Guy chases burglar outside and shoots him away from the house.

C

cloud8a

New member
http://www.woai.com/news/local/stor...allegedly-pulling/6p7unJzvIEukGFWvlF79PQ.cspx

This is interesting. A guy breaks down the door of a abode. I guess when he saw the tennant he took off. The tennant and his brother track the guy a few blocks away. The BG pulls a gun and the tennants brother opens fire and kills him.

They took what started out as a HD situation into a SD situation. From the article it sounds like they knew the guy.

"Police are not sure if the homeowner's brother will face any charges, saying the shooting may be considered a case of self defense."

The thing that makes this different is they left the scene to look for the guy.
 
I give chase, crook brandishes so much as a finger pistol at me and I will serve up a heavy dose of 2 lead aspirins!
Brent
 
If I were certain folks who regularly post here, I would say something along the lines of; 'Good Job, they stopped a criminal, and made our quickly-declining society safer as a result. He got what he deserved, anyone who attempts a crime and then thinks better of it and tries to run forfeits his rights to live'

However, since I am not that person, I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.
 
I give chase
Click to expand...

If you know the guy, why would you "give chase" ?
Why not call the popo and say "such and such just tried to rob me" rather than chase him down and force him to defend himself?

What is with this sudden "I'm gonna be a self appointed Marshall" syndrome ? Ain't ya'll changin' the water in the poke salet ?
 
The fly in their ointment is gonna be the fact that they went and chased outside of their home (and y'all say "well duh").

Breaking it down it looks like they are legally justified in shooting, but maybe not in following (is it legal to follow a criminal after witnessing a crime?). If it goes to court they can say "hey we were just following the guy so we could tell the police where he went and then he pulled a gun on us, luckily we weren't foolish enough to follow him unarmed". That would creat reasonable doubt aplenty.

Legally are they justified? Probably.

Morally? I wouldn't have. (and let's leave the Moral v. Legal at that please)

Edit:


If you know the guy, why would you "give chase" ?
Click to expand...

I'm scratching my head as well. Maybe they just wanted to have a word with him... but then they were armed... idk, smells funny to me.
 
Why not call the popo
Click to expand...
I normally handle any situation with a person I already am acquainted or familiar with from "inside" and only rely on "popo" for situations out of my control. I am not chest thumpin' on this. If I know you and you "wrong" me it won't be the police knockin' on your door. Sort of a little old school "redneck mafia"... Actually if a buddy asks for my help in such issue i will gladly help them too!
Police are busy with real issues not to get involved in a good ol' squabble!
Brent
 
However, since I am not that person, I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.
Click to expand...

Well said!

WildiwillwaittoseehowLEhandlesthisoneAlaska ™
 
I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.
Click to expand...

Err, NO. The law doesn't require a crime victim (the homeowner) to simply allow a felon to escape. The true victim and his brother pursued a fleeing felon, essentially, to make a citizen's arrest. The felon chose to use the threat of deadly force to effect his escape. The victim's brother was not doing anything unlawful in helping the victim pursue the felon, so was entitled to use deadly force to terminate the threat against him and his brother. This being Texas, it is difficult to envision charges being filed.
 
Legally are they justified? Probably.

Morally? I wouldn't have. (and let's leave the Moral v. Legal at that please)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately "RESPONSIBLE" firearms ownership requires that both be joined at the hip. If you have to start defending it this way, then you already know it was wrong.
Sure, your nads want to say "good Job" But your brain already knows better. ;)
 
Once the guy runs away from your house it's no longer self defense. You're now taking police authority ( apprehending criminals) upon yourself. If you know who it was call the police and report it.

Coming at it from the other end, I don't see how the BG could claim self defense considering that he is 100% responsible for the conditions that caused him to have to draw his handgun.

It's a world where Joey is a neurosurgeon :eek:
 
"Give Chase" is incorrect since I know the feller... More like "let's go see what dumb bud was thinkin..." I am not forcing them to defend themself even if they just kicked in my door 5 minutes earlier... Option one is to shut up while I talk, answer the questions about when you will fill my grubby paw with green backs for repairs to save yer sorry hide. Option two is to run yer cake grinder and get lumped up for not taking option 1. Number 3 is to draw a gun on a person not threatening your life (ME!) and get yerself shot in my selfdefense...
First guy with a gun out is aggressor, second gun is self defense... Seems logical anyway!
Brent
 
This is going to be interesting especially now that the BG is dead and can't tell his side of who pulled their gun first. Good test of the law whether the act of searching for the BG would up as him being attacked, in fear of his life and trying to protect himself. Adding to all of it is they knew each other. Sounds like more to it than just a simple break-in and foot chase.
 
"Give Chase" is incorrect
Click to expand...

No...I would say that gave chase is actually correct in this case. Knowing the 'feller' doesn't change that. Unless of course they "had a leisurely stroll" and just happened to meet up with the burglar.
 
If the homeowner recognized the guy then there is a lot more to this story than is in the short article.
On the face of it it appears these 2 overstepped from a moral standpoint BUT....
the homeowner apparently had some concern about this guy coming back possibly.
I know of situations around here in years past where multiple trips were made by the same people to the same residence.
Maybe the homeowner wanted to end it.
 
Err, NO. The law doesn't require a crime victim (the homeowner) to simply allow a felon to escape. The true victim and his brother pursued a fleeing felon, essentially, to make a citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...

Err would be correct, as in the Error you made in this statement. First, burglary is NOT a felony, and second, you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony, sorry. It quit being a crime when the guy ran. Simple B&E .
 
I know of situations around here in years past where multiple trips were made by the same people to the same residence.
Maybe the homeowner wanted to end it.
Click to expand...

Then that would make it a case of vigilantism. Still wrong any way you slice it.
 
"Armed Home Invasion" would be the correct charge
Click to expand...

You might be correct bro, but I would suspect that if the "invader" had been holding a weapon upon the attempted entry, he would have either used it, or the brothers would have started firing, IMHO, YMMV :)
 
Err would be correct, as in the Error you made in this statement. First, burglary is NOT a felony, and second, you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony, sorry. It quit being a crime when the guy ran. Simple B&E .
Click to expand...
Of course you've checked the appropriate Texas statutes. :rolleyes: Burglary is, indeed, a Felony. Since it occurred in a dwelling house in the nighttime, it is Burglary. And where do you get the idea that you can't make a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor. As a matter of fact, I'm aware of cases where officers have requested citizens to make "citizen's arrests" for misdemeanors witnessed by the citizens, because the officers could not make warrantless arrests for non-felony crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top