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

[Odd1]

When I read the OP I was appalled, being a Texan and all.

This story is so wrong it makes my blood boil and all gun owners look crazy.

Everyone knows if in your house and two people are breaking in reach for a shoulder fired weapon (AR or shotgun, your call).

Who would ever use just a handgun?

I would bet he is no billed.

As far as folks who say he overreacted, to each is own.

 

[tpaw]

The article says "robbed". In order to be "robbed" I always thought you had to be personally confronted. Seems to me the two guys were committing a theft of property, not a robbery or burglary. Can you shoot to kill for a theft of property in Texas? I believe at night time you can, not sure? If that is so, then I think the retired peace officer was correct in his actions. Especially when he saw them reach into the van in what the retired officer thought to be a reach for weapons.

 

[Kleanbore]

There no other evidence around so it more than likely he get off without a charge after the investigation.

Unless one is talking about a castle doctrine situation, in which someone's having entered an occupied home or auto unlawfully and with force (Texas requirement) is defined in the law as a basis for the actor having reasonable belief, etc., and to obviate any duty to retreat, it is up to the actor--the shooter--to provide evidence showing the shooting to have been justified. If he cannot do that he is in a world of trouble. In a case in which the fact of the shooting is not in question, lack of evidence supporting justifiability works entirely in favor of the state, which has the duty to prosecute for the crime of homicide unless the actor can provide evidence of justifiability..

One more time: no one who does not know the facts and the law can rightfully judge this case.

 

[orionengnr]

All I have to say is this:

Actions have consequences. Although a large part of society denies this, and tries it's best to make it not so, it still is so.

Choosing a criminal lifestyle carries some associated risks--as well it should.

Every time I read of a case like this, I can only think of Darwin's theory. And I firmly believe that, left to continue in a natural manner, equilibrium will result.

 

[MD_Willington]

Eh, one of them was carrying a weapon, bolt cutters, they make a handy bludgeon...

 

[Thin Black Line]

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.

All accurate except the very last part since that involves money.

BTW, anyone here who has put a bullet center mass on a human being who
would like to comment on the aftermath they have experienced?

The reason I continue to bring this up is because I have actually worked with
a number of people who have done this in the military and we've talked about
it.

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

 

[Wolfebyte]

Ok.. not sure about RC123, but this is from the Texas Penal Code

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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.

Now if something else has changed, I'm not familiar with it, I have not had to have my legislative updates in the past 3 years..

 

[Titan6]

I don't think anyone has disputed the legality of this issue in Texas. However I think that everyone in this board will agree that just because a law says that something is ''so'' or ''ain't so'' don't make it right. The OP never asked ''Was this legal?'' He asked ''Did the man overreact?''

 

[Double Naught Spy]

For those of you who argue things like "life is precious" and "lethal force should only be used to protect against serious injury or loss of life" are those people the bad guys count on when conducting burglaries and other such crimes.

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).

Eh, one of them was carrying a weapon, bolt cutters, they make a handy bludgeon...

Blunt force weapons are not considered a threat from the distances being described in the article. The burglars had fled the porch and returned to their van. While they could still have intent and ability to to use the bolt cutters as a weapon, the distance would preclude there being an opporunity to do so.

So the threat wasn't the bolt cultters, but the potential weapons the homeowner thought were being retrieved from the van.

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.

You mean the leftest media other than that which already reported the story? It isn't known for being right wing.

How about after Fox gets ahold of it? They aren't right wing either. http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/p...n=6&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

 

[jorb]

I wasn't there. Can't judge.

 

[BCC]

I would have gotten a gun, assumed a defensive position, called 911, stayed inside and waited.

BCC

 

[Kleanbore]

From Wolfbyte:

Sec. 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.

Incident reportedly took place at 2:45 PM--right? Under this section, all else would appear to be moot.

From jorb:

I wasn't there. Can't judge.

True for the rest of us, also.

The police evidently have sufficient evidence to charge the men with felony theft. Probably not adequate to justify the use of deadly force in mid-afternoon. Regarding the shooter, he is under investigation by the Houston Police Department's Homicide and Internal Affairs Division.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8168655&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

 

[Wolfebyte]

Depends on your reading and interpretation..

g'day..

 

[texaspunk]

Wow…Shame on him for engaging two potentially dangerous men in the act of committing a felony on his property without a long gun in hand. What is Texas coming to?
Difficult decision for anyone, I’m sure, but certainly deserving of our support. At least this gentleman isn't in the business of making Texas a safer place for criminals to work and play. No Bill, IMHO.

