You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Armed Citizen: Teen Shot by Homeowner
- Thread starter verti89
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Michael Anthony
New member
Wild I'm usually with you, and I am on this one as well. We've seen too many situations develop into "self defense" scenarios when I would like to see what would have happened if the "victim" just called the police and kept watching TV. I would expect and respect him telling the guy to get lost the first time, but when its clear he isn't listening, why not call for help and finish your dinner?
Most harassment, repeated trespassing, and verbal threat related incidents stem from BOTH parties engaging in general obnoxiousness. If the guy had never gone outside, the kid never would have gotten killed. End of story.
If he still isn't charged by the end it would definitely go into the "moral vs. legal duty to retreat" bin. It becomes a classic case of a homeowner waiting for an opportunity to shoot someone.
I will throw one monkey-wrench into our viewpoint though (and BillCA did throw a few good ones as well). Police officers in many areas are trained to expect guns when they see drugs. This could extend to paraphernalia. Applying this logic could become part of defense to the actual shooting.
Most harassment, repeated trespassing, and verbal threat related incidents stem from BOTH parties engaging in general obnoxiousness. If the guy had never gone outside, the kid never would have gotten killed. End of story.
If he still isn't charged by the end it would definitely go into the "moral vs. legal duty to retreat" bin. It becomes a classic case of a homeowner waiting for an opportunity to shoot someone.
I will throw one monkey-wrench into our viewpoint though (and BillCA did throw a few good ones as well). Police officers in many areas are trained to expect guns when they see drugs. This could extend to paraphernalia. Applying this logic could become part of defense to the actual shooting.
verti89
"Local story here in houston."
"although sadly most of them have been family related crimes."
Enough said!
Is this new?
Do you have much experience with crack users or meth users? Unpredictable bunch. I would never, as you said, "just called the police and kept watching TV" or finishing my dinner.Michael Anthony said:We've seen too many situations develop into "self defense" scenarios when I would like to see what would have happened if the "victim" just called the police and kept watching TV. I would expect and respect him telling the guy to get lost the first time, but when its clear he isn't listening, why not call for help and finish your dinner?
Perhaps your "gist" was to just dial 911 and wait for the infantry to arrive. The problem is that when some of these folks feel "wronged", they can go to great lengths to get even. Including throwing things through your windows or setting fire to your house. I suspect it's likely he accused the older man of "stealing" his crack pipe and made threats about getting it back, but that is only supposition.
I am not in favor of executions or vigilantism, but if you read between the lines of the story, there are some things in the homeowner's favor.
First, his reason for confronting the trespasser - there was a history of recent thefts in the neighborhood ("burglars have taken all-terrain vehicles, tools, bicycles, and navigation and stereo equipment") and the homeowner had a shop or shed at his home where he stored "construction equipment." It isn't clear whether he is talking about backhoes or circular saws, but he certainly had an interest in protecting the equipment that he used to make a living, and it is understandable that he might exercise that interest by confronting a trespasser and potential thief.
Secondly, as has been brought out by a couple of previous posts, the teen responded to being ordered off the property by an armed homeowner by advancing on the property owner. That would seem to be a clear escalation and threat.
Certainly things could have been done better; most especially he should have called 911 at the beginning rather than at the end of the episode. But I just read another thread in which the police responded to a report of a thief brazenly stealing car parts in the driveway of a man's car with the owner standing there watching by promising to be there in thirty minutes. And I personally recently waited an hour and forty minutes for a response to a car accident after being rear-ended at a railroad crossing.
I know our LE agencies are overworked and undermanned and underfunded, and I don't blame them, but the inevitable result of slow response when people's lives, homes, and livelihoods are threatened are that they will act to protect their interests. If, as a society, we are going to abrogate the government's role in protecting its citizens, we must accept that they will protect themselves. In a certain way, we seem to be going backward to the situation that caused our founding fathers to call for citizens to arm themselves and participate in their own protection.
First, his reason for confronting the trespasser - there was a history of recent thefts in the neighborhood ("burglars have taken all-terrain vehicles, tools, bicycles, and navigation and stereo equipment") and the homeowner had a shop or shed at his home where he stored "construction equipment." It isn't clear whether he is talking about backhoes or circular saws, but he certainly had an interest in protecting the equipment that he used to make a living, and it is understandable that he might exercise that interest by confronting a trespasser and potential thief.
