Yes he went way TOO far. Chasing four heavily armed men into the streets is not the smartest thing to do. Secondly, their's the issue of collateral casualties. If he avoids criminal charges, ( which I doubt ), he will most likely face a civil trial from the families of those shot. I'm afraid he will pay dearly for the momentary lapse of judgement and control.Some of you commando types may see his actions as heroic, but I think it's just plain dumb. Let's follow the story and see if I,m right. Wouldn't want to be in this guys shoes, because he needs a good lawyer now!
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.
Home Invasion: Did Homeowner Go Too Far?
- Thread starter xrocket
- Start date
45Marlin carbine
Moderator
He may face charges but depending on the circumstances and jury sympathy he probably won't be convicted of felony charges. I'd be interested in knowing more details and particularly what firearm he was using. wanna bet a shotgun and maybe a pistol?
“In Texas, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent someone from fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping the property, and the actor believes (reasonably) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or not using deadly force would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Tex. Pen. Code §9.42.”
Except they did not have any property if he drove them off before they entered so he could not “believes (reasonably) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means”
“He pursued them as they fled, hitting at least two of them, police said.”
This is going to come down to the DA and possibly a grand jury.
Except they did not have any property if he drove them off before they entered so he could not “believes (reasonably) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means”
“He pursued them as they fled, hitting at least two of them, police said.”
This is going to come down to the DA and possibly a grand jury.
OK fellows and here is the update.....
Here is the rest of the story updated by the Dallas Morning News @ 2:45 PM this afternoon. It clarifies and sheds some new light for consideration.
A robbery gone bad in northeast Dallas turned into a gun battle early Wednesday that ended with one man dead, another injured and another facing charges.
Police found small amounts of marijuana during their investigation and were looking into whether the events were drug-related.
Police said Wednesday afternoon they had not confirmed the identity of the man who died.
It started about 2 a.m. at a home on the 9000 block of Woodshore Drive, in a neighborhood near where Greenville Avenue intersects Royal Lane. Four or five intruders broke into the home and surprised its owner, 25-year-old Mark Stinson, while he was sleeping.
They forced him at gunpoint to open a safe containing several thousands of dollars, police say, and then they tried to flee in an SUV. But Mr. Stinson had a gun of his own and fired it as they tried to drive away.
It was unclear whether they fired back, Dallas police homicide Sgt. Larry Lewis said. “But we did pick up different caliber rounds out there so we know at least more than one gun was being shot.”
The sergeant said at least 30 rounds were fired in all.
Less then a mile away, the occupants of the SUV pulled over because tires were shot out. They called 911 as one of the occupants died of gunshot wounds. Another, a 17-year-old boy, was arrested at the scene. The others fled.
Another man, 18-year-old Davane Jones, soon showed up at a local hospital with gunshot wounds. Police arrested him and the 17-year-old on charges of aggravated robbery.
As for the homeowner, Mr. Stinson, police say they will leave any possible charges up to the district attorney’s office and a grand jury. “Even though by our investigation it appears he was justified under Texas law to defend his house and his property...we don’t make that decision,” Sgt. Lewis said.
Here is the rest of the story updated by the Dallas Morning News @ 2:45 PM this afternoon. It clarifies and sheds some new light for consideration.
A robbery gone bad in northeast Dallas turned into a gun battle early Wednesday that ended with one man dead, another injured and another facing charges.
Police found small amounts of marijuana during their investigation and were looking into whether the events were drug-related.
Police said Wednesday afternoon they had not confirmed the identity of the man who died.
It started about 2 a.m. at a home on the 9000 block of Woodshore Drive, in a neighborhood near where Greenville Avenue intersects Royal Lane. Four or five intruders broke into the home and surprised its owner, 25-year-old Mark Stinson, while he was sleeping.
They forced him at gunpoint to open a safe containing several thousands of dollars, police say, and then they tried to flee in an SUV. But Mr. Stinson had a gun of his own and fired it as they tried to drive away.
