Armed Citizen: Teen Shot by Homeowner

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm...a poster story for the anti gun folks......

1. Homeowner shouldnt have confronted
2. If he felt the need to confront, he shouldnt have done it armed.

Manslaughter.

WildassumingallthefactsasindicatedinthestoryarecorrectAlaska ™
 
This happened in Texas

I believe he can legally confront and shoot on his own property. The issue gets murky if the property belongs to somebody else, as in the guy who shot the men who burglarized his neighbor's garage last year. But I'm pretty sure that under Texas law, the homeowner is ok, hence the referral to the grand jury without charges.

Based on the neighbor's statements about the recent rash of burglaries in their neighborhood, I find it unlikely a Texas jury would indict, or a Texas civil jury would find in favor of a plaintiff.
 
From what I understand this was in a neighborhood that was having a lot of trouble with crime. The guy found an apparent crackpipe so he isn't dealing with a Honor Society teen here. The kid was moving towards him. Those 3 things would lead me to believe he had reason to be concerned for his well being. He told the guy to leave at least twice and once with the rifle in hand. If I am holding a weapon and someone can clearly see it and STILL makes a move at me I am going to assume he is armed and prepared to do me harm.

This is all after the actual confrontation has taken place though so I am not real sure where I stand on that. Probably should have called police and stayed inside, but from what I understand that isn't actually required. IMHO I think the guy won't be charged with anything but could potentially face some civil suit.

"Hmmm...a poster story for the anti gun folks......"
I can't agree with that.
 
The homeowner is lucky he lives in Texas, where the castle doctrine covers his property as well. I wonder if the kid threatened him, or if the argument just escalated and he shot the kid on accident? Since he shot him in the abdomen, it sounds like he did not mean for it to be a fatal wound.
 
FWIW

I would have called the police, if in the homeowner's situation. I'm not thrilled that he shot the crack-smoking 17 year old trespasser (not a kid, to my way of thinking - immature in this case, but I've known plenty of sailors and marines not much older). I wouldn't have wanted to escalate the situation to where I thought it necessary.

At the same time, I am quite happy with TX and GA allowing homeowners to defend their property. Property rights don't have much meaning if you are required to relinquish property to criminals because it's wrong to use force against criminals... and I don't think it's wrong to use force, although deadly force is definitely not the ideal starting point in the force continuum.

I suspect crime rates would be lower if criminals had more fear of homeowners actually using force against them; this appears to be borne out by the general drop in crime rates in states with shall-issue laws, and the relatively higher crime rates in cities like Chicago and DC.
 
Last edited:
I am not quite sure how I feel about this one yet. I can understand not being willing to hide inside your home with an aggressor on your property. You never know when they will come back if you allow them free reign. I do think calling the police would have been the ideal way to deal with this scenario, but I do understand that the police are often an hour away if you are lucky when stuff like this happens.

If the person who was shot did indeed return and then refuse to leave at gun point (even approaching the home owners at gun point) I will have little sympathy for them. That does not mean I support the idea of shooting him. It just means it is possible that a situation existed where I would support shooting him.
 
Realistically, a jury probably wouldn't convict. The homeowner found a crackpipe in the yard. Thus, an argument could be made that the dead young man was high on crack or really needed a crack "fix". Lay people don't know how a crack addict acts when he is high or when he is not and needs another rock.

This being said, it would have been better for the homeowner to have stayed inside his "castle" and call LEO's. This situation fits in the discussion thread of "Legal duty to retreat" v. Moral duty to retreat".
 
Well done old man.

I always feel bad when someone dies, but well delivered justice always neutralizes that feeling.

Can't say I feel bad for the "gangsta" this time though, he pretty much asked for it.

Hope the old man receives a fair trial.
 
He should have called the cops and then the teen could have stayed in his yard all he wanted until the cops showed up and confiscated the crack pipe.

The story does not tell enough to know what happened. You do not know how the teen was acting, what he was saying, how he was moving. Was he just standing in the shooters front yard smoking crack in the shade. Was he lurking about? What was he doing there? Was he alone? There is not enough context to know what was going on at all. Therefore enormous speculation is happening here.
 
Well, when you tell someone to leave your property twice while pointing a gun at them and they walk towards you I think it's safe to say that waiting to see what they'll do when they get to you is NOT safe.

Given the rash of bruglaries in the area I think the old man was justified in confronting the kid.

Given the fact that the kid refused to leave, was not phased by having a rifle pointed at him, AND was moving toward the homeowner, he was justified in shooting.

Just calling it how I see it.
 
If I remember correctly, Texas may be unique among all of the states in that the law provides that a property owner may use deadly force to protect his/her property. This is, of course, in addition to being able to use deadly force in self-defense.
So the standard in Texas may be the lowest of all of the 50 states to justify the use of deadly force against someone on your property.
 
i think the old guy should sue the crack monkeys family for post tramatic stress disorder.

i am a firm believer in you reap what you sew.

why shoud we as upstanding citizens cower in our homes while being victimized by thugs!


Cerick: Why would the teen walk towards and confront someone with a gun? Bad thinking on his part.

Answer: CRACK makes you think clearly?
 
Why would the teen walk towards and confront someone with a gun? Bad thinking on his part.
Click to expand...

This why when someone does something stupid and we are trying to be sarcastic we ask them "are you smoking crack?!"... which very well could have been the case here, toxicology report anyone?
 
i think the old guy should sue the crack monkeys family for post tramatic stress disorder.

i am a firm believer in you reap what you sew.

why shoud we as upstanding citizens cower in our homes while being victimized by thugs!
Click to expand...

Excellent......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrah! Thump Thump!

:barf:

WildwhatsacrackmonkeybythewayAlaska ™
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top