Secondly, as has been brought out by a couple of previous posts, the teen responded to being ordered off the property by an armed homeowner by advancing on the property owner. That would seem to be a clear escalation and threat.
Certainly things could have been done better; most especially he should have called 911 at the beginning rather than at the end of the episode. But I just read another thread in which the police responded to a report of a thief brazenly stealing car parts in the driveway of a man's car with the owner standing there watching by promising to be there in thirty minutes. And I personally recently waited an hour and forty minutes for a response to a car accident after being rear-ended at a railroad crossing.
I know our LE agencies are overworked and undermanned and underfunded, and I don't blame them, but the inevitable result of slow response when people's lives, homes, and livelihoods are threatened are that they will act to protect their interests. If, as a society, we are going to abrogate the government's role in protecting its citizens, we must accept that they will protect themselves. In a certain way, we seem to be going backward to the situation that caused our founding fathers to call for citizens to arm themselves and participate in their own protection.
Double Naught Spy
New member
A good guy killed a bad guy.
Why can't we just leave it at that?
Because it isn't ever that simple.
If the shoot wasn't legal, this it is not a matter of a good guy shooting a bad guy, but a bad guy shooting a bad guy.
If the shoot was legal, good for the homeowner.
Some are arguing that this shoot was at worst illegal and at best immoral and that regardless of the legalities, the homeowner was wrong.
Personally, other people's morals are for other people. They often like to inflict them on others in claiming moral high ground as justification and throwing out insults or mockery as a way of trying to bolster the appearance of the position being right, but such tactics don't actually make the position any more right and are actually rhetoric/argument fallacy of ad hominem.
The position being taken is that if you take the perspective of the homeowner being in the right, you are a chest thumper - which is in the connotation of being a negative attribute. You are a chest thumper not because the home owner's decision to act was necessarily illegal, but because certain people feel he acted wrongly as per their standards and hence anyone who doesn't agree gets the negative entitlement.
skydiver3346
New member
Wildalaska:
Sort of gotta agree with cloud8a on his comments. I respect you Wild and usually agree with you. But you did poop on the guy pretty badly. Let's all be nice....
Sort of gotta agree with cloud8a on his comments. I respect you Wild and usually agree with you. But you did poop on the guy pretty badly. Let's all be nice....
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6487500.html
So we get the usual argument of the dead person being a good kid, never involved in anything bad, etc. and also that he is a 17 year old 9th grader. If correct, that makes him a very OLD 9th grader. Something isn't right.
His picture is at the link above. He isn't a small, withered crackhead by any stretch. He looks to be in good shape.
Neighborhood fears flare up
Tension over race and crime rise to surface after teen’s killing
By MOISES MENDOZA
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
June 18, 2009, 10:28P
Meannine Orr moved to a street called Susanna Lane in north Harris County to get away from it all nine years ago.
But in the last few months, the 76-year-old has been too afraid to leave her home in this place people call Heidi’s Crossing, a leafy neighborhood with tidy mobile homes.
“It’s those people over there,” Orr said Thursday gesturing a street over toward Jimbo Lane. “They need to leave our neighborhood.”
A shooting a few houses down from Orr Wednesday morning created a frenzy of fear here, pitting neighbor against neighbor and leaving residents afraid to leave their houses.
Police say 69-year-old Dwayne Austgen shot Vidal Herrera after the 17-year-old confronted Austgen at his house in the 5500 block of Susanna Lane.
The case will likely be presented to a grand jury once authorities are done investigating, but Austgen has not been charged with a crime.
Herrera lived within walking distance on Jimbo Lane — known among some in the area as the “Hispanic street.” Austgen lives on a mostly Anglo street.
On Susanna Lane, many say Austgen was just protecting himself from a bad apple who wanted to rob him.
On Jimbo Lane, some believe the shooting has roots in racial tension.
• • • •
One thing most agree on: It was a matter of time before something went wrong here.
Over the last few months, burglars have hit a raft of cars and houses on Susanna Lane.
Many neighbors point to Herrera. They say he had a bad heart and stole things with friends.
Janie Witcher, for instance, suspects the boy took her sons’ bikes.
A neighbor once pulled a gun to scare him away, but Herrera just laughed, she said.
Said Heather Koenig, 24, who moved here about two years ago: “When I moved here they told me it should be called ‘The Devil’s Crossing,’ not Heidi’s Crossing.”
One day, Koenig said, she found her two dogs had been poisoned and killed but she’s not sure who did it.
