Thief wounded, released by cops: victim's guns confiscated!

[Delmar]

I have one question-how are you going to "know", based on just having your home invaded and a freakin pistol pointed at YOUR head, with the BG now out there in the dark, with YOUR shotgun, whether or not the BG decides that because you have seen his face, that he will not come back in and splatter your head like a melon with the 20 gauge?????

Easy to fight this battle with a keyboard after the whole situation is in, but another story altogether when you are in the situation and not all the facts are in.

 

[Curare]

So you would advocate blindly shooting at the sounds of a retreating criminal once he is out of your house, in your neighborhood, after the immediate threat had ended? Where did you learn about the legal application of lethal force?

 

[MacPelto]

Well, I know that y'all don't live in Texas. Here, this would have been a perfectly legal shoot. Even with the BG retreating.

These are the rules of OUR society. Any questions?

Mac

Texas Penal Code
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY



§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

 

[Curare]

"Well, I know that y'all don't live in Texas. Here, this would have been a perfectly legal shoot. Even with the BG retreating."

Thanks for reminding us of the laws of Texas (and I'm happy tht you have common sense gun laws, and I realize that you ARE part of our society), however it is irrelevant to this discussion seeing that the events occurred in Florida.

 

[Delmar]

Thank you, MacPelto. In fact, I DO live in Texas, thank God.

I believe the man shooting blindly in the dark is not the best scenario possible, it may well have convinced the bad guy to exit the property in haste. Others here apparently believe that the BG should have another chance to consider his recent actions.

Curare-I believe that anyone entering an occupied domicile and putting a gun to the occupants head should not have made it off the property alive, and I don't care whether the shots enter the front of the perps head or or his hind quarters.

The bad guy is extremely DANGEROUS to their community and should be shot down in the street like the rabid dog he is, wherever he might be found.

Apparently, this fella is walking the streets AS WE TYPE, knowing this person can ID him and also knows he is unarmed. As I say-shooting the man in the dark was not a great idea, but with the bad guy in the dark, and lacking any convienient NVG, the homeowner was still in fear of his life, or should have been, IMO. The only reason the homeowner is alive in the first place is the BG did not pull the trigger when he first had the chance.

I hope you and yours never have to go thu what this poor man did, but I also hope you can take the shot and save the rest of us from a predator such as the bad guy in question.

 

[brian roberts]

robbery.....

call 911????for WHAT????? sure, he shot him, he should have tracked him down, & held him for police, (unless he killed him first for some stupid move). once these people come in, they're like Jesse James, you never know when they'll return for the next "withdrawal"!!! an acquaintance once said, "people, who conTINue to indulge in high-risk behavior, such as that, should be prepared to accept ANY possible consequence as....an occupational HAZARD!!!" once he came in, UN-invited, that's enough to get him some serious weight; once he did the gun thing to the head, he loses ALL protection. if more of these people GET shot once in awhile, maybe they'd stop that line of work. as for somebody that's just held me up???? there's no such thing as RETREATING...i'm NOT priviledged to that training, i'm JOHN Q. HOLD-UP VICTIM, if you want police protection, stay OUT of MY ABODE, JACKSON, then....you won't need police protection, will you??

 

[Curare]

Delmar, assumptions built on assumptions, despite the fact that I very well may have shot the perp as well (and suffering the consequences).

Regardless of what you or I would have done, my posts are commenting on the the irresponsibility and illegality of what the home owner did.

The headline very well could have read "St. Petersburg man accidently shoots 5 year-old girl while attempting to shoot a fleeing burglar".

 

[brian roberts]

Texas.....

say, in Texas, isn't the criminal in danger when he's IN the house, "....or within rifle-shot of the house..." is that part of the law still alive????

 

[Delmar]

Curare, I do agree with you to a point-firing into the dark is not a good thing, but I put myself in the victim's place at the time he fired those shots, and I can sympathize with him completely. I would bet that unless this person is a professional LEO with years of experience, the tunnel vision and fear must have been massive.

I know the law holds sway on situations like this, but based on what fact we have so far, I could not bring charges against him, and if on the grand jury, would no-bill him.

The immediate threat, and the original posting of this thread considered the fact that a bad guy broke into this persons home and threatened his very life with a firearm, and is now roaming the streets knowing he can be identified. The victim is now unarmed, and who is to say the bad guy, or friends of this bad guy, will not take further action? IMO, the victim's life is still in danger. What say you?

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Stopping to pick up stolen property that you dropped in the very house that you stole it from constitutes theft (in this case, armed robbery).

Sorry, gents, this is a case of burglary. In NY state, lethal force is generally considered to be reasonable when used to end this crime [along with arson, rape, kidnapping, and sodomy].

He fired at an intruder he knew was armed. A man who had held a gun to his head just seconds ago. And he shouldn't fire because he can't see him in the dark? The burglar wasn't fleeing, he was still in the house, and he had two guns.

