Armed Citizen: Teen Shot by Homeowner

Status
Not open for further replies.
why shoud we as upstanding citizens cower in our homes while being victimized by thugs!
Click to expand...
I dont think staying inside while calling the police would be considered cowering inside...
I also dont think (considering the circumstances) that confronting someone trespassing on your property makes you a gung ho, shoot to kill, clean the gene pool, vigilante...
A toughie...

Any idea if it was a .22lr or something along the lines of a .223?
 
My question is how has this action benefited the shooter as opposed to staying inside and calling the police?
 
Donn_N said:
My question is how has this action benefited the shooter as opposed to staying inside and calling the police?
Click to expand...

And a good question it is... it'll probably benefit his attorney some, though. Even if he hasn't been charged at this point, he'd be foolish not to retain one.
 
Just reading the article...sounds like a good shoot.

As far as how this benefited the man who shot the guy...well, he doesn't have to worry about that particular alleged crackhead. And there is the added benefit of other criminals in the area knowing that he'll use deadly force if he fears for his life. It's not just an idle threat.
 
1. Homeowner shouldnt have confronted
2. If he felt the need to confront, he shouldnt have done it armed.
Click to expand...
I disagree on at least half of that.
I bet almost everyone has confronted someone on their property, and asked 'What are you doing here? Selling Jesus? Subscriptions? Not interested, get off my property?"
A homeowner has every right to do just that. And if the person does not disperse, then you take it to another level. Start with determining if the person poses a threat, real or percieved? Are they displaying any kind of weapon or making any verbal threats or are they confrontational?
Then move on to your options, if there is no threat, call the police, tell them you have a trespasser who refuses to leave. If there is a threat, can you vacate to safety? If you are armed, can you deploy your own weapon prudently?
Should you go that route, and the person still advances on you while you are ordering them off at gunpoint, would it really be manslaughter if you pulled the trigger?

Come on Ken, do you honestly believe that while you are on your own property, you should not be armed while confronting a trespasser?
 
Come on Ken, do you honestly believe that while you are on your own property, you should not be armed while confronting a trespasser?
Click to expand...

Depends on the circumstances. Here the guy had already been told to leave and he came back. At that time, it should have been cover, conceal, cell phone as opposed to confront, conflict and fire........

The guy shouldnt have walked out with a rifle

Let me ask you....what would be the first response of a cop to this scenario......?

Sure as heck isnt going to be lethal force. Why should an untrained citizen be held to a lesser standard......

Why didnt the homeowner retreat...O yes I know, its his "property"....

WEildigotthelardreadyAlaska ™
 
Why should an untrained citizen be held to a lesser standard......
Click to expand...

Curiously, I often hear that police should be held to a "higher standard". The implication, of course, being that an "untrained civilian" would indeed be held to a lower standard.

Secondarily, it would seem logical to me that lack of training would seem to imply a lower standard.


Should we otherwise hold everyone to the SAME standard? That would seem unreasonable considering the relatively formidable armament available to a trained police officer, starting with hand-to-hand, pepper spray, a baton, handcuffs, body armor and certainly a gun. A civilian may be excused for stepping up the response level, considering.
 
First response of a cop

First response of a cop would have been a verbal warning, followed by an attempt to use cuffs, followed by non lethal (pepper spray, taser, bean bag depending on equipment) followed by PR24, followed by firearm.

Depending on what the BG did, some of these steps might be skipped.

However, the homeowner in this case was a 69 year old man. I don't know any 69 year old patrol guys, though there are probably some someplace...

Whether it was wise of the homeowner to go outside, he did. It wasn't illegal, and it wasn't immoral for him to go outside. However, once he was out there, he lacked the capability the police have for graduated levels of response. He probably had no level available between verbal and firearm, suitable for dealing with a 17yo.
 
I bet almost everyone has confronted someone on their property, and asked 'What are you doing here? Selling Jesus? Subscriptions? Not interested, get off my property?"
Click to expand...

Yes, but in this case, the shooter knew the guy was not selling Jesus or subscriptions and knew he was dealing with a drug user. Why risk a confrontation?