Herrera had been bugging Austgen lately, despite the fact that the man is feeble and sometimes needs oxygen to breathe, neighbors said.
So with her street’s history in mind, Witcher believes Austgen was defending himself Wednesday.
“I mean we were all terrified of those kids, even my husband is terrified,” said Witcher, who lives with her four children, a grandchild and her husband.
A woman who identified herself as Austgen’s wife at his home said the shooting was a “tragedy and we’re sorry it had to happen.” She said her husband didn’t want to speak to the media.
• • • •
On Jimbo Lane, Herrera’s family put on black ribbons Thursday as the boy’s mother, Evelia Herrera, sobbed on the front porch and tried to plan a weekend funeral.
Her son — her only son — was a good boy, she said.
He cooked food for her and dreamt of being a mechanic.
Herrera was in the ninth grade but he wasn’t involved in drugs and he never stole things, family members said.
“It’s not right, it’s not right,” said his sister, Marisa Peralta, 20. “I don’t know why my brother was over there, but I know for sure he wasn’t bad. He was probably just defending himself.”
There’s been tension in this neighborhood between the whites and Hispanics for a long time, said Peralta.
“They say we’re bad people but it’s not true,” Peralta said. “The people over there always tell us bad things and call us names.”
Names like “wetback” said Angel Hernandez, a 12-year-old who lives on Jimbo Lane.
Once, the boy said, he got in a fight with people here because they called him names.
Most people on Jimbo Lane long ago learned it’s best to stick to themselves. That’s what Valentin Ramos does.
“We don’t really go out, we just stay in our house. There’s always extremists of every race, and I don’t have a problem with anyone here,” said Ramos, a preacher who’s lived here for about five years.
A sergeant in the Sheriff’s Office district which oversees the neighborhood said he didn’t think the neighborhood had unusual problems. He referred further comment to a detective investigating the shooting who did not return messages.
• • • •
Witcher said the race issue is a red herring. What matters, she said, is the fear her neighborhood has been under for months.
“It doesn’t matter if he was black, white or purple, everyone knew what this kid was doing,” she said.
This weekend Witcher plans to send her children away from the neighborhood. Orr said she’ll lock herself in her house, like she does every day.
“I don’t go out, I don’t talk to them over there,” she said. “I’m afraid.”
So we get the usual argument of the dead person being a good kid, never involved in anything bad, etc. and also that he is a 17 year old 9th grader. If correct, that makes him a very OLD 9th grader. Something isn't right.
His picture is at the link above. He isn't a small, withered crackhead by any stretch. He looks to be in good shape.
Perhaps your "gist" was to just dial 911 and wait for the infantry to arrive. The problem is that when some of these folks feel "wronged", they can go to great lengths to get even. Including throwing things through your windows or setting fire to your house. I suspect it's likely he accused the older man of "stealing" his crack pipe and made threats about getting it back, but that is only supposition.
It almost sounds as if you're advocating shooting someone for what they might do in the future.
The simple fact is that the shooter was safe in his home. Whether it took the police 3 minutes or 3 hours to arrive, he was not in any danger until he decided to leave the safety of his home and confront someone much younger who was likely high on crack.
Now someone is dead. The shooter may be charged with a crime. The BG may have friends who want to get even and the police probably have the shooter's gun. The homeowner may be suffering psychologically from having taken a life. For the life of me, I'm still not seeing any benefit for the shooter.
OldMarksman
Staff
I can also tell you that if the criminal makes a move towards me while being confronted, he will be shot.
How would you articulate that your action had been immediately necessary?
KingEdward
New member
if I read the story right...
person trespassed onto homeowner's property with illegal drug device
person was asked to leave and he did leave.
person left his illegal drug device.
person came back angry wanting his illegal drug device
person was told to leave and chose to confront the homeowner.
The homeowner feared the drug user as he came towards him so the homeowner protected himself.
Can't criticize him.
Well, except for those who say they would have stayed inside and called police.
That was an option but I think the homeonwner was consistent and
the trespassing drug user is the aggressor here.
person trespassed onto homeowner's property with illegal drug device
person was asked to leave and he did leave.
person left his illegal drug device.
person came back angry wanting his illegal drug device
person was told to leave and chose to confront the homeowner.
The homeowner feared the drug user as he came towards him so the homeowner protected himself.
Can't criticize him.
Well, except for those who say they would have stayed inside and called police.
