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

Guy chases burglar:

:confused:
Let's see now: The bad guy who is armed, breaks down your door in a home invasion, (scaring the hell out of you and your family). You and your brother grab your guns and chase the felon down the street so you can make a citizen's arrest. The bad guy pulls a gun on you (for stopping him because he just broke in your home) so you shoot him before he shoots you!

May not be "textbook" justified in the eyes of some, but I guarantee you that a lot of folks out there might do the exact same thing. Some of you would not, I can understand that as well. I would have probably done exactly what the victim did, (knowing myself and my beliefs). The burglar is the bad guy here! He pulled a gun on the citizen (he just tried to rob) and unfortunately, paid the price for his decisions. Right or wrong in this situation, things like this have to happen to you personally, (before you can really understand why people react the way they do to crimes being committed against them). I know, because I have been there before myself.
 
"Police are not sure if the homeowner's brother will face any charges, saying the shooting may be considered a case of self defense."
Click to expand...

Seems to be more and more common that the police feel the incident could easily be self defense, but members of a forum condemn the citizen.

It appears that some are rather phobic in that respect.

Once again someone has condemned the intended VICTIMS and claimed they put themselves in the situation by FORCING the criminal to defend himself after committing an armed invasion of their home.

I'm not defending their tactics, but I'd like to see Bubba share some of the responsibility for his own demise.

OK, I'm drinking Red Bull again, but some folks are sick and tired of being crime victims. If I'm on the jury with a couple of posters I could mention, we'll have one hell of an argument, won't we?:)
 
Last edited:
Churns my stomach to hear some point out that the original VICTIMs "put themselves" in the situation without mentioning the initial criminal act by theCRIMINAL while the intended VICTIMS turned the tables on the CRIMINAL who then DREW A GUN and was shot by his intended VICTIMS
Vigilantism is irresponsible, people who own guns should know better.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Since this forum is a worldwide meeting place... i revert to florida's rules... commit a violent felony and the guy running you down is not a vigilante. He is a concerned citizen well within the law and doing his state given right to stop a violent felon at any level of force he may need! Bugger for the bad guy! Legal use of force is fine by me! so far I see nothing that makes this less than clean shoot had it occurred in Florida.... I doubt Texas has too much more limitation in these situations of violent home invasion. Booting a front door and not expecting a person home is a big ol' stretch... I don't care if everyone on the block is at work and you ring my door bell, I choose who I answer to! Home? Front door? obviously not an abandoned home... CONSIDER IT OCCUPIED! Bed ridden elderly folks or preggo wifey.... They may wish to ignore the possible magazine salesman and religious recruiters! Didn't ring? No reason to consider the dwelling unoccupied!
No defense for the defense!
Brent
Brent
 
Vigilantism is irresponsible, people who own guns should know better.
Click to expand...

We agree on that. What me may disagree on is the definition of vigilantism.

In a number of instances where the police said it was self defense, we still had the usual condemnations by folks who seem to have their own definition.

Some believe it's always the fault of the citizen attempting to apprehend the criminal should an injury, or worse, occur to the latter. Talk about quick on the trigger.
 
A few years ago, my father was badly injured in a crash caused when a young idiot in a Mustang forced his way from an on-ramp into busy interstate traffic, then cut across three lanes to try and go fast. He ran my dad into the median. My dad's car spun out of control, ending up in the oncoming lanes, and in an offset headon with a Jeep. The Jeep driver was hurt even worse than my father was.

The Mustang took off. Several witnesses in other cars followed the Mustang, giving running reports via cell phone to 911.

Theoretical: What if the Mustang driver had attempted to run those witnesses off the road (assault with a deadly weapon: vehicle) or had pulled a gun on the other drivers? Would it have been the fault of the other drivers for "escalating?"
Click to expand...


Wow, Bad situation, good question. I will assume we are trying to contrast these two incidents, in the burglary, the BG saw the residence was occupied, and fled, thus basically ending the threat himself. Had the brothers not chased him, called the 5-0 and reported this guy they knew, that would likely have ended in an arrest of the BG, and end of story.

In the case of your Dad, this was a crime that had the potential to continue. had the guy kept driving, and good witnesses continued to go their merry way while providing intel to police, resulting in an arrest, that is the best outcome. Had the H&R driver started running people off the road, or pulled a weapon, that would be a crime that was continuing, and would be dynamic until he was arrested or bit the dust himself. Driving down the road and passing info to police is not aggressive, chasing a wanna-be burglar, and confronting him yourself is. (IMHO)
 
Mr. Composer:

Quote: "Vigilantism is irresponsible. People who own guns should know better".......

