San Antonio Man Kills Intruder Not Charged

[possom813]

Perhaps he was running to the homeowners garage where he may have several weapons that could be used against him.

Maybe he as an elderly neighbor that can't defend his/her self and the bad guy was running straight for there house.

Maybe he was trying to render first aid, as posted above.

There's always internet speculation, but you never know exactly what's going through a homeowner's mind when something like that happens.

If it were me, and he decided to come into my home via the back door, if Grady doesn't get him first, he then has to fend off an oc bomb and a spiffy alarm system. Then, if by chance I shoot him and he's able to leave through the back door, I would probably shoot him again, depending on the circumstances.

But I also live in a fairly quiet neighborhood with mostly older folks around that have lived here for years. I only have a couple of neighbors that I'm not too sure about.

 

[lloydkristmas]

Justified in shooting a fleeing perpetrator? According to your fellow men on a jury, there may be such a thing. I don't know if that kind of "justification" really counts in front of the only judgment seat of any real importance.

When it comes to that seat, that 18-year old better have been armed and posing an active threat when the homeowner shot at him.

I always thought that being armed for self-defense was to neutralize an immediate threat to one's life, limb, or in extreme cases, property: not to shoot at a fleeing burglar to "clean up society," as some here seem to feel.

-Sans Authoritas

For about the 98937721st time, you take the bad guys side and say it was a foul shoot. Are you EVER going to sit back and look at one of these events and think "hey, the second amendment kept a homeowner safe, and took a bad guy off the street" or will you just nitpick into oblivion? I dont come around here much, but I have CONSISTENTLY noticed this trend in your posts. I know I'm not the only one.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Justified in shooting a fleeing perpetrator?

That is AMAZING! You weren't there and you know the perp was fleeing versus moving to a better tactical position of cover from which to launch a second assault on the homeowner's abode. Sorry, but just because the bad guy is in motion and may be in motion away from you does not mean he is in flight and does not mean he isn't a risk and doesn't mean he isn't a viable target in Texas.

According to your fellow men on a jury, there may be such a thing. I don't know if that kind of "justification" really counts in front of the only judgment seat of any real importance.

There is such a thing and it is the law of the land, which coincides with the judgment seat of importance.

When it comes to that seat, that 18-year old better have been armed and posing an active threat when the homeowner shot at him.

Nope, not at all.

Basicaly in Texas, the burden of risk is on the intruder, not the homeowner.

I always thought that being armed for self-defense was to neutralize an immediate threat to one's life, limb, or in extreme cases, property: not to shoot at a fleeing burglar to "clean up society," as some here seem to feel.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sato Ord]

And 30 years ago I got the "drag him inside advice," but, even then, knew it was wrong.

Yeah, I can remember hearing that when I was about eight. That's over forty years ago. It's not just an internet myth, it's been going around for a long time.

I think it came out of California.

Justified in shooting a fleeing perpetrator? According to your fellow men on a jury, there may be such a thing. I don't know if that kind of "justification" really counts in front of the only judgment seat of any real importance.

When it comes to that seat, that 18-year old better have been armed and posing an active threat when the homeowner shot at him.

Not our place to make such a judgment call. That is for the courts to decide. Unless the "only judgment seat" you are talking about is God. I think that in the latter case, I'll keep my opinion out from between that man and the divine.

I always thought that being armed for self-defense was to neutralize an immediate threat to one's life, limb, or in extreme cases, property: not to shoot at a fleeing burglar to "clean up society," as some here seem to feel.

-Sans Authoritas

Well, I personally made a decision long ago that I won't defend property with deadly force. There is nothing I own that can't be replaced; it's only money.

However, when someone breaks into my house I can't be sure that his intentions are to grab my electronics and go, especially if it is the second time he's broken in, and even more so if he breaks in while someone is home.

The homeowner felt that this clown was a continued threat. After all, this was the second time around. Should he have waited until the BG escalated his tactics to armed robbery?

