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

How many posters does it take...

How many posters does it take to realize most of the arguments/opinions put forth rely on speculations about what actually happened? The answer is everyone before me. The article does not have enough information to voice opinions on whether the burgular is innocent or whether the guys pursuing him were innocent in what happened. Since he's dead its possible that the truth will never be known.

One thing that I think people are forgetting is this: you can say all you want that they should have let the burgular go and it was stupid to chase (I do agree with that) HOWEVER until it happens to you, don't try to say what they should have done. Its easy to say what they should have done as we sit on our PCs and laptops, throwing out opinions from the comfort of our own home or workplace. How many of the posters actually have personal experience with any of this?

Think about it...
 
Last edited:
How many posters does it take to realize most the arguments/opinions put forth rely on speculations about what actually happened? The answer is everyone before me.
Click to expand...

Well, no, CSMSSS said something similar in Post 76:

...there is a profound dearth of reliable information on this case, so it's way too early to make any determination as to whether the shooter's actions were justified, somewhat justified, or entirely unjustified.
......

Hopefully we'll learn more about these events, the shooter's actions and the entirety of the circumstances preceding the shooting. Until then, I'm going to reserve judgement about the shooter's culpability, if there be any.
Click to expand...


...which I believe is right on point.

The article does not have enough information to voice opinions on whether the burgular is innocent or whether the guys pursuing him were innocent in what happened.
Click to expand...

Many others, including I, have said or implied that.

Its easy to say what they should have done as we sit on our PCs and laptops, throwing out opinions from the comfort of our own home or workplace. How many of the posters actually have personal experience with any of this?
Click to expand...

I've had two home invasions and one attempt at forcible entry, and stopped all of them with firearms. My own home was less "comfortable" during each of these events.

And I sure as heck didn't venture out into the dark unknown in pursuit of any of them. Not because I was thinking about the law or morality, but because I thought it would have been foolhardy.
 
until it happens to you, don't try to say what they should have done. Its easy to say what they should have done as we sit on our PCs and laptops, throwing out opinions from the comfort of our own home or workplace. How many of the posters actually have personal experience with any of this?
Click to expand...

Winchester, I can't speak for others but I operate under the assumption that we are all armchair quarterbacks (unless stated otherwise). Thank God, most of us have not had similar experiences, so all we can do is give our opinion as to what is right and wrong and give our best guess as to what we would have done.

I personally would never go after the suspect. What if I lose him and he circles back around and goes right back in the house? Unlikely but possible. Then, while I'm outside playing grabazz in the bushes, he has the run of my home and family.....

Nah, I stay in the place I'm able to mount the best defense I can: my home. The cops can have the job of "playing cops".
 
How many posters does it take to realize most of the arguments/opinions put forth rely on speculations about what actually happened?
Click to expand...

Most, if not all, of us realize that we are responding to a hypothetical that is based on an actual incident. We assume certain facts to make the hypothetical complete. That doesn't mean it's not a useful exercise. After all we are not sitting as the jury and are not in fact deciding the actual fate of the actors in the actual incident.

For example, sentiments like the following are often voiced on this board:

What if the dirt bag decides to come back later for revenge for confronting him? Maybe he brings a couple buddies, etc. It is certainly possible.
No, this needs to end here and now.
Click to expand...

This is a sentiment that needs addressing. If the purpose of ending it "here and now" is self-defense, posters need to be told that self-defense is not available to prevent future harm and therefore someone who decides to ends it "here and now" may be found guilty of criminal homicide. Even if the person who makes such a post is not deterred, others reading reasoned rebuttals of tough guy talk may conform their conduct to the law.
 
Self defense not available to prevent future harm

Went to school with a girl whose dad did a stint in prison for either manslaughter or lesser homicide. Some dirtbag had threatened to harm the girl to retaliate for some perceived harm done him by the father. The father took him seriously, and killed the guy to prevent him from coming back later to follow up on his threat.

While the threat may have been believable, it wasn't imminent, and preventive self-defense/defense of loved ones didn't fly in court.
 
For example, sentiments like the following are often voiced on this board:


What if the dirt bag decides to come back later for revenge for confronting him? Maybe he brings a couple buddies, etc. It is certainly possible.
No, this needs to end here and now.
Click to expand...

This is a sentiment that needs addressing. If the purpose of ending it "here and now" is self-defense, posters need to be told that self-defense is not available to prevent future harm and therefore someone who decides to ends it "here and now" may be found guilty of criminal homicide. Even if the person who makes such a post is not deterred, others reading reasoned rebuttals of tough guy talk may conform their conduct to the law.
Click to expand...

Copying and pasting because it bears repeating---again and again.
 
Another possibility

We do not have enough information so far to determine what happened. But for those who are quick to condemn the two men for vigilante justice, what about this...