Yeah, that is a brilliant assumption for sure! Why the hell should we own guns, if we can't prevent a crime being committed against us or our family? Does that make us irresponsible? To you I guess it does.

When the bad guy (who just broke down you door) pulls a gun on you (when you try to stop them), he definitely risks being shot for making bad decisions like this. All this happens in just a few seconds and no one is thinking "I"M A VIGILANTE"......... They are trying to stop the intruder and make sure he is arrested for his actions. If the bad guy escalates the situation by pulling a gun on his victim, (again that is another bad decision on his part) and he may get more than he bargained for with that decision.
 
We agree on that. What me may disagree on is the definition of vigilantism.

In a number of instances where the police said it was self defense, we still had the usual condemnations by folks who seem to have their own definition
This is how i see it, strictly just my opinion. This scenario is pretty simple the BG fled, they wanted revenge and justice because they knew the guy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
quote: Yeah, that is a brilliant assumption for sure! Why the hell should we own guns, if we can't prevent a crime being committed against us or our family? Does that make us irresponsible? To you I guess it does.

When the bad guy (who just broke down you door) pulls a gun on you (when you try to stop them), he definitely risks being shot for making bad decisions like this. All this happens in just a few seconds and no one is thinking "I"M A VIGILANTE"......... They are trying to stop the intruder and make sure he is arrested for his actions. If the bad guy escalates the situation by pulling a gun on his victim, (again that is another bad decision on his part) and he may get more than he bargained for with that decision... Quote]

If you blatantly chase a BG down its vigilanstism. The intruder already removed himself thus ending the threat. Someone chasing a BG down and shooting them is just as bad as a gang hit. Of course i'd kill someone in self defense but I won't go driving around trying to kill someone.
 
Not quite contrasting the incidents

because I still don't know what the intent of the brothers was (revenge, citizen's arrest, recon to pass location to police - could be any of the above, or something I haven't thought of).

Therefore, I can't really contrast the two.

However, for those who feel that citizens should not pursue bad guys, and that any citizen who should pursue, for whatever reason, bears liability for outcome to the bad guy, I thought it would be interesting to throw in the traffic hit and run scenario.
 
Knowing the guy doesn't mean you know where he will be.

Case in point: years ago, some friends of mine were burglarized by the stepbrother of one of the victims. They had no idea where he was, because he'd already been kicked out of the house for previously stealing jewelry from his mother.

If they had wanted to be able to give his location to the police, they'd have had to follow, and the guy was related to a victim...

Just saying, people are making a lot of assumptions, before facts are in evidence.
 
Seems to be more and more common that the police feel the incident could easily be self defense, but members of a forum condemn the citizen.

It appears that some are rather phobic in that respect.

Once again someone has condemned the intended VICTIMS and claimed they put themselves in the situation by FORCING the criminal to defend himself after committing an armed invasion of their home.
Click to expand...


See that word I highlighted ? AFTER ?


Once the threat is over, and the BG is gone, there is no threat.

If he is in your house, and threatening you, or your family, he is a threat, and whatever force is necessary to protect yourself within your State laws is certainly warranted. If he flees the scene, the threat is over, if you chase him down you are the aggressor, and he can defend himself same as you. A firearm is not a license to exact revenge.

You are not empowered to rid the world of scum, only to protect your life from an immediate threat.

This is not rocket science, but it sure is confusing to some.
 
Here is where we disagree

Not all pursuits are revenge. Not all pursuits make one an aggressor. However, laws governing citizen's arrest vary widely from state to state.

If one is allowed to affect a citizen's arrest in their state in a given scenario, then pursuit in furtherance of that arrest is not escalation in a criminal sense. It does not make the pursuer an aggressor. However, the level of force allowed for citizen's arrest is more likely to be "reasonable" than "deadly."

Again, know your state's laws.

Pursuit for purpose of citizen's arrest is not the same thing as pursuit for purpose of revenge.

The issues in this case are: what was the intent of the pursuit? did the decedent produce a weapon? did the brothers reasonably fear for their safety (assuming their pursuit were not for criminal purpose, they didn't waive their right to SD)?
 
Lets give you chasers a dose of tactical reality here...by doing so you can sign your own death warrant and your killer can get away scot free...think about that when you take off after your stereo

WildorvisitthebuildingwhenthealarmgoesoffAlaska TM
 
Not all pursuits are revenge. Not all pursuits make one an aggressor
Click to expand...