It's not tag, folks. There's no allie-allie-in-for-free with an armed violent intruder who's inside your house.

 

[River Wraith]

Texas must be real nice.

 

[Tory]

Yes and NO

"Fleeing the scene constitutes a retreat."

True. So far, so good.

"Stopping to pick up stolen property that you dropped in the very house that you stole it from constitutes theft (in this case, armed robbery)."

Wrong. The theft occurred with the asportation and transportation of the homeowner's property. Stopping to pick it up afterwards is irrelevant.

"The thief may or may not have been leaving, but as soon as he stopped to pick up the coins, he stopped retreating."

Wrong. He was already:

1. OUT of the house; and

2. CONTINUED his retreat, as clearly shown by the trail of coins he left behind.

"Since he was armed, he was a threat (again)."

Wrong (again). He had DROPPED the shotgun to pick up the coins (presumably he still had his own pistol); he could not even see the homeowner, and made NO threats against him after leaving the house.

"You can't commit armed robbery and retreat at the same time; pick one."

NO need to, as they are not mutually exclusive, proven by the example at hand. The thief:

1. Broke and entered;

2. ADW for use of the handgun;

3. Robbery for use of force to get homeowner to try to open safe; then

4. LEFT the premises.

So, he committed the above crimes, left (retreat), and was then fired upon by the homeowner, to whom he was no threat at that time.

You are either under an immediate and present threat, or not; pick one.

Note that the homeowner admitted he could not even SEE the robber, still less whether he posed any danger at that point. Firing blindly in the dark at someone who may - or may not - even be there, and who poses no present threat to you is NOT self-defense; it is reckless endangerment.

The good news is that it was the BG and not the milkman, paperboy or early morning jogger ziphead shot.

 

[2nd Amendment]

The worst part of this is that the victim did not manage to put one of those rnds in the perp's head. As for shooting in the dark, one more reason I am glad to live where I do. Gives me time to dispose of the body...

 

[txgho1911]

Don't you hate it when

you catch yourself daydreaming of feeding the pigs for a good cause!
Individual rights to seld defence and the protection of private property is on the rise in this country through small but measurable steps.
You are human and you always will be untill you present to me a threat to me or mine. I better stop there.

 

[Curare]

He fired at an intruder he knew was armed. A man who had held a gun to his head just seconds ago. And he shouldn't fire because he can't see him in the dark? The burglar wasn't fleeing, he was still in the house, and he had two guns.

Re-read the article--shots were fired at a fleeing person outside of the residence.

I'll do you one better. Let's say the perp beat the man senseless, robbed him of his life savings, sodomized him, pulled his fingernails off with pliers while forcing him to watch Riverdance, then fled the residence in perfect visual conditions with nothing but fields beyond him. Still a bad shoot.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Yeah, just realized the intruder was outside. Makes the shoot a lot more questionable, especially with the shot in the buttocks. Though it's not clear if the burglar was fleeing, it may be up to a grand jury to decide. If the burglar was at the base of the stairs inside the house, it would be an unquestionably good shoot [at least in my state]

I'll do you one better...... Still a bad shoot.

Not necessarily. If a fleeing criminal is sufficiently dangerous, it may be justifiable to use lethal force to stop his escape. Doesn't apply in this case though.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

If a fleeing criminal is sufficiently dangerous, it may be justifiable to use lethal force to stop his escape.

You may want to check your state laws on that one, I know in GA shooting a fleeing felon who may pose a threat to the community only applies to Peace Officers,

When Peace Officers use deadly force the court must apply 16-3-21 and 17-4-20. When a civilian shoots the court only apply OCGA 16-3-21.

"Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm" OCGA 17-4-20.

The following examples are provided to show when an officer may use deadly force:
1. When the officer reasonably believes it necessary to defend his/her own life or the life of another, or to prevent grave bodily injury to him/her self or another and all available means of defense have failed or would be inadequate or dangerous under the circumstances.
2. When necessary to prevent the commission of forcible felonies;

3. To effect the arrest of a person at the scene of a crime who is attempting to escape, but only if there is a serious threat of immediate danger to the officer or third persons, such as the use of firearms or taking of hostages.



When a civilian shoots the court only apply OCGA 16-3-21, which states;

16-3-21.
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force;

however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.
(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant´s reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:
(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and
(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert´s opinion.

 

[pwrtool45]

Tory:

Okay, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Let me clean this up a bit:

If he was still in the house (re)collecting stolen property while armed, then he is a threat. That's a continuation of the act of armed robbery; he's armed and he's taking your stuff (i.e., still in the process of asportation). The rest of your 3/4 page post is based on a different premise than my response to the OP and I agree with most of it. I assert nothing about what happens after the thief left the house and ran off. Before that time, while he's in the house and armed, he constitutes a threat. If he drops things he's stolen while in the house and stops to collect them while in the house then he is a threat. As soon as he crosses the door and is outside and running (while leaving a trail of coins) he is no longer a threat. If he stops to riverdance (after the armed robbery, ADW, etc.) while in the house, he is a threat. If he asks to borrow a cup of sugar while still in the house after the armed robbery, ADW, etc, then he is still a threat.

