Betcha it's a BAD shoot.....Wot u think?

L

Lavan

New member
Local paper this AM had article about a homeowner (who is security guard) who heard noise, put on bulletproof vest, got gun and went outside.
Found the prowler. Prowler jumps back. Homeowner shoots. Hits guy in arm.
After cops come, homeowner sez he was "mostly scared" and sez "he's glad the guy isn't more badly hurt."

It's a wonder he didn't make a notarized apology.

What's your opinion?
 
I agree that more info is necessary.

But... He had the time to put on a vest and search outside? That may easily be interpreted as overt agression. Anyone know the particulars of california law on engaging a threat outside of your home? We shall see.
 
I'm guessing that the homeowner is in deep yogurt. And he should be. Going outside is stupid, and, it should be obvious, he was skating on very thin ice from a legal standpoint. Any gun owner should know this, and a security guard should know it even better.

Every writer on self-defense I have read (Ayoob, etc.)stresses heavily that lethal force in response to anything other than immediate personal danger will generally get you into major legal problems, and that no jurisdiction allows lethal force for protection of property. Also, most writers and instructors stress that you should secure your house, call the police, and stay put.

If I'm the prowler, I say I wandered on this guy's property looking for my lost cat, and this guy jumps out and shoots me with no warning. (Assuming that it was a prowler, and not a guy looking for his lost cat.) Then I sue Mr. Security for all he's got. Any kind of finding or judgement against Mr. Security, even a misdemeanor with a suspended sentence, and he probably looses his gun rights and his job. Dumb.

Let me know where this guy works. Don't want to go shopping at his mall. Probably get shot for littering.

Martin Sheen said it all in Apocalypse Now: Never get out of the boat.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sigmund:
Every writer on self-defense I have read (Ayoob, etc.)stresses heavily that lethal force in response to anything other than immediate personal danger will generally get you into major legal problems, and that no jurisdiction allows lethal force for protection of property.[/quote]

They may say whatever they want, but it's not true in _every_ jurisdiction. As I've posted before, here in the state of North Carolina, it is entirely lawful to use deadly force to prevent someone from entering your home against your will. However, once a malfeasant has entered your home, it is not lawful to use deadly force against him unless he presents a threat to the occupants.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>... no jurisdiction allows lethal force for protection of property.[/quote]

Not true. Excerpted from Texas' code (http://capitol.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/codes/PE000007.html):

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Sec. 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.
[/quote]

Down 'round the Lake Corpus Christi area it isn't unheard of for the locals to call the Sheriff to come get the body... so, as you might expect, there's a very low incidence of rustling and tresspassing.

(As it should be, IMO)
 
The news article doesn't say whether the guy who was shot was armed. If he was, Mr. Security can say he saw a weapon and will be in the clear easily. Even if it's a knife or screwdriver, he only has to quote Dennis Tueller.

If the guy was not armed, it depends on state laws about justified use of force, and this is California, right? I don't know the law there, so I don't know whether "jumping back" justifies a shoot.
 
They may say whatever they want, but it's not true in _every_ jurisdiction.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it moral.
Just because it's moral doesn't make it legal.
 
sedwards, Texas is the big exception to the rule. It is legal to shoot taggers and hub cap thieves so long as it is at night. Texas is very progressive. It allows the criminal to place a value on his own life. A wonderful idea. If a criminal steals a hubcap and is killed for it, he personally placed a very low value on his life. Actually, depending on the value of the hubcap, the criminal may have a much higher opinon of his value than I do. God bless Texas!!!
 
That excerpt makes it sound like you can shoot trespassers on sight in Texas. Is that true?
 
Jeff, for all practical purposes it is true, IF it is night. Texas assumes that at night you cannot readily determine if a lawbreaker is armed or not and sensibly allows you to assume that he is, without placing yourself at jeopardy to find out. We don't require any "retreat to the farthest possible position" crap either. A couple years ago a houston man was ONE day late on a truck payment. That night a repo man broke into it and started down the street. Thinking his truck was being stolen, he reached behind his front door and got his deer rifle (this is Texas, after all) and popped two rounds down the block. One went through the cab and seat, killing the repo man. Grand jury got it, returned no-bill and man goes home, no trouble with the law. Needless to say, they don't have many night time repos in Houston anymore.

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
 
TV,

I believe it was Dateline or some such that decried the Texas law that allows this. They cited the case you describe and they showed film of the guy telling the cops the next day how he shot at the truck even to the point of mimicing his movements. They were SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I TELL YA! How could this be? a man can kill another man, admit to the cops he did it and even describe how and walk back home a free man? SHOCKED, I TELL YA!

Lotsa gnashing of teeth and wearing of sackcloth that night. Ah, the Liberals. What idiots.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited August 03, 2000).]
 
On this issue, I used to live in CA and there is a statute that allows one to be outside of one's home with a loaded firearm as long as they perceive a danger to themselves or others; and they can remain so until the arrival of the lawful authority. Can't remember the statute but it is there.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited August 03, 2000).]
 
Does Texas have a lower crime rate because it's legal to shoot some bum for stealing your hubcaps?

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
[ grrr... message lost due to wrong passwd on form submit ]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Texas is very progressive. It allows the criminal to place a value on his own life. A wonderful idea. If a criminal steals a hubcap and is killed for it, he personally placed a very low value on his life. Actually, depending on the value of the hubcap, the criminal may have a much higher opinon of his value than I do.[/quote]

True story:

The Batmobile from the first movie was raffled off and won by a young gent... he thought it was pretty cool, but... where do you park the blasted thing?

So he makes a deal with a local museum, and the Batmobile goes on display. Unfortunately, somebody steals a hubcap (or two).

That'd be the end of the story, 'cept the museum happens to be on federal property. And who investigates robberies on federal property? The FBI.

Imagine that... a federal rap for stealing a hubcap. ;^)

Incidently Jeff, you hit on one of my favorite rebuttals. An anti once asked me if I would shoot a mugger even if I only had $2 in my wallet; I replied in the affirmative (of course). And to followup on the [requisite] shock and horror, I explained that it wasn't a question of whether or not I'd kill to keep my $2, but whether or not the mugger was willing to die trying to take it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That excerpt makes it sound like you can shoot trespassers on sight in Texas. Is that true?[/quote]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Jeff, for all practical purposes it is true, IF it is night. Texas assumes that at night you cannot readily determine if a lawbreaker is armed or not and sensibly allows you to assume that he is, without placing yourself at jeopardy to find out. [/quote]

Like TV said, at night you can assume they're armed, whereas in the daytime you have to make some determination as to whether or not they're armed.

(Doesn't that bulge in his shirt look like a gun?)

Still, armed or not, if in your judgement shooting them is the only way to stop them (ex: there's 2 trucks full of guys with lit torches) or pursuing whatever mayhem they're up to (ex: they're running your herd with motorcycles), then yes -- you can shoot 'em on sight.

I'm not at all familiar with how the larger municipalities (like Houston and Dallas) interpret or apply the law but, as it was explained to me, unless the guy is momentarily traversing your property or looking *very* lost, he ain't there to pick daisies.
 
I don't know Battler, I haven't made a practice of going state to state committing crimes so I've nothing to compare it with. How about you?

Do you feel safer knowing you can shoot a repo-man just for doing his job and get away with it? What a joke. Or maybe you'll sleep better at night knowing you can shoot the neighbor's kid for stealing your kid's baseball, as long as it's at night that is.

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top