The Great State of Texas has decided not to press charges, that's good enough for me.

 

[csmkersh]

Justified in shooting a fleeing perpetrator? According to your fellow men on a jury, there may be such a thing. I don't know if that kind of "justification" really counts in front of the only judgment seat of any real importance.

That Court's justification can be found in the Torah/Old Testament. A thief in the night is one type of crime that called for the death penalty.
​

 

[Sans Authoritas]

lloydkristmas wrote:

For about the 98937721st time, you take the bad guys side and say it was a foul shoot. Are you EVER going to sit back and look at one of these events and think "hey, the second amendment kept a homeowner safe, and took a bad guy off the street" or will you just nitpick into oblivion?

First, I will never say "The Second Amendment kept someone safe." It doesn't. It sits there, not unlike words on a piece of parchment, and gets ignored by congressmen and senators and the general populace. People who keep firearms keep themselves safe.

This isn't about "Whatever the bad guy did was good, and everything the good guy did was bad." This is about, "He was likely absolutely justified in shooting the man when he was in his house at night, which we may rightfully assume is an indication that the thief expects that someone is home, and can be presumed to be there to harm people, but taking that second shot sounds really sketchy."

That, csmkersh, is the meaning of the Torah's "thief in the night" mentality. It doesn't mean you chase him down and kill him, unless you have a good reason to believe that he came to kill you, or suspect that he'll be back to kill you. It means that you can assume that someone who breaks in during the day expects no one to be home, and therefore probably does not mean to do any deadly harm, but rather is there to steal possessions. And at night, the criminal very well knows someone could be home, which is an indication of far more evil intent. Running away as fast as you can when you see someone is armed is an indication that the bad guy has no intent of getting involved in a violent confrontation, thus eliminating the "immediate threat of grave bodily harm" requirement of self-defense.

As for approving of a shoot or a defensive action taken? I've approved of the actions of news stories involving self-defense stories (especially by High Road members) more than I've ever disapproved of them. It seems that a lot of sketchy shoots end up on this board, however, precisely because they are sketchy. But you'll find whatever you look for, and you won't find what you don't look for in my posts on such matters, lloyd.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Justified in shooting a fleeing perpetrator?

Double Naught Spy wrote:

That is AMAZING! You weren't there and you know the perp was fleeing versus moving to a better tactical position of cover from which to launch a second assault on the homeowner's abode. Sorry, but just because the bad guy is in motion and may be in motion away from you does not mean he is in flight and does not mean he isn't a risk and doesn't mean he isn't a viable target in Texas.

Double, I have never said that a fleeing, armed man who turns around with a weapon must not be shot. In fact, I mention that possibility later on in my post, and have affirmed the legitimacy of such an action in other posts. Nor does spinning around with a weapon constitute "fleeing," does it? In such a case, someone immediately becomes an active threat once again. And in that case, you would not be shooting a "fleeing perpetrator," which the article said the man did. If the article was wrong, no worries. If he did, in fact, shoot a "fleeing perpetrator," which was the only issue I addressed, (despite your accusations), there are problems with the shoot.

However, I think there are solid grounds to question the judgment of a man who alters a crime scene after a shooting. Don't you?

As for a "viable target in Texas," no matter what a lawbook says, it is moot unless it conforms to human nature and morality, which do not suddenly and amazingly change as soon as you cross some political boundary of jurisdiction.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[blkbrd666]

Sounds like he was a "repeat" criminal. Do people not ever take into account how a criminal thinks? Some have logic and if you are armed, they won't go there. The other 95%, that are complete idiots, don't think logically. There are theives in prison right now who were held at gunpoint, or wounded, by the homeowner and carted off to prison. Their thoughts include, "when I get out, I'm going to get him back", and they ARE most likely going to get out. Not only are they going to get out, they are going to get out more "hardened" and with more training than they had when they went in. The next time, the homeowner is at a disadvantage and my never get the chance to defend himself...may get killed in his sleep along with the rest of his family. Now, would you sleep better at night wondering "when" he's going to come back, or "knowing" he never will?