The man had been drinking at a local bar. Suppose he got angry with another patron and decided to settle the issue with a bullet. Since he has no gun himself, he decides to visit someone that he knows has several guns. Suppose he asks the people he knows for a gun, but they refuse. So he breaks in, grabs a gun, and heads back for the bar. The two brothers race after him to try to calm him down and talk him out of his intent to kill someone at the bar. (That would be referred to as "tracking" and not "pursuing" or "hunting down for vigilante justice.") The man refused to back down from his intent - he became a threat to a 3rd party. At that point, suppose the brother pulled his gun to stop the man from his stated intent. The thief, in a drunken state, imagined himself to be Jesse James and tried a quick-draw. The brother then shot the man in self-defense.

The two brothers had every right to be there. Whether they were pursuing a man they had seen commit a crime (legal in Texas), tracking the man down to talk him out of his intended action, or following him to make a good witness, the two brothers had the right to be there. It remains to be seen whether they had the right to shoot the man - were they in pursuit of a man who committed a crime, were they following the man to give the police an account, or were they following the man to seek revenge? If the other man had the gun in plain sight, then the brother had the legal right to defend himself. But perhaps they knew the man had stolen their gun, so they knew he was a danger, both to themselves and to others.

Having said all of that, why did they not call the police immediately? That makes their actions look suspicious! But in Texas, there are many ways the shooting would have been self-defense, and only a few ways that it would not. We can say they were foolish to "track the intruder down," but perhaps they did not think the man would use the gun on them (especially if they knew him). So let's keep discussing the tactics and what we would do, but let's wait before we pronounce the two men guilty (and there may be plenty of time for that).
 
RevJim said:
Since he has no gun himself, he decides to visit someone that he knows has several guns. Suppose he asks the people he knows for a gun, but they refuse. So he breaks in, grabs a gun, and heads back for the bar.
Click to expand...

...Which raises another point: it's probably not the best idea to leave guns lying around where someone who knows you have them can bust in, grab one, and dash off again. If the gun in question had been locked up, none of this need have happened.

I know this is yet more speculation, which isn't what this thread needs, but the facts as given do suggest that the gun the fellow stole was lying around in plain sight, or (at best) in a drawer or some other location he knew about. The "tactical" lesson here isn't too hard to figure, I don't think: lock them up, keep them on you, or at the very least, don't boast about where you keep them to barroom acquaintances...
 
What if the dirt bag decides to come back later for revenge for confronting him?
Click to expand...

Why does this come up so often?

Is anyone naive enough to believe this is a legitimate question you get to ask ?

Just so everyone is crystal clear on this subject...

You cannot legally use this as a defense, you cannot (IMO) Morally justify this as a defense.


"What if he comes back ?" is no more valid than "What if the sky falls ?" is. You likely will fail miserably if you go to court and tell a jury "I shot him in self defense because I was afraid he might retaliate" or if you pursue him due to that fear, and then claim " I was chasing him to effect a citizens arrest, he pulled a weapon and I had to defend myself"

All this "citizens arrest" hoopla is a fantasy. While it could be construed as legal, your defense of it will be "difficult" at best.

While the basic tenets of law assume that the prosecution has the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" Do not believe that the real judicial system works that way. A Jury is simply clay, waiting to be formed. You are not at the mercy of 12, but of two lawyers.
 
Last edited:
They murdered that man.

They took a gamble of tracking him down and confronting him and lost. This is what the police are for. They were not in immediate danger and should not have pursued and confronted the bad guy. Confronted is the key word, there is no way to prove how the confrontation went down, who drawed first. The dead guy could have been scared for his life not having any idea who the other two guys were.

Had this scenario unfolded in the house or on their property I would of sided the other way.
 
Hey OutCast: Your follow up to my post..

Quote: "You cannot legally or morally use this as a defense".....

Wow, your knowledge of the legal system and you attorney skills are just amazing....

I never mentioned anything about what I was going to use as a defense for going after the bad guy. All I said was I would have my wife call the police and I would go after him myself. That is what I would do, period. Hopefully I could stop him and keep him under a citizen's arrest till the police finally arrive. If he pulled a gun on me, then I would have to shoot him, period. Nothing will change my mind about that.

As stated previously, I live far out of town and law enforcement would be a long time coming. In the meantime, the perp (who just kicked down my front door (in a home invasion attempt) is getting away scot free. Sorry bud, but that just ain't going to cut it with me.

We all are different in our makeup I guess. We aren't all wired the same and that is just the way it is. I have never been arrested before in my life. I am not looking to find any trouble. However, I am not going to let someone commit such an egregious act againist my family and just walk away without consequences. You do what you think is best, so will I.
 
You're are not a LEO you are not protected under the law in a manner that allows you to pursue a fleeing burglar and use deadly force. It is absolutely ridicules to assume that your actions are legally justified. The perp is not going after you, you're chasing him.

The burglar can damn near be justified to shoot you. He is scared for his life and he is trying to get away from you.

