Home Invasion: Did Homeowner Go Too Far?

Here's my question to those who read this for training purposes.

Was pursuing the felons a wise choice? If this was a training exercise, what would the instructors say? I know real life is different. I'm just trying to see what the thinking out there is on this.

Blair
 
I think he probably did go too far, from a defensive standpoint.

I don't know this for certain, having no experience in the matter, but it would seem to me that a person defending his home (or any position, for that matter) has tactical advantage. It would also seem to me that if you give up the cover of your home to pursue out into the street, you've given up cover, concealment, and all the other tactical goodies that come from defending a position as opposed to attacking. If he's beat them out of his home, I would think the prudent thing to do is call 911, and hunker down until the constabulary makes its appearance. Pressing the attack doesn't seem to be the best thing to do.

From a legal standpoint, cases are easy to win when there's good guys and bad guys. When you can point to someone and say definitively they are the bad guy, the contrast makes things easier. This homeowner, rightly or wrongly, chose to step out of his home to continue the fight. As noted, there might be some legal justification, only time and all the facts will tell. However, he did blur the line to an uneducated citizen/juror as to the good guy/bad guy equation. Pressing the attack in this case now has made him harder to defend, legally. From a valiant homeowner, he can now be portrayed as a bloodthirsty vigilante. That's the angle I'd take if I were prosecuting him.
 
well as for thinking process 4 armed people with semi-auto rifles(1 at least)
is not a robbery it is a murder squad.I agree with alot of you here he should be given a medal & a free nra membership!
 
Was pursuing the felons a wise choice? If this was a training exercise, what would the instructors say? I know real life is different. I'm just trying to see what the thinking out there is on this.
Click to expand...

From a self preservation standpoint, absolutely not. I do not see where there was a life or death reason to chase a larger force.

With that in mind, it sounds like it was a perfectly legal thing to do here in Texas, but not all legal things are good ideas.
 
I would be interested in knowing what kind of weapon the homeowner used. It doesn't make that much difference, but I'm nosey.
 
I'm sure it has been brought up in several replies. But the homeowner most definately went too far in terms of legality and definately in safety. Im sure he shot more than 3 times. so where might the rest of his rounds have gone. Was he well within his rights to defend his home? Absolutely but he was out of his damn mind to chase after them in his vehicle firing a weapon in a residential neighborhood.
In the federal law enforcement system, deadly force is authorized when the threat or action of seriously bodily harm or death is imminent. And why you present your weapon it is used solely for deadly force, not to wound, maim, or warn. If someone is fleeing, he is no longer presenting a threat to you of bodily harm or death.
 
It's hard to say what you would do. But I think if my home was invaded by armed men, jeopardizing the safety of my children. I would follow them to the end of the earth, especially if I thought they were untrained and unskilled. Wrong, yea.
 
Awakened in the middle of the night, terrorised, threatened with a gun, He got a chance at them and did the right thing. I probably would have done the same. However, our society has all these stupid laws about the rights of the criminal, so he will be charged. I hope he has a good lawyer. Maybe the NRA will weigh in.:)
 
He didn't go too far, and he wasn't persuing (according to post 24, updating the originating post).

As far as I can tell, from both post #1 and post #24, this is a good shoot.
 
Legally, he's in some doo-doo. However I must take the position that I am not him, was not in his circumstances, and know all I know about the situation after the fact. It took courage from him to do what he did and zero from us or anyone else to Monday morning quarterback his case. All the perfectly legally sound strategizing and analysis means exactly zero compared to what happens when bullets are flying at him--we are in a position of luxury which chance did not afford him. Placing myself in his shoes I would not have wanted the possibility that those people could have simply retreated to return another day or go to someone else's house. There's a possibility that they might have considered a career change, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Given that repeat offenders tend to be more the norm than the exception, I would argue that the threat is not extinguished by that kind of group simply being flushed from the home. It's not at all unreasonable to say this was far from an isolated incident nor an undeliberate act on their part.
 
One of my main issues here is if you look at the crime:

Homeowner was forced to take thousands of dollars from his safe. There is more to this case than meets the eye. Not a random home invasion for sure. Lets wait until all the facts come out before we hail this man a hero or a villan.

It could be that he was a drug dealer and wanted revenge on the stoolies that robbed him. Or there could be a perfectly legitimate reason to chase down 4 heavily armed men through a neighborhood.

Theres more to meet the eye here.
 
Doesn't matter if he is a criminal or not
If he was not engaged in criminal activity at the time he is entitled to the same self defense measures the rest of us are

Courts have already ruled on that several times
 
Actually it does matter if he is a criminal and a member of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

First of all - I do not think any criminals are allowed to posses firearms.

Second of all - how would you like it - if a criminal "defending" himself from other criminals shooting indiscriminately shoots up your house and injures your SO, dogs and kid?
 
Looking past the specifics of this one incident, I'm still hoping to hear from more people on the tactical aspect of leaving one's home in pursuit of armed men.

B
 
After the left his property, they were no longer a danger or threat to him, his family or property. At that point there wasn't any emminant danger and I don't see how firing on them after leaving his property was a legal act. More or less hunted them down and shot them. Can't say they didn't deserve it but legally, the homeowner is in the wrong here too. I can't say I wish for him to get off on any charges from this as if he broker the law, he should be punished just as the perps would be. There's lines in the sand on this stuff and if the line is crossed, ou gotta expect the consequences to be there.
 
I would also like to find out what weapon he used, and I wonder what bearing this would have on the outcome of the trial(handgun vs assault rifle?)
 
In Texas something going too far? Naw. He'll get off and the bad guys will of "had a bad day" as far as most people will be concerned. At most I suspect he'll get a rear ned chewed up a bit and threats will be made but not much else will probably happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top