 

[csmkersh]

That, csmkersh, is the meaning of the Torah's "thief in the night" mentality. It doesn't mean you chase him down and kill him, unless you have a good reason that he came to kill you, or suspect that he'll be back to kill you.

And self defense isn't a right, it's a duty:

From the Talmud Tractates B'rachos (Blessings) pp 58a & 62b and Sanhedrin (law courts) pp 72a

"and the Torah says 'If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.'"​

As to the shooters judgment, I agree it wasn't the best. NEVER mess with a crime scene. You could turn a good shoot into a charge of manslaughter or murder. So far, DA Reed hasn't had time to take this to the grand jury. They are the final arbiters, not the police, as to whether this goes to trial.


​

 

[Ash]

I liked the Russian General in The Bear and the Dragon novel by Tom Clancy who noted, after the massacre of many Chinese troops who had invaded Russia. The General, when the American was stunned at how quickly and completely the invading soldiers were killed, observed "Better if they had never come here in the first place."

Scarborough would be alive today had he not broken into the house. That he died was a direct consequence of his actions.

Ash

 

[FieroCDSP]

I've always been of the opinion that a burgler has to have thought about the risks at some point, and decided that the "reward" is more desirable than the risks. That being said, if they enter your home while you're there, they are saying that they don't care you're there, and that they don't care if they're shot dead.

For someone to commit a felony in Texas, they've got to be stupid, desperate, or insane. All three are very dangerous mindsets to deal with, and thus deadly force might be required.

I can't say I'd be proud about shooting a man in the back, but if this was the same burgler that broke in earlier in the week in an area known for it's break-ins, I have to say that a public service has likely been done.

 

[primlantah]

I've always been of the opinion that a burgler has to have thought about the risks at some point, and decided that the "reward" is more desirable than the risks. That being said, if they enter your home while you're there, they are saying that they don't care you're there, and that they don't care if they're shot dead.

For someone to commit a felony in Texas, they've got to be stupid, desperate, or insane. All three are very dangerous mindsets to deal with, and thus deadly force might be required.

I can't say I'd be proud about shooting a man in the back, but if this was the same burgler that broke in earlier in the week in an area known for it's break-ins, I have to say that a public service has likely been done.

+1

 

[plexreticle]

I think most people agree the guy had it coming.

Police said Tuesday that Thames likely won’t be charged with a crime

I hope he isn't for the sake of his finical future. I personally don't want to pay for a test case for shooting some guy running from my house and then dragging the body around.

 

[Carry Big Stick]

What would happen if they made reading the laws on use of deadly force in high school mandatory? Could that perhaps help some of the kids that are headed in the wrong direction realize that they could die for doing such stupid stuff. Another approach would be if they started teaching self defense instead of only thing you can do is call 911 and wait, would we see a lower crime rate several years later when these kids get out of school and know others are not afraid of defending themselves with force. As it is now the only thing I bet they worry about is if they can get out of there before the cops arrive. I don't see that happening in schools anytime soon, all they teach is guns are bad and will shot you according to my 7 yr old. After reading the laws for my CHL I found them to be a lot more broader than I thought they would be, I can only imagine what a BG would think if he read them. In this case,

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

That, csmkersh, is the meaning of the Torah's "thief in the night" mentality. It doesn't mean you chase him down and kill him, unless you have a good reason that he came to kill you, or suspect that he'll be back to kill you.

csmkersh wrote:

And self defense isn't a right, it's a duty:

Quote:
From the Talmud Tractates B'rachos (Blessings) pp 58a & 62b and Sanhedrin (law courts) pp 72a


"and the Torah says 'If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.'"

Shooting someone as he is only running away (unless, of course, he is someone who you have good reason to believe will not stop trying to kill you until you kill him) is not self-defense. Nor does the Torah say, "If an unarmed person is running away from a burglary, rise up quickly and kill him."