 

[Mike2]

very good start, wish more law abiding citizens would do the same only hit vitals........crooks might think twice about what they are planning to steal if they know that most people will nail there butts if they are caught.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

That man is another Texas Hero.

 

[rbernie]

very good start, wish more law abiding citizens would do the same only hit vitals........crooks might think twice about what they are planning to steal if they know that most people will nail there butts if they are caught.

A fine sentiment, but let's try to remember that there actually are LAWS that dictate when somebody can use deadly force against another.

"Some folk just need killin'..." has not been a legally defensible position for some time, no matter how some of y'all may wish it so.

 

[Archie]

Overreact?

That's a hard question.

Just exactly how much threat did he fear from the men 'sticking their hands into the van as if they were getting weapons'? How reasonable is that?

My view is this: Since he was defending his home, and the other two were up to no good, the homeowner should be entitled to the benefit of doubt. That is to say, unless it can be positively demonstrated he was unreasonable, he must be assumed to be acting reasonably.

Or, worded another way: If the generator those two were trying to steal wasn't worth their lives, they shouldn't have tried to steal it.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Did he over react?... uuh... NO!

Here in UT they say you can't use deadly force to protect your property... only to protect your life. I think that is totally ridiculous since you spend most of your life working to pay for that property... it is essentially your time and livelihood they are stealing. TX has much better laws in that respect. I have no moral discrepancy against shooting and killing thieves on your property. People kill coyotes on their ranch, and crows on their cornfields... why not thieves on your driveway? Is it not the same principle?... defending from loss.

Oh, I forgot... humans are more important as a species right?... designed in the image of god?... yeah right. Oh, maybe there is a shortage of humans, and we are at risk of going extinct... no thats not it. I guess it must just be criminal sympathizing leftists hard at work to make life easier for crooks.

 

[nalioth]

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

Eh, one of them was carrying a weapon, bolt cutters, they make a handy bludgeon...

Blunt force weapons are not considered a threat from the distances being described in the article. The burglars had fled the porch and returned to their van. While they could still have intent and ability to to use the bolt cutters as a weapon, the distance would preclude there being an opporunity to do so.

So the threat wasn't the bolt cultters, but the potential weapons the homeowner thought were being retrieved from the van.

I respectfully disagree.

Look up the "21 foot rule". Reality is not static (like a newspaper article), and it takes only a couple of seconds to cross an average front yard, less if you're already in the yard area.

 

[CentralTexas]

When people steal from you

-they are stealing minutes, hours, weaks and years of your hard work. Then you usually get to do it again to replace the items.

Property is worth killing over in many cases. If your car is stolen and not insured/underinsured in a low income situation, it can financially snowball to where a family ends up homeless. I think we can still hang you in Texas for horsethievin'.

 

[BernieD]

Without being there, I can't say for sure. Bolt cutters count as a weapon. He also said they seemed to be reaching for other weapons. From the article, it sounds like he judged that there was an impending attack. He reacted. I'm sure there are many details that I don't have, but with the information given, I think he was okay.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Hard to say. If facts are as alleged, I'd say it's probably a good shoot, esp. in Texas!

-they are stealing minutes, hours, weaks and years of your hard work. Then you usually get to do it again to replace the items.

Property is worth killing over in many cases. If your car is stolen and not insured/underinsured in a low income situation, it can financially snowball to where a family ends up homeless. I think we can still hang you in Texas for horsethievin'.

I agree with all that - though I know that most people don't. It's funny... I grew up very poor which is where this value came from - just as CT is saying there - the theft is of much much greater relative effect when you are poor/"working class". Now that I make more, I still hold this value, to a certain extent for me, but mostly I hold it because so many are truly poor or just getting by, and notably, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE TO WHOM the crimes of theft happen most! Or so I have noticed. Quite simply, because they cannot afford the security measures for their things and have more people coming and going in any given household, leading to greater chance of "spot it and want it" type theft.

 

[Kleanbore]

Seems to me the investigators will have to address the following questions:

• Was the shooter in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury?
• Was the shooter inside his habitation and attempting to prevent forcible, unlawful entry?
• Was the shooter attempting to prevent the taking of, or recover, property during the night time, and did he have available no other reasonable means by which to do so?

 

[theotherwaldo]

If I've got the drop on a pair of intruders (who have obviously cased the house - witness the bolt cutters) and they run to their vehicle AND REACH IN, I'm pulling the trigger. I don't think they're going to the cooler to offer me a beer while we talk things over.

Now if they'd jumped into the van and peeled out - whole other thing!