That was an option but I think the homeonwner was consistent and
the trespassing drug user is the aggressor here.
Well after reading all the comments and doing some more searching around. There still is not a whole lot of details that I can find. BUT I did read that another neighbor claims they confronted this same kid with a gun and he laughed at them. The neighborhood had had a varying degree of crime including dogs being poisoned etc. There also seems to be a good deal of racial tension in the area, and of course the family claims their boy was an angel. The sister said something like I dont know what he was doing over there but he was probably just defending himself. What? well even if he was defending himself, he wouldn't have had to if he hadn't been trespassing.
After some time thinking about it I still find myself about where I was yesterday when I first read it. If I see anyone I do not recognize on my property (a average house in a quiet neighborhood), and who is not obviously a cable guy type, I am going to make sure I have my pistol in hand and, without displaying the pistol, ask them what they are doing. If I catch the person already engaged in some sort of mischief, breaking into my car or garage, I am calling the cops first, then probably yelling out that the cops have been called and watching from inside. HOPEFULLY the guy runs off without taking anything. How I react if I see him taking something depends on what it is he is taking and honestly I don't know how I would react. I think the best thing would be to just let him have whatever it is he is taking and then go from there, and really anything outside my home isn't worth getting into a confrontation with someone over.
HOWEVER, one I am a 25 year old in reasonable condition not a 70 year old oxygen tank toting gramps. Two I am not a frustrated citizen who has been taking it from the BGs for some time. That DOES change things. On one hand the guy is 69 and should have the sense to not confront a 17 year old. On the other I can understand an older man being tired of being disrespected and going out to yell at the young man. Once that decision was made a second time it would have been foolish NOT to go out with some sort of weapon. (Im not saying this was the right decision, just saying confronting someone, especially for a second time, unarmed is an even worse decision)
It would appear at this point that we know the young man was unarmed, but there is no way the shooter would have known this. AND if you suspect a guy is a crackhead AND he has returned after being told to leave AND he decides to come back at you after seeing your gun, I think it would be downright foolish NOT to assume he was armed.
I feel for the young mans family, but I also don't begrudge the old man for anything. Would I have probably stayed inside, yes, would it have been better if he stay in side, probably. But the way I look at this, he didn't shoot the young man for trespassing or even stealing. He confronted him verbally for these things, and shot the young man only when the young man started walking towards him while he was clearly armed, thereby giving him reason to fear for his own safety.
After some time thinking about it I still find myself about where I was yesterday when I first read it. If I see anyone I do not recognize on my property (a average house in a quiet neighborhood), and who is not obviously a cable guy type, I am going to make sure I have my pistol in hand and, without displaying the pistol, ask them what they are doing. If I catch the person already engaged in some sort of mischief, breaking into my car or garage, I am calling the cops first, then probably yelling out that the cops have been called and watching from inside. HOPEFULLY the guy runs off without taking anything. How I react if I see him taking something depends on what it is he is taking and honestly I don't know how I would react. I think the best thing would be to just let him have whatever it is he is taking and then go from there, and really anything outside my home isn't worth getting into a confrontation with someone over.
HOWEVER, one I am a 25 year old in reasonable condition not a 70 year old oxygen tank toting gramps. Two I am not a frustrated citizen who has been taking it from the BGs for some time. That DOES change things. On one hand the guy is 69 and should have the sense to not confront a 17 year old. On the other I can understand an older man being tired of being disrespected and going out to yell at the young man. Once that decision was made a second time it would have been foolish NOT to go out with some sort of weapon. (Im not saying this was the right decision, just saying confronting someone, especially for a second time, unarmed is an even worse decision)
It would appear at this point that we know the young man was unarmed, but there is no way the shooter would have known this. AND if you suspect a guy is a crackhead AND he has returned after being told to leave AND he decides to come back at you after seeing your gun, I think it would be downright foolish NOT to assume he was armed.
I feel for the young mans family, but I also don't begrudge the old man for anything. Would I have probably stayed inside, yes, would it have been better if he stay in side, probably. But the way I look at this, he didn't shoot the young man for trespassing or even stealing. He confronted him verbally for these things, and shot the young man only when the young man started walking towards him while he was clearly armed, thereby giving him reason to fear for his own safety.
He confronted him verbally for these things, and shot the young man only when the young man started walking towards him while he was clearly armed, thereby giving him reason to fear for his own safety.