It was unclear whether they fired back, Dallas police homicide Sgt. Larry Lewis said. “But we did pick up different caliber rounds out there so we know at least more than one gun was being shot.”
The sergeant said at least 30 rounds were fired in all.
Less then a mile away, the occupants of the SUV pulled over because tires were shot out. They called 911 as one of the occupants died of gunshot wounds. Another, a 17-year-old boy, was arrested at the scene. The others fled.
Another man, 18-year-old Davane Jones, soon showed up at a local hospital with gunshot wounds. Police arrested him and the 17-year-old on charges of aggravated robbery.
As for the homeowner, Mr. Stinson, police say they will leave any possible charges up to the district attorney’s office and a grand jury. “Even though by our investigation it appears he was justified under Texas law to defend his house and his property...we don’t make that decision,” Sgt. Lewis said.
Hallucinator
New member
Unfortunately, he did. He shouldn't have chased them.
I think it was a violation of the law to chase the "home invaders" in a
vehicle after they had fled his property in their vehicle.
That's just my opinion, having sat through several CCL classes concerning
how, when, and where you can legally shoot a person.
That said, being a native Texan, and having lived in North Texas (DFW)
for 40 years, I will be shocked if a Grand Jury doesn't "no-bill" the guy.
Walter
vehicle after they had fled his property in their vehicle.
That's just my opinion, having sat through several CCL classes concerning
how, when, and where you can legally shoot a person.
That said, being a native Texan, and having lived in North Texas (DFW)
for 40 years, I will be shocked if a Grand Jury doesn't "no-bill" the guy.
Walter
It appears that he didn't. See post #24.think it was a violation of the law to chase the "home invaders" in a
vehicle after they had fled his property in their vehicle.
after the tragedy that happened in Conn. i say this guy did GOODERS'.the cops can't protect us,the government won't protect us(allow millions of illegals to come across at will)and lawyers and judges side with the criminals.i say it's long past do we take care of ourselves,and he done just that!
+1 sigfreak
I have a feeling this situation does not necessarily apply to what you are saying, but in general I agree 100%. Things don't add up on this situation. I have a feeling it was druggies robbing a dealer - just speculation.
Regardlesss, there is a one less puke in the world.
Armed citizen retaliation is the only real crime deterent. Expecting a cop to STOP a crime, is like asking a firefighter to drive around and look for fires...
I have a feeling this situation does not necessarily apply to what you are saying, but in general I agree 100%. Things don't add up on this situation. I have a feeling it was druggies robbing a dealer - just speculation.
Regardlesss, there is a one less puke in the world.
Armed citizen retaliation is the only real crime deterent. Expecting a cop to STOP a crime, is like asking a firefighter to drive around and look for fires...
Put a bullet in someone's back, you WILL have to answer for it.
I'm sure these perps were scum and having someone flee the scene might not bring satisfaction but legally, the decision to use lethal force must be made before every shot. If you or others aren't immediately in harms way before you pull the trigger, what happened a minute before has little bearing.
As for a jury acquitting you out of goodwill; they will be told by the judge exactly what constitutes manslaughter and will likely do what the law requires.
Also, there have been a more than a few cases where ex-army or police have said "I was taught to keep firing until the threat was neutralized." and have gone to jail because civilians can't play that way.
I don't want to see anyone on this forum doing time.
I'm sure these perps were scum and having someone flee the scene might not bring satisfaction but legally, the decision to use lethal force must be made before every shot. If you or others aren't immediately in harms way before you pull the trigger, what happened a minute before has little bearing.
As for a jury acquitting you out of goodwill; they will be told by the judge exactly what constitutes manslaughter and will likely do what the law requires.
Also, there have been a more than a few cases where ex-army or police have said "I was taught to keep firing until the threat was neutralized." and have gone to jail because civilians can't play that way.
I don't want to see anyone on this forum doing time.
An innocent citizen is suddenly put a horribly stressful and dangerous situation by vicious thugs crashing their way into his home.