There are some legal eccentricities that make this a true statement...to a point, however, I am talking "Common Sense" for the purpose of discussion. No offense intended, but;

It is common sense to imply that, once the BG has left your vicinity, he is no longer an immediate threat to you, or your household. This is where your duty (normally) lies. You are usually justified in protecting yourself from an immediate threat. <period>

If you decide to pursue, you have (generally) opened a whole new can of worms. You will have to prove your intent was benign rather than malevolent. This is why pursuit is not usually considered "reasonable" nor tactically sound for the general public. The premise is a simple one; protect yourself from the immediate threat, anything more can be a legal pitfall.
 
Easy with the labels, there, WA

Arguing that something is not illegal is not the same as arguing that it is tactically sound. Then again, arguing that something isn't tactically sound isn't always the same as arguing it should never be done. Circumstances have too many variables.

Having looked at the codes, Texas law does allow citizen's arrest for felonies committed in view of a citizen. Effecting a citizen's arrest does not provide any legal immunity for injuries to third parties (not a factor in the case under discussion), which should be enough to make folks think twice about whether pursuit is a good idea.

Legally, the brothers were within their rights to pursue, based on having observed the burglary of their premises by the decedent. This did not make them liable for the decedent's subsequent escalation, if that is what happened...

Not knowing what happened, I won't offer any further defense than that.

Now, would I recommend pursuit? Not really. Odds of things getting anywhere from violent to deadly are higher than I'd prefer. Potential risk to others needs to be considered. Coming home to loved ones is also a plus, in my book.

But would I always recommend against pursuit? What if one witnessed a kidnapping? An ongoing attack on a child? Examples could get cumbersome, but the idea is that there are times when the risks are definitely justified. Of course, while conducting such pursuits, one should be in communications with the police. (Don't remember where I read it, but somebody once said that if you carry a gun, you had better also carry a cell phone, and that makes good sense to me).

Generally, while I am not too keen on pursuits, I find it highly inappropriate to equate a pursuer of a person who has been observed firsthand committing a felony (pursuer is attempting to effect citizen's arrest) with a vigilante. In my book, at least, vigilantes are not those who attempt citizen's arrests, but those who deliberately set out to harm people whom they think deserve it because they are bad. I personally think it's very dangerous when people are quick to sling the V word any time a citizen gets involved in a crime in progress.

Funny how so many things go back to motive...
 
and your killer can get away scot free

So now you're bashing scotsmen, WA?

Sorry, just kidding.

On a more serious note, though, the BG has very likely lost his legal right to SD by initiating the crime that resulted in the pursuit. If your point is that a pursuit, in and of itself, gives him license to act against the pursuer, that is very likely not the case.

On the other hand, you could simply mean that now the only witness is dead, killed in the pursuit, and so the police will need good forensics or a lucky break. In which case, you are very likely right.

Years ago, when I had to stand occasional sentry duty, it was reinforced time and again that if one sees a bad guy on the perimeter, first and foremost CALL IT IN before attempting to engage. Bad for a sentry to get killed or incapacitated, without having warned his comrades of the danger.

Goes back to my point about carrying a cell phone. Call to 911 should be made immediately, whether pursuit is chosen or not.
 
^ very good ponts. I seen this news story: the guy saw someone breaking into his neighbors house and went outside and shot them when they tried to run away(they briefly crossed onto his property) but he was on the phone with 911 decribing the situation, long before engaging. So yeah if they had called 911 during the persuit it would eliminate much of the speculation.
 
the BG has very likely lost his legal right to SD by initiating the crime that resulted in the pursuit.
Click to expand...

Point of fact my friend, the BG surrenders no rights until he is arrested, and if he waives the "Miranda" rights.

Until he is found guilty, he has all the "rights" we all have in common.
 
Technically true...

... in a discussion of constitutional law sense.

However, from a prosecutor's perspective*, the initial commission of the felony that resulted in the pursuit, if proven, subsequently means the convicted felon cannot claim self defense for any violent act carried out as a direct result of the felony.

So, if the pursuer were killed, there were no witnesses to the initial crime, a case couldn't be made, etc then the BG might get off scot free, no offense to our Gaelic friends.

If there were other witnesses, forensic evidence, etc, then the odds are the BG is in a world of legal hurt.

* I am NOT a prosecutor, just stating an opinion based on reading charging documents or decisions not to charge from previous incidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top