If that's the way it happened. I'm not claiming it didn't. I'm just saying there don't appear to be any witnesses and no security cameras to contradict the story.
skydiver3346
New member
All these shootings lately:
Its starting to get to me a little when I read about all these shootings lately. In most every single case, the bad guy who gets shot ends up being the "victim" for some reason. In not one of these incidences did I see or read where the good guys started ANYTHING. They were minding their own business (either working or at home) and the thugs either came in brandishing a weapon and making threats or came on the personal property of the "real victim" and somehow threatend them, etc.
Sure, maybe the good guys sometimes over reacted but none of us where there and in "their shoes" at the time. Also, who is to say that they really over reacted anyway. We know what we read in the paper or see on some video that is not 100% totally convincing. Sometimes just calling the police (as a lot of you have suggested) is not always the best solution. Especially if law enforecement is a long ways off at the time or location.
Bottom line: If you start something and/or engage in a criminal activity against law abiding citizens, "then you will have to face the consequences for your actions and decisions", Period!
Its starting to get to me a little when I read about all these shootings lately. In most every single case, the bad guy who gets shot ends up being the "victim" for some reason. In not one of these incidences did I see or read where the good guys started ANYTHING. They were minding their own business (either working or at home) and the thugs either came in brandishing a weapon and making threats or came on the personal property of the "real victim" and somehow threatend them, etc.
Sure, maybe the good guys sometimes over reacted but none of us where there and in "their shoes" at the time. Also, who is to say that they really over reacted anyway. We know what we read in the paper or see on some video that is not 100% totally convincing. Sometimes just calling the police (as a lot of you have suggested) is not always the best solution. Especially if law enforecement is a long ways off at the time or location.
Bottom line: If you start something and/or engage in a criminal activity against law abiding citizens, "then you will have to face the consequences for your actions and decisions", Period!
GEEZ!!!got some facts to support that
I seriously doubt he WANTED to take a life and I seriously doubt that he was thumping his chest afterwards.
Come da heck on! Even the most liberal jewish kid from New York city wouldn't say this and also own a gun shop!Now really...really...got some facts to support that? On the other hand, can we infer that by coming out with a gun against (as we understand it) an unarmed teenager he wanted to do a bit more than stroke the kids hair...read the article (FWIW) carefully by the way as to the psychosocial circumstances in that neighborhood
we go out of our safe spot with a gun because we do not know if we need it or not! We do not grab the gun thinkin' "I GITS TO KILLZ ME SOME IDIOT" I have never fired on a person knockin on my door but better than a hundred have seen my weapon as I decided it best to be prepared than unarmed!
Brent
Why does this one guy keep talking about how did the shooter benefit from the situation? Since when do good guys shoot bad guy for some sort of benefit? Again you have to look at this situation as two seperate incidents. The young man was trespassing and potentially stealing from him, so by confronting him he stood to 'benefit' by not having his crap stolen. Then the young man caused him to fear for his life so he fired. I suppose you could say he benefitted by not getting potentially beat to death.
Why does this one guy keep talking about how did the shooter benefit from the situation? Since when do good guys shoot bad guy for some sort of benefit?
I keep talking about it, because it is relevant. If there is no benefit to confronting and shooting the BG and there are definite drawbacks, why would you do it?
I mean think about your usual day. How many times during the day do you intentionally act in such a way that the most likely outcome will be to your detriment? Rarely, if ever. Why should this situation be any different?
I don't understand the mindset that says, I must go out and confront this crackhead when the predictable negative results will far outweigh any positive results.
The young man was trespassing and potentially stealing from him, so by confronting him he stood to 'benefit' by not having his crap stolen. Then the young man caused him to fear for his life so he fired. I suppose you could say he benefitted by not getting potentially beat to death.
But do the "benefits" outweigh the drawbacks?
Last edited:
That is a matter of opinion, and as I stated before none of us can say exactly what we would do in a similar situation unless we have been in it already. Nor can we even then say what we would have done in his exact same position. When he confronted him initially the benefit did outweigh the potential downside because at that time the only assumed downside was losing whatever the perp took. When he confronted him the second time the benefit did not outweight the reasonable outcome, BUT how do we know the perp would not have escalated the situation on his own, obviously there is a gap between not waiting long enough and waiting too long. But when the decision was made to fire, it was because the perp was approaching him. At THAT point the benefit of living DOES outweigh the cost of potentially killing the perp.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.