Home Invasion: Did Homeowner Go Too Far?

I don't know about everyone else, but that's why I said "legality aside". To be very frank, in a life or death situation, I'm not thinking about the law. Law enforcement is there to protect me. If they aren't around, I have to protect myself.

The fact remains that staying INSIDE the house, allowing the attackers to flee is statistically SAFER than running out in the yard and exchanging gunfire.

Please don't take what I said the wrong way. Under almost any conceivable circumstance, I always abide by the law, and I've got a spotless record to back that up. The point I'm making is that in a dangerous encounter, your WILL to live should make your decisions for you, not some internal debate about the law. Having said that, I can't imagine a scenario where running down the street after a perpetrator is a good idea- legal or not!

Priorities are:

1.) escape if possible
2.) if escape is NOT possible, draw down and shoot to stop the threat to your life
3.) move instantly to the nearest covered and concealed position
4.) assess the threat; once the threat is completely neutralized, contact law enforcement immediately.
 
It's all in how you explain why you did what you did so get yourself together before you start telling what happened. You chased the vehicle in an attempt to get the license number. When one of the occupants pointed a firearm at you, you shot back, merely defending yourself.

Just remember when you are on a jury to give the honest citizen defending himself and his property an even break because the rest of America will be dazzled by the rights of the criminal. What I have been hearing on this board scares me.
 
Sounds like...

the best call.
Present all evidence to a jury of peers and have them define the law.


3 out four ain't bad :)
 
Good for the homeowner. He obviously did the right thing. He is alright and 4 bad guys are either dead or in jail. Doesn't get much better than that.

If more people did this, home invasion/robbery would really decline.

The potential drug aspect of this may change my mind slightly about the homeowner, but it is still good that the other 4 criminals are out of commission.
 
I've thought about this for a while. I think that the homeowner did the right thing until he left his property and gave chase. Legally it's not a safe action and much more importantly, to me at least, I think it's a poor tactical decision.

He has forced the attackers to flee and then he leaves the relative safety of his property to chase armed men into what? Possible to encounter more armed men, say a lookout or two, in an open unknown area. By unknown I mean compared to his property. Has he left his family behind? He has no idea what's out there and to give chase increases his, and perhaps his families, risk.


I understand that giving chase is a natural desire. Just think it's an overly dangerous one.

B
 
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.
Click to expand...
Not to prevent them from fleeing, but to prevent them from escaping with property. There are other restrictions, the law isn't quite as simple as stated above.

Legalities aside, he may be charged, but it will be hard to get an indictment. If they manage, all he has to do is ask for a jury trial. IMHO it would be pretty hard to seat a jury that would convict him.
 
Bad idea to take pursuit, IMHO.

BUT, we do not know what was said or done to make him take pursuit (it could have JUST been trying to get property back). What if they started talking about coming back later, sometime this guys daughter and/or wife were home (i don't know if he had any). Would that still be considered "Fear for Life"?

Again, I don't believe it is an intelligent move to pursue, but it's easy enough to understand where he was coming from.

On another note, I'd love to know what kind of collateral damage was done from stray shots. 30 rounds fired... Tires blown out... All that steel had to end up somewhere. Thankfully not in an innocent.
 
"Not to prevent them from fleeing, but to prevent them from escaping with property. There are other restrictions, the law isn't quite as simple as stated above.

"Legalities aside, he may be charged, but it will be hard to get an indictment. If they manage, all he has to do is ask for a jury trial. IMHO it would be pretty hard to seat a jury that would convict him."

You're absolutely correct. If I generated a misconception, I apologize.

Another statute to consider is Tex. Pen. Code §9.32, which states that deadly force can be used if justified under 9.31(basically: reasonably necessary to use) and a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated, and when and to the degree he reasonably believes deadly force was necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, to prevent the imminent commission of ag. kidnapping, murder, sex assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. You can use deadly force to protect someone else from the same perceived threats. Tex. Pen. Code §9.33.

Tex. Pen. Code 9.34 says that a person can use deadly force if reasonably believed necessary to to preserve his life in an emergency.

A court of appeals in this state has ruled that a person responding with deadly force to a drive-by isn't reasonable after the drive-by had already been completed. Hernandez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 218. There has also been a similar finding that deadly force wasn't justified after the perpetrator had left and might have intended to come back and rob the shooter. Fry v. State, 915 S.W. 2d 554.

Again, not knowing all the facts makes this a hard call. Time will tell if the shooter falls into any of these categories. If it is as reported, he might have some trouble under the law.

I think the shooter in this case will probably have raised enough evidence to get a self-defense instruction at trial (if it makes it past the grand jury, which it seems it will). It's then up to the state to prove beyond a reasonble doubt his actions were not justified by 9.32, 9.33, or 9.42.
 
Last edited:
Most of you are not considering civil liabilities. He may not be indicted on criminal charges or may be aquitted by a jury, but he could face a civil trial by the families of those he shot. Remember the O.J. Simpson case!! Aquitted on criminal charges but lost big time in the civil trial! All they need in a civil trial is a preponderence of evidence that he went too far, and he is toast, financially!
 
OJ Simpson was in California. This is Texas.

It is a shame the event didn't happen after castle doctrine goes into effect, but even so, Texas has a history of shootings in defense of property that have gone very well for the shooters, even when folks have been killed.

Maybe this should be compared to the recent Ft. Worth shooting where a good guy CHLer pursued after a guy who robbed his wife and then threatened him with a gun. Are we also worried about this guy getting sued?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253748&highlight=albertsons
 
I'm not as worried about civil litigation as the impression that this set of actions may leave on others. It may just increase the chance of others pursuing their assailants which, as I wrote, I believe to be a tactical error.

B
 
Well now!

I think we all agree that three of the four got what they deserve. IMO number 4 needed a hole in his posterior to assure equal opportunity in this educational situation. If all housebreakers, car jackers, etc, could have the experience of having body parts rudely perforated or removed, the next time they would have pause to reflect on the advisability of kicking in another's door. However..............

When you climb into a car to give pursuit, the argument "I feared for my safety" goes right out the window. The sheriff (had he been on the ball) should have retroactively deputized the homeowner (wishful thinking) to preclude the civil lawsuit that's probably coming. Now where do we get some jurors whose homes or cars have been hit??? Hmmm..........
 
A jury will never convict him.

In CA you can fire on a fleeing felon who does not stop and surrender if that person is known to have used or threatened to have used deadly force.
 
Also, how did he know they wouldn't be coming back? In light of what happened to the good doctor who saw his wife and daughters murdered, I can't believe they would file any charges against this guy.
 
Hes a hero in my book! I would MUCH rather have him living next door than the family of human crap that i am dealing with now.

Would any of those jackasses be in jail now had he not done what he did? Highly doubtful.
 
That man is a hero. Since common sense is left out of the legal system, he may be in trouble, unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top