How's that?

Firing blindly downstairs when nobody else lives with you is wrong, but not near the cardinal tresspass that firing blindly into a neighborhood from your front door is. I was under the impression he was guilty of the former, not the latter (which is much more serious).

Of course, there are plenty who disagree. Thereare plenty who think that hosing the guy down after's he's out the door and running is also acceptable. I can't buy that. The "old world" concept that an affront to a person's honor/dignity/whatever is enough cause to take another person's life doesn't apply to our society and it shouldn't. If someone steals your stereo and you beat the daylights out of them, go with my blessings. If someone steals your stereo and you kill them, then that's borderline psychopathic behavior and it isn't healthy. Your honor/dignity/whatever isn't worth someone else's life, even if that someone else is a worthless piece of trash.

 

[Curare]

Not necessarily. If a fleeing criminal is sufficiently dangerous, it may be justifiable to use lethal force to stop his escape.

Nope.

 

[Tory]

It certainly does make a difference!

Distilled to its barest essentials:

BG IN the house: Open season. Primary concern is misses/overpenetration.

BG outside the house and FLEEING: Bad shoot. Period.

NOW are we all on the same page?

 

[Grey54956]

That's a negatory, good buddy.

It should read:

Bad Guy in the house: Open Season.

Bad Guy still armed, and on property: Open Season.

Bad Guy, still armed, visibly running down the road away from property representing a hazard to life and limb of another citizen after just threatening to kill you during commission of armed robery: Open Season.

Bad guy, having dropped weapons, property, etc., etc., running down the street: Bad Shoot. Maybe.

The problem is the written law and the culture of dependency it creates.

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

You no what makes me sick is why do we have thousands of laws on the books that defend the right to break most of the 10 commandments.
Some states and even Ca as I remember one such case and this is to show how stupid some areas are. A guy came right into a guys house broad daylight and the guy robbed the family at gun point, They new him as one of the gang members from around the corner so this guy tells him and his family he just might come back and kill the whole family if he wanted and just might.
The guy leaves and the family man gets his gun and goes around and shoots and kills the bad guy. They did not press charges either as the guy made a threat at gun point to come and kill them later.

You can quote all the legal mumbo jumbo you want but to me and many, many others here believe he had a right to hunt him down.

And to the one's who say I would pay for it, well you are most likely right but I just look to what John Adams said back in 1771 on that very subject of what is right in a jury. All you law abiding folks know that one do you not.

Hey why not let this thread go like most of the others like this!!!! most Everybdy gives up the topic for the next one of the day and it is left to one or two folks that did not like it to get teamed up on by the so called I protect your rights and this is the law ones till the one or two say the hell with it.

No matter what you say is the law it was not right.

 

[carebear]

Here's a little something else. Police often will not formally arrest people that they a) know are chargeable and b) aren't going anywhere until they decide what they are going to charge them with and have all the evidence they need to make it stick. Especially if they have been injured. Once they intake him, the state is responsible for all the medical bills. He's not "roaming free," he's awaiting arrest. Right or wrong, they probably don't feel he constitutes a significant threat to public safety in general or this guy in particular.

In this case they are probably also waiting on the prosecutor's office to determine if they intend to charge the homeowner with anything.

Any follow up yet?

 

[Curare]

Jon, discussion about the application of leathal force is incredibly important for gun owners. Know and follow the law, or spend some time in prison as someone's personal release device.

------

Bad Guy still armed, and on property: Open Season.

Greg, not neccessarily.

 

[Tory]

Homicidal rants about

"a right to hunt ( the BG ) down" are just the sort of Neanderthal babble the anti's love to quote. Such testosterone-saturated posturing ignores another fundamental right: Innocent until proven guilty by a jury of ones peers. Or have certain posters forgotten THAT right?

I forget - which amendment makes each and every citizen the judge, jury and executioner for any perceived personal offense? No doubt one of the legal luminaries declaring:

"Bad Guy, still armed, visibly running down the road away from property representing a hazard to life and limb of another citizen after just threatening to kill you during commission of armed robery: Open Season.

Bad guy, having dropped weapons, property, etc., etc., running down the street: Bad Shoot. Maybe."

can cite it for us. Lexis and Westlaw, anyone?

"You no [sic] what makes me sick is why do we have thousands of laws on the books that defend the right to break most of the 10 commandments. " [fractured syntax in original]

Two queries for this Talmudic scholar:

1. How and when were the "10 commandments" enacted as the civil law of this entire nation; and

2. What laws "defend the right to break most" of them?

Inquiring minds want to know........