My original question stands. How has the shooter benefited by confronting and shooting someone to death as opposed to simply staying inside and calling the police?
 
I think the old guy should have went back inside his home and called the police.
And IF the crack-head tried to enter the home, then would be the time to shoot the crack-head.

Having said that, if I were on the jury I would not convict the old guy of any crime.
 
Wildalaska,

I use the word "gangsta" pretty broadly, as I do with many other slang. Where I grew up, the term "gangsta" is used to describe any person acting as if he is part of a gang or are into that type of stuff. It's also used to describe people affiliated with activities involving gangs. Like I said, it's used to describe a broad range of people.

But to answer your question, I labeled him a "gangsta" because he is a 17 year old hispanic teenager with a crack pipe living in a less than desirable environment.

It's just a label. But if it bothers you, feel free to PM me and I'll gladly edit or remove it.
 
1. Homeowner shouldnt have confronted
2. If he felt the need to confront, he shouldnt have done it armed.
Click to expand...

That's funny. Every confrontation I have had with folks in the last 10 years, except my wife, has been armed. I am always armed when dealing with strangers, especially around my home. It has always struck me as silly those people who could carry, but don't, and then end up complaining about being unarmed at the time of an incident.

As for not confronting the crackhead, I see no reason to turtle up every time somebody does something on my property that I don't like. I see no reason to call the cops to handle such matters either when they are simple verbal exchanges...which the initial confrontation was, after which, the crackhead and homeowner apparently went their separate ways.

Let me ask you....what would be the first response of a cop to this scenario......?

Sure as heck isnt going to be lethal force. Why should an untrained citizen be held to a lesser standard......
Click to expand...
Uh, because they aren't cops. Because as in this case, they are defending their own property and selves whereas the situation isn't the same for the cops. Because the cops are trained, carry all sorts of weapons, don't usually have to wait the 8-33 minutes (average 10.3 minutes 4 years ago) for a response to a priority 1 emergency call like citizens. When we call 911, the dispatcher decides how to rate the call and what response to send. When an officer calls for assistance (officer needs help), every local officer who isn't otherwise engaged will respond.

Why didnt the homeowner retreat...O yes I know, its his "property"....
Click to expand...
There is no reason for the homeowner to have to retreat in Texas, legally or morally. It might be best tactically, however.
 
Last edited:
When I read the first story the image painted in my mind was that of a 69 year old "grandfather" sort with "construction equipment" in his shop. So I'm thinking he's a pretty fit guy, I know people his age who are still working family construction companies and are pretty able bodied people.

After a bit of research on the subject however, and a lot of head shaking at the sensationalism that today's "news" feels compelled to use, I found that a 69 year old cancer patient who wheels about an oxygen tank "gunned down a teen". :rolleyes: Apparently 1 shot is considered "gunning someone down" nowadays. :confused:

From what I read, Mr Austgen confronted the young man breaking into his truck, teen left leaving his crack pipe on the truck, teen apparently then came back for his crack pipe, Mr. Austgen once again confronted him, told him to leave, teen approached Mr. Austgen then turned and walked away then turned and came at him again at which point Mr. Austgen fired a single shot into the young man. It's my understanding that Mr. Austgen was actually on his porch when he fired the shot. I do not know if Mr. Austgen's "confrontations" all occurred from the porch or not.

If any of this is correct which unfortunately we don't know because it's source is the news :barf: :rolleyes:
But if Mr. Austgen really is a 69 year old cancer patient on an oxygen tank
And Mr. Austgen really does reside in Texas

Then I'm going to have to say although I think it was a poor choice on Mr. Austgen part if he really is in the shape he is, to confront, I don't see Texas giving him any trouble over this. If he is in the physical shape reported, then I can see him being in legitimate fear of his life from the teen, particularly if he came at him after not responding to multiple orders to leave.

From the information available though, I don't know that it's possible to say good shoot/bad shoot. It's a pity that the news is such unreliable sensationalized lying croup anymore. It's one thing to make mistakes or report out of ignorance, but to deliberately twist and skew things to upset and provoke people is just yellow journalism. :mad:

The rifle shown being handled by the police in one news video was a bolt action .22.
 