His actions in defending his life may or may not have been 100% in compliance with laws written by people who were safe, unstressed, and had nearly unlimited time to do their job.
If he were to be charged, he could not be convicted if there was but one person on that jury who could honestly imagine himself in such a desperate situation.
His actions in defending his life may or may not have been 100% in compliance with laws written by people who were safe, unstressed, and had nearly unlimited time to do their job.
If he were to be charged, he could not be convicted if there was but one person on that jury who could honestly imagine himself in such a desperate situation.
Spade Cooley
Moderator
The law as perceived by our board members and the actual law is flawed when it would punish a citizen for taking action against people who were trying to hurt him. This is the prime reason our legal system needs an overhaul. This citizen was at war and he was determined to finish it and win. They started it, he didn't. He no doubt was trying to kill all of them in order to prevent them from coming back another day to kill him. There is nothing wrong with that. Even some of our far right thinking board members think he went too far. As a country, we are in trouble when people think like this.
In the end it will most likely come out that the homeowner was a dope dealer and had large somes of money in the house, thus the reason for the home invasion robbery. Whenever bad guys die in a gun battle, we all win.
In the end it will most likely come out that the homeowner was a dope dealer and had large somes of money in the house, thus the reason for the home invasion robbery. Whenever bad guys die in a gun battle, we all win.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Legally he went too far. It is hard to make a self defense case when you chase the criminals through the streets.
Not in Texas, he did not. We have the option of using lethal force in situations where we are not in fear for our lives or not in fear any longer. That is, based on the fact that the crime took place at night, there was a felony committed (multiple), and the owner undoubtedly believed that he had no other way to get back what the robbers stole from him and so he used lethal force to attempt to stop their flight, that is all 100% legal.
Of course, this all assumes that what was reported was accurate.
This sounds fishy... He was targetted by four attackers at 2:30 in the morning with at least one AK and who knows what else... Somehow he got the drop on all of them and then saw fit to chase them down... I would be interseted to see what else comes out of this as I would be willing to be he might have known who these guys were and that there was a reason for his being targetted.
These guys MUST have known this guy, or been following him for some time to know he had a safe with several thousand dollars in it. It sounds like even if he didn't know his attackers, they certainly knew him.
That being said, he would have been justified in shooting them dead in his home or on his property, but the second he leaves to give chase, he becomes a vigilante.
IMHO, and if it were me, I'd have shot as many as it took to make the rest flee, then worry about my family first before chasing bad guys. If 4 guys are this interested in getting your money, you should think that there may be more. Or there could be a lookout ready to shoot you as soon as you run out after them. To me, giving chase is bad both legally and tactically.
I hope that he doesn't get charged, because as it's been said, adrenaline is a crazy thing, and he did what he thought was best after being attacked. But if he is, I hope people realize that he WAS outside of the law, and that the DA in any jurisdiction has the right to narrowly interpret the law.
JoeBlackSpade
New member
Bad move any way you look at it:
Remember the AK-47 they found at the vehicle? Anybody?
That guy could have been cut in half by the perps, and become a victim, because of his overwhelming need to get revenge.
Legality aside, leaving your home is not sound from a PURELY SURVIVAL mode of thinking.
If you repel their assault/invasion, the right thing is to take cover INSIDE THE HOUSE, reload, constantly scan, and dial 911 ASAP. The sooner you have law enforcement on the way, the better.
If you are defending from a covered and concealed position, your odds of survival -in the event they return- are much higher, even against numerically superior odds.
Remember the AK-47 they found at the vehicle? Anybody?
That guy could have been cut in half by the perps, and become a victim, because of his overwhelming need to get revenge.
Legality aside, leaving your home is not sound from a PURELY SURVIVAL mode of thinking.
If you repel their assault/invasion, the right thing is to take cover INSIDE THE HOUSE, reload, constantly scan, and dial 911 ASAP. The sooner you have law enforcement on the way, the better.
If you are defending from a covered and concealed position, your odds of survival -in the event they return- are much higher, even against numerically superior odds.