If you can contain him at your residents great!!! If not its out of you hands.
 
Zombi:

Hey Zombi, Aren't you the dude that just quoted: "They Murdered that man"....
Yeah, that is really a compassionate way to show your support for the bad guy.
Poor Perp, he kicks down the home owner's front door and then pulls a gun on him when they try to stop him from fleeing after his crime.

By the way, I don't believe I mentioned anything about being a law enforcement officer and/or being in any way "protected" for going after the bad guy who just licked in my front door. I also never said anything about being legally justified either. As you stated, "the burglar would be justified in shooting me", (for trying to stop him after he tried to break in my home).
Man, you are really something. You probably support Sotomayor for the Supreme Court too!
 
I don't mean to defend the burglar. I would like to have seen the bastard shot dead at the house he was robing.

Unfortunately once he leaves the immediate area its a different situation. A non-LEO has no business going after him. The burglar has as much right to defend himself at this point. Its your word against his. If I was the burglar I would be in fear for my life not knowing the mental state or intentions of the person pursuing me.
 
The burglar has as much right to defend himself at this point.
Click to expand...

The law is clear that burglars and robbers may not use force to prevent themselves from being captured by the police or for the police.
 
Tactics & Training???????

This thread needs to be transfered to the legal forum. All that is being discussed is the morality or legal aspect of chasing someone down after they attempt to gain forced entry to your home. Tactics would involve ways to keep yourself safe and/or shoot or beat the heck out of the BG trying to break down your door. Training would involve practice in shooting and beating BG's.
 
A little more on this story. If you read the comments I think you find that the citizen's arrest defense just will not hold up. So many holes in this story it makes like Swiss cheese look like pepper jack. However I think it will be self-defense in the end.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Police_investigate_shooting_death_.html


Police said a Northwest Side shooting death Sunday night could be justified in self-defense.


Witnesses told police that a 26-year-old man broke into a friend’s home in the 9600 block of Timber Laurel after he was kicked out of a bar for causing a disturbance.


Later in the evening, the owner of the gun confronted the alleged thief in the 5200 block of Northwest Trails.


The men struggled over the weapon before a third man, the gun owner’s brother, shot the suspect about 10:45 p.m., police said. The suspect died at the scene, while the shooter fled.


Police said the shooter likely would not face charges because he was defending his brother.


When detectives first arrived at the scene, the gun owner claimed to have shot the suspect, according to the police report.


A witness told police that the man urged everyone there to “shut up” about his brother’s role because he “would take the rap” for the incident, the document states.


The shooter eventually drove to police headquarters and confessed to shooting the other man in defense of his brother, police said. He has not been charged
Click to expand...
 
The law is clear that burglars and robbers may not use force to prevent themselves from being captured by the police or for the police.
Click to expand...


While the law is clear, the issues are a bit more complicated than that.

Let's put it this way, If I kick in your door, you confront me, and I run away, you can, in some States, attempt to chase me down, and hold me for police. Just as your statement says, I may not use force to prevent my capture by the citizen, but, If I decide to, and kill you in the process, what then? As far as anyone else is concerned, I am just a guy out for a stroll, and some nut just tried to attack me, I shot him to defend myself. You won't get to tell your side.

Can you see how many ways this can, and likely will, go wrong? You continue to quote the law as if that should make it fine to attempt a citizens arrest, based only on the fact that the law says the bad guy cannot resist. Problem is, bad guys usually don't follow the law.

Just because something is legal, does not make it a good idea.

Wow, your knowledge of the legal system and you attorney skills are just amazing....
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think they are right on par with your tactical planning, could be we both need a bit more study? It has nothing to do with legal skill, and everything to do with common sense. Sadly, a character trait that seems less common all the time.
 
Last edited:
To me, the quote and article referenced in post #157 reads quite a bit differently than the OP. Maybe the most important lesson is to be skeptical of getting the whole story from the press.
 
All good points, OuTcAsT.
OuTcAsT said:
As far as anyone else is concerned, I am just a guy out for a stroll, and some nut just tried to attack me, I shot him to defend myself. You won't get to tell your side.
Click to expand...
And since this is the Tactics Forum, I don't think it's off-topic to point out that this case -- as the quote above suggests -- is a good example of why it may be a bad idea to intervene, as a CHL-holding "good citizen," in a situation involving third parties.

Suppose you're a passer-by who sees all this happening. You see two guys, gun in the hand of one, maybe both, chasing a third. YOU DO NOT KNOW who, if anyone, is the good guy here. If you get involved, what's going to happen?

You pull your gun, tell them all to cut it out, and get shot by any of them...

You pull your gun, shoot the homeowner and his brother (assuming they are both holding guns and threatening the other guy, this might look like a "good shoot")... and then learn they were chasing a home invader...

The odds of a positive outcome aren't too good, I think. If ever there were a case for "Call 911 and and be a good witness," this is it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top