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.
Click to expand...

irrelevant here, I think, because the shooting occurred at 10:30 AM and the law that allows the use of deadly force to protect property in Texas applies only at night.

Texas does have a provision in the law that obviates the requirement to retreat in a self defense shooting. I think that is likely what was operative here.

None of us have enough information to really opine.

But--the fact of a current decision to not charge does not mean that he cannot be charged later. Best that the shooter stay mum and not give the authorities additional statements to use against him.
 
Houston slow police response times blamed on all sorts of things such as training and manpower...
http://www.click2houston.com/news/7881025/detail.html
http://www.click2houston.com/news/4512431/detail.html
http://www.aframnews.com/html/inter...ston-Police-Departments-New-Budget/Page1.html
http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/02/police-chief-defends-his-immigration-law-stance/ (claimed to be around 5 minutes here in 2008 by the chief)

I find this last citation a bit ironic given that it is claimed here...
http://dailyuw.com/2008/1/9/faster-stronger-smarter-police-force/
that the national average for major cities is 7 minutes and I just don't see Houston beating the national average given all of their previous problems. Even so, the claimed averages are from 5-10.3 minutes with many calls going way beyond that amount for emergency priority 1 calls.

Calling the police is just wishful thinking if you are expecting them to save your life in an immediate crisis. Most such events are over long before the cops ever arrive, not because the cops are doing anything wrong, but because of how the process works. There simply aren't enough well trained personnel to response to each an every priority 1 crisis in the small amount of time to actually effect the outcome of that crisis in a positive manner. Those cops don't exist because tax payers aren't willing to pay to have them and many folks would fear a police presence that powerful. A cop on every corner is almost what is needed only it would be extremely costly and create paranoia of a police state.
 
Hank15: Gangsta definition

Hey Hank,
That is exactly the description (Gangsta) I would give some crack head dirt bag like that (if they came at me in my own yard). I don't have a problem with calling it like it is. In fact, I might even think of harsher words than that.

You know what, with the way the economy is going down the tubes, layoffs, terminations, unemployment going through the roof, etc. I believe that we are going to start seeing a lot more of these type instances in the news. Peolple are getting sick of being screwed with, robbed, threatened, etc. and they are going to react to the situations. Maybe more forcefully than they normally would. Watch out. Its getting to be a really dangerous world out there for all of us....
 
Last edited:
Calling the police is just wishful thinking if you are expecting them to save your life in an immediate crisis. Most such events are over long before the cops ever arrive, not because the cops are doing anything wrong, but because of how the process works.
Click to expand...

The shooter was not in an immediate crisis, so time was not the issue here. The shooter was secure in his home and decided to leave the security of his home and confront the BG.

If the shooting went down the way we think it did, I'm not saying the shooting was not justified, I'm simply saying that it was very poor judgment to confront someone that you know is a drug user who might be high and dangerous.

So now the shooter is worrying about whether or not he will be charged, he may be concerned about retaliation from the BG's buddies, he may be traumatized by having taken a life (I know that is a foreign concept to some, but it happens frequently) and God knows what else. Somehow I just keep missing the up side for this guy.
 
Insufficient evidence for me to make a meaningful judgement. If it went down the way Trooper Tyree described then its a justifiable shoot and I have no tears to cry for the 17 year old crackhead.

I can tell you this, If I find someone in my driveway breaking into my car, they will be confronted and I will be armed. Depending on the circumstances, I or my wife may have already or may be currently calling 911. If the BG decides to run away he will not be shot. I have no desire to hold a BG at gunpoint as I wait for police.

I can also tell you that if the criminal makes a move towards me while being confronted, he will be shot.

If the BG comes back to my house looking for his crack pipe and makes a move toward me he will be shot.

There are many different scenarios of how this confrontation could play out, those are for a different thread perhaps but one thing I'm not going to do is hide in my house while someone is breaking into my property.

Wild, I always see you lecturing others about use of their guns and in this instance your opinion is that this gentleman should be charged with manslaughter. You are wrong. Way wrong.

OH, give me a break here
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top