Self-defense can be a duty, but it is not always so. In addition, there are lots of things in the Torah that would not fly in a court of law these days, such as stoning adulterers, witches, and other violators of the moral law.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[BruceRDucer]

/

I always thought that being armed for self-defense was to neutralize an immediate threat to one's life, limb, or in extreme cases, property: not to shoot at a fleeing burglar to "clean up society," as some here seem to feel.

-Sans Authoritas

You seem to have forgotten that local CODE ENFORCEMENT usually demands that the homeowner keep the yard clean, so whatever you think about CLEANING UP SOCIETY, there's nothing wrong with cleaning up the YARD. (I don't think!)

Most likely the shooter in this circumstance had the generosity to pull the wounded man inside the house to administer FIRST AID, which is what we all should do.

/

 

[Jimmy Newman]

Sans Authoritas, I did not mean morally justified, I meant legally justified, which this case appears to be. You can argue morality all you want but according to the new Texas law this appears to be legally justified. As such, the guy is theoretically protected from civil suits.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Jimmy Newman wrote:

according to the new Texas law this appears to be legally justified. As such, the guy is theoretically protected from civil suits.

I never doubted that. My point is that a few people need to examine whose rules they take more seriously.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I never doubted that. My point is that a few people need to examine whose rules they take more seriously.

That is exactly what the homeowner did do and you don't seem to understand that.

You seem to think that we should live by your ethics. Homey don't play dat.

 

[lloydkristmas]

I'd rather ensure that the intruder never came back to hurt me or my family, even if that means shooting him while he flees the scene. I'll protect me and mine, and thats all I know. Fortunately, Texas allows this, and I wouldnt have it any other way. I am a Christian, but that hasnt ever really influenced the way I approach self defense. I dont see why it should.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

Well, shooting him once would probably lead him to never come to that house again--I mean, with neighborhoods full of houses that aren't definitely occupied by a homeowner who is willing and able to shoot an intruder, he'd only come back if he was crazy enough to hold a grudge against the home-defending victim, which I imagine is fairly uncommon. (Stupid couldn't account for going that far out of his way.) Burglars wanna burgle, and a vendetta only gets in the way of that.

For those reasons, I think that it was reasonable for the homowner to assume that the suspect had come back for revenge, if he had indeed been chased out the night before. Then again, the burglar might have still been under the impression that, as in the night before, the homeowner was unarmed, but to have the intent of the suspect as a precondition to shooting him would be to gamble with the life of the homeowner.

I am only pointing these things out for the sake of conversation, though. Far be it from me to question the morality of someone's lawful actions on their own property.

 

[csmkersh]

Sans Authoritas, committing a hot burglary is reason enough to believe that the perp intended to do harm. For me, I'll live by Texas law, not your ethics as they could get me or my family harmed.
​

 

[TexKettering]

I'm sure a savvy lawyer can come up with a case. The guy was running away and was shot. The guy that shot him drug the body inside for some reason.

Not going to happen.

Protected from civil suits in justified shootings. This was a justified shooting.

You are allowed to use deadly force to stop someone fleeing a crime like this.

 

[MechAg94]

Did the article say he shot him in the back? Even if he did move the body, they should still be able to tell that.

 

[blkbrd666]

The perp is dead. There is 0.00% chance that he will rob or harm the homeowner, his family, or his neighbors in the future. This is not a "probably" won't, this is a "definitely" won't. It's also not a 3-5 or 5-10 year "vacation" from his chosen profession before returning to the job. It's a permanent "fix" to the problem that cost the taxpayers of the state nothing compared to an arrest, prosecution, defense, trial, housing/encarceration, food, clothing, cable, medical, etc.

As a side thought...I wonder how long before states will start contributing to a criminal's retirement fund while he is behind bars so he can afford to live after he has been released and "reformed"??? Before anyone jumps on this...it is sarcasm.