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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't fault the man for shooting. Nor do I judge him. It was his property. He was there. I was not.

It's good to know that shooters now can be immune from civil suits in a justified shooting in TX.

I would have no hesitation shooting someone if they were in the house with criminal intent. No problem at all.
 
The criminals appeared to be reaching for weapons. Guess what kiddos, sometimes the criminals FIGHT back and good people loose their lives. It makes the news down here too.

He did not over react, those criminals put a low value on their lives. Don't rob folks down here in our homes, cars or businesses. We are trying to send the message that we don't like it.
 
The TX grand jury will give the man a pass, as it should.

Here in OK the prosecuter is not required to take a self defense shooting case to a grand jury. Our county prosecutor has refused to take 3 shooting cases to the grand jury in the past year or so.
 
Well, he had no other means of preventing them from escaping after apprehending them in the commission of a serious crime.
Be aware that many states do not recognize this as valid rationale for using deadly force. It just so happens that Texas does, but only under specific circumstances.

In many cases, there is no civil liability shield associated with a private citizen detaining a suspected criminal.
 
"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...


End of Story.


Justified. You only have to be wrong once in trusting the person who is aready showing their criminal character.


-- John
 
TBL- If you saw where I live you might realize how relevant your comment was.

You are wasting bandwidth though.

If this were say two drug dealers who were pulled over smoking weed and were shot by a state trooper who was searching their car when he saw them ''reaching for a possible weapon'' or felt threatened by bolt cutters 50 yards away the THR community would crucify the LEO, be certain he was lying about the whole thing, support the drug dealers as heros of the 2A and send donations to their lawyers.

But thieves? Against a good honest Texas boy? Here we blow them away for attempting to make off with a lawn mower.
 
I don't see what is "overreacting" or somehow "he only got away with because its Texas."

What?

From his account, he was justifiably in fear for his life, if the guys were reaching in the van for something else (which they probably were), and at any rate, the bolt cutters can do a number to a person, anyway.

From what I read, he is justified, not just legally but also ethically/morally. I don't think there's any more to this issue.

/thread
 
Wait until the leftist media spins the story into a senile old man firing an assault weapon randomly and hitting two innocent young boys out for a stroll.

I can hear Keith Olberman now.

Jim
 
Looks Legal

I would think it would be legal to use deadly force on someone who is attempting to rob you, as the TX state law states. It would be very easy to assume someone could still attempt to rob you by running out to their van to get something to help rob you...like a bat, crow bar, hammer, firearm.
 
Well, he had no other means of preventing them from escaping after apprehending them in the commission of a serious crime.

Actually, nowhere in the United States can anyone, LEO or civilian, legally use deadly force to prevent someone from "escaping," unless all six conditions set forth by SCOTUS in Garner v. Tennessee are met--an unlikely and rare combination.

Here are the conditions, posted on another site by one of our members who is qualified to do so by virtue of his profession and education:

The U. S. Supreme Court in Garner v. Tennessee effectively ruled the the following six criteria must all be satisfied in order to justify using lethal force to stop a fleeing felon:

• Heinous felony against the person (harm to the person: murder; attempted murder; stranger kidnapping; arson of actually occupied building; violent sexual assault)
• You have actually seen it happen
• You are clearly identifiable as the good guy
• The perpetrator’s escape is open ended
• All other means of apprehension have failed or are obviously impossible
• Continued freedom of the perpetrator presents a clear and present danger to innocent human life or limb

Be aware that many states do not recognize this as valid rationale for using deadly force. It just so happens that Texas does, but only under specific circumstances.

Texas does allow the use of deadly force to protect or recover property being taken, under specific circumstances, one of which is that the crime must be perpetrated during the night time.

It would be very easy to assume someone could still attempt to rob you by running out to their van to get something to help rob you...like a bat, crow bar, hammer, firearm.

Requirements are reasonable belief, not "assumption," and imminent danger, not "could still attempt."

It is essential that anyone who has a firearm make himself or herself fully aware of the laws concerning the use of deadly force wherever he or she intends to be. The consequences for unlawful use are very severe.
 
Last edited:
We are what, three months post hurricane IKE, shooting thief's stealing a man's generator I suspect the only thing he could be convicted of by a Houston jury would be poor marksmanship.

Looking at the house on the TV news, makes me think HPD sure didn't pay this guy much and I'm surprised that he could afford a generator and video surveillance system.

In Texas its pretty much open season on thiefs in the night all year round!

--wally.
 
I have a great desire to never shoot another human being. That being said, I will use whatever force is necessary to defend my family, my life, and to a lesser extent, my property. Did the shooter overreact? I don't have enough information to judge that question. I don't think I would have fired until I saw deadly weapon in their hands. I don't know what the shooter saw.:what:
 
He needs to "defend" himself again should there be a civil action...only aim better next time.:evil:
 
You mean other states in the United States?
Yes.

TX allows you to shoot somebody that is fleeing, but only to recover property that they have stolen in the nightime that you believe cannot be recovered once stolen. Other than that exception (which is specific to Texas and specific to defense of property), I believe that you can pretty well rule out shooting 'em in the back as they run unless you meet Kleanbore's defintion or you can clearly articulate that you remained in fear of serious injury or death, i.e. you credibly believed that they were not retreating but moving to a position of cover or concealment and that they remained a threat to you/yours.
 
The (amended) Castle Doctrine part of the law applies when one is inside his home, place of business, or automobile.

Can you please site source of that please? ..

I'm not finding it in my Penal Code. Section 9.42 (B) should cover it.
 
http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html


SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
 
There really no way to tell either way. After all they could have reached in as if they were going for weapons or be trying to flee. After all he is hardly going to say "I shot them in the back while they were begging not to die is he? There no other evidence around so it more than likely he get off without a charge after the investigation.

It a considerably different case than say that man the other month that purposefully went out with a gun, said "hey you're dead" and opened fire while on the phone with 911. Really without such evidence it a matter of how well trusted the guy is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top