for compensation (and most likely win).

Can anybody else see the injustice of this system?

 

[notorious]

Can't say one way or another since I was not there so I don't know the whole situation and I have no way of reading his mind as to what he perceived, therefore, I have no basis to form a what would the reasonable person do in that scenario comparison, which is the basic legal principle for justification or liability.

In any event, this is also a tricky subject because every single action or non-action can spiral off into so many tangents and alternate realities that there is no 1 right answer.

Say you don't go outside, then they take what they want and leave. You call the cops, give the info and they get busted. Maybe that's the end of it. Maybe they get a plea bargain and come after you.

Maybe you don't call the cops and they never come back because they got run over by a train. Maybe they do come back because they figured your house was an easy mark and they saw something else they wanted.

Maybe you go outside and scare them off. Maybe they decide to watch you for a few days and ambush you as you come home so they can take your gun because now they know you have one at home. Or better yet, they wait until you leave the house to break in and steal the gun. Or they just move on to the next house and figure yours is too much trouble.

Maybe you shoot after you go outside. Maybe you hit them, maybe you kill them, maybe you miss and hit the neighbor's kid who is sitting in his living room and now you're going to get sued, maybe the guys were reaching in the van to put their bolt cutter away so they can raise their hand and surrender, maybe they needed a light for a cigarette like Clint Eastwood in El Torino.

See... who knows. Too many possibilities for everything. No one can say for sure. However, the ending is good. Good guy 2, bad guys 0. Not much else you can improve on with that scorecard.

 

[Kleanbore]

However, the ending is good.

No ending yet. The men with the van have been charged with felony theft (not robbery), but they have not been tried. The shooter is under investigation by the Homicide and Internal Affairs Division of the Houston Police Department; they are treating it as a police shooting, and the investigation has not been concluded.

 

[tpaw]

He was right! Pity we can't protect ourselves in the UK like that.
Use anything more than harsh language at someone and here the police arrest you.

With the new administration coming in on January 20th, we may turn out to become the same way. The liberal Democrats will be in control.

 

[rscalzo]

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

Does that means that they can't file. I tend to distrust those types of statutes. I had a friend who lost everything after finding the legally written waiver did nothing to protect him civilly.

While they might be get a successful judgment, some came cause great economic lose just by dragging one through the process.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

I've tended to notice a trend
That folks who are raised in the South and Southwest tend to uphold the stance that people can be shot for stealing, breaking in etc., whilst the Eastern Seaboard and North feel nothing short of self defense level crimes warrant criminals being shot.
Huge cultural differences in this country, Hmmm maybe a poll is in order.

Well I can tell you from Michigan my personal viewpoints on thieves and intruders would not be considered "High Road" but I like this site enough to want to retain my membership. Been living here all my life but most of the time I've felt I belonged in a previous time .. No I don't mean Neanderthal...

 

[notorious]

Does that means that they can't file. I tend to distrust those types of statutes. I had a friend who lost everything after finding the legally written waiver did nothing to protect him civilly.

While they might be get a successful judgment, some came cause great economic lose just by dragging one through the process.

Yep, having any non-suit clause or waiver or exemption does not mean anything in court.

Any lawyer worth his Brooks Brothers suit can argue either the rules is invalid or the facts don't fit the situation. The judge can dismisson a demurrer or motion for summary judgment due to the waivers, but that takes it away from the jury.

Most judges don't want to bother with the responsibility so they toss it to the jury to make that determination if the facts fit the case.

Even if the case gets dismissed after 2 hearings and appearances, how many business can survive an endless barrage of them? Imagine each time a lawyer has to review and draft the response and appear in court to ask for a dismissal on whatever grounds, the minimum a business can expect is about $2,000 per case that gets dismissed quickly.

Toss in a few a month and it can put most small businesses out of commission and for a gun importer or small manufacturer, it can severely crimp profit margins and motivation to bother selling in that area.

 

[nalioth]

Okay folks, the Texas law states that no civil suit can be launched over a justifiable shooting.

No 'waivers' involved, just the law.

Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm

 

[notorious]

Good for them. The Republic of Texas is dead-on here. Wish other socialists regimes will topple and be replaced by some common sense, e.g. California.

 

[Kleanbore]

Okay folks, the Texas law states that no civil suit can be launched over a justifiable shooting.

Not quite. It says that if a civil suit is "launched" in the case of a justified shooting involving unlawful entry of the habitation of the defendant, the fact that the shooting was justified is an affirmative defense against the suit.

Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378I.htm

I t appears from the reports the shooter and the persons he shot were all outdoors at the time of the shooting, and that no unlawful entry was involved.

Where I live (MO) the law is a little stronger in its protection of one who uses deadly force in a case involving entry into an occupied dwelling or automobile.

 

[Guns and more]

I certainly don't care about the perps, but I wonder how crowded the neighborhood was. I'd hate to see an innocent bystander shot because he followed the trouble outside. If he was in the country, fire away.

 

[notorious]

Hmmm... okay, they need to change that a bit.

In California, a burglary is entering anything within the the curtilage of your property. No breaking is needed and it can be an imaginary boundary around your property, as long as it is clearly your property.

 

[divemedic]

This article has more information, and I believe it makes the shoot sound better:

Police said the homeowner saw, through a surveillance camera, two men back their red van up to the front of his house and try to steal his generator. Police said the two went to the front porch with bolt cutters and started cutting the chain.

"At that point, the gentleman from inside the house gets a handgun, comes out to the porch and he confronts both suspects," HPD spokesman Victor Senties said.

Senties said the homeowner told the two to stop. Instead, he said, they ran toward the van.

"They put their hands inside the passenger side of the vehicle as if they were going to withdraw weapons from there and the gentleman, in fear of his life, discharged his weapon at least six times," Senties said.

I read that as the burglars were not trying to escape (which would have meant that they were going to the driver's side) but trying to retrieve a weapon.

 

[7.62X25mm]

He told them to stop. They were on his property, trespassing, breaking, entering. The only "safe" assumption to be drawn when someone is breaking/entering and you tell them to "stop" is that when they don't "stop" they must be going after a weapon.

The homeowner needs to trade in his handgun for a 12 gauge.

 

[Kleanbore]

He told them to stop. They were on his property, trespassing, ...

...which is a misdemeanor in Texas. A peace officer cannot arrest a trespasser without a warrant. No one can use deadly force to stop a trespasser from leaving...

And by the way, the perps have not been charged wtih trespassing.

breaking, entering.

I haven't see that anywhere. And the perps have not been charged with breaking and entering.

The only "safe" assumption to be drawn when someone is breaking/entering and you tell them to "stop" is that when they don't "stop" they must be going after a weapon.

Or perhaps that the have decided to flee--which does not justify deadly force.

Right now all we know is that the man shot two people who have subsequently been charged with felony theft. We have not seen anything indicating that the two men have been charged with robbery, which would, depending on the circumstances, have justified the use of deadly force. We also have the shooter's statement.

We can presume that the authorities will examine the distance involved, the entrance wounds, and other forensic evidence and that they will take a statement from the wounded thief. Then they will determine the appropriate course of action.

One can presume that the shooter knew enough to say that he was in fear of his life. He now has to provide what evidence he can that his fear was based on reasonable belief.