Man Chases Intruder from House, Shoots

[BikerRN]

While I understand the desire to detain and hold for arrest someone that breaks in to your domocile, I cannot condone it.

This reeks of political "persecu...I mean prosecution"!!!

No, this smells like a D.A. that knows what he or she is doing and knows the law.

Only a fool would leave the safety of their home to chase an intruder. There's already been one post of someone walking in to the wrong house at night, with no evil intentions I might add. Many here have stated that "any intruder will be shot." Getting shot seems to be too high of a price in my mind for walking in to the wrong house with no intention of committing a felony there-in.

Biker

 

[Double Naught Spy]

OK I'll bite, Would you be so kind as to point out where this man fell outside the parameters of the law ?

Perhaps I've missed something ?

In this case, it would appear that the operative word of all importance is what George Carlin referred to as stuff. Your home is where you keep your stuff. You may live there too, but it is really just a place to keep your stuff. So...

At night, you can shoot a fleeing burglar who has your stuff if you feel you have no other way to recover said stuff. You can't shoot a fleeing burglar out on the street who doesn't have any of your stuff.

Put another way, the homeowner wasn't knowing shooting to protect property. To the best of my knowledge, the law does not allow for you to shoot a fleeing burglar because you think or believe he may have your property.

Say the burglar broke into the homeowner's car at night and was attempting to drive away. The homeowner could have shot him, even in the street, as a means to recover his property. He would be able to actually see his property being taken away by the burglar.

 

[KCabbage]

I see no reason whatsoever for the homeowner to have chased him out on the street and shoot him down, when unarmed, retreating, and making no threats.

From what I understand, even if the intruder just murdered your kids and took off out the door as soon as he saw you armed you still couldn't shoot him as he's running away. A life has to be imminent danger to use deadly force.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

From what I understand, even if the intruder just murdered your kids and took off out the door as soon as he saw you armed you still couldn't shoot him as he's running away. A life has to be imminent danger to use deadly force.

Legally, that depends on the law in your state and, probably, on the disposition of the DA. In many places, it is technically legal to shoot a fleeing perpetrator of a violent felony, if you believe it to be necessary to affect an arrest or prevent escape.

That said, legal and "wise" or not always the same.

 

[Southern Rebel]

There is ONE small detail that could change the total picture, since this is Texas. The intruder might have left empty-handed, but there is the possibility of him not having left empty-pocketed. If he had indeed pocketed money, some small treasured item belonging to the homeowner, or any other item considered as "property" - all of a sudden, the homeowner is within his rights to shoot to defend his "property".

I'm not saying that the empty-handed, but full pocket theory is what happened. I'm just saying that is why we have a trial system - to decide the ultimate guilt or innocence based on all of the evidence and testimony. Jumping to conclusions of guilt based on the latest information is no more intelligent than assuming innocence based on the original few known facts.

If the homeowner had reasonable cause to believe that cash was stolen (ie his wallet lying on the floor, or his hidden cookie jar broken) then the trail could get really interesting!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

As I noted above, there is no indication that the homeowner was shooting to protect property because he didn't know of the burglar having any property. You don't get to shoot at somebody just because you think that they might have stolen from you, not even in Texas.

 

[obxned]

The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Why not? What were the criteria met, from what we know, that would allow for the homeowner to lawfully use lethal force in this situation?

 

[MLeake]

Do we know if the door was locked?

Maybe the forensics types found no sign of forced entry. Maybe the police and DA think the drunk accidentally entered the wrong house, through an unlocked door. Maybe blood tests post-mortem indicated the decedent was too drunk to have been able to pose a credible threat to a reasonable man.

Could be any number of things that would take away the protections offered under self-defense and/or citizen's arrest. Need more facts, please.

 

[Creature]

Maybe blood tests post-mortem indicated the decedent was too drunk to have been able to pose a credible threat to a reasonable man.

Blood alcohol is not a good indicator of anything. I have first hand experience with a person who's blood alcohol was so high that clinically he should have been comatose (.320). That man was walking and talking normally and was completely coherent, yet that same man was able to shake off three night club bouncers and two police officers before being arrested. All three of those bouncers were no less than 6ft tall and weighed no less than 225lbs. That guy weighed 180 lbs and had no martial arts training in his entire life...

 

[MLeake]

Creature...

... I don't disagree. However, I'm just listing factors that could influence a prosecutor's decision.

 

[OuTcAsT]

The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.

*sigh*

For whatever reason, there is, and continues to be, an ongoing mis-conception by some folks that ;

If I buy a gun, and if I have a "castle law" or "stand you ground" law, It automatically gives me the right to circumvent all other laws, and all common sense, the instant I get a clear shot.

These laws go a long way in helping us protect our homes, families, and businesses, and are a positive step, with an eye toward preventing crime, and preventing criminal and civil charges against a homeowner that uses them within the law. But this case might well be a perfect example of "two wrongs don't make a right". If you make less than perfect split second decisions, you can become a criminal.

The other mis-conception that seems to be almost as universal is that;

If someone commits a crime against me, they have "put me in the position" Or "forced" me to defend myself, therefore they are solely to blame for whatever happens.

The fact still remains that, once you decide to use a weapon, you are responsible for that projectile.
If you do not follow the law while defending yourself, you do not get to shift responsibility for your own criminal actions, to the "bad guy" It simply means there are now two bad guys.
Each is responsible for his own crimes. The laws cut both ways. The same law that gives you the right to defend yourself, also holds you accountable for doing so.


In this case, there are two victims, and two bad guys.

*laboriously dons flame suit for the inevitable "the criminal is always wrong but the homeowner is always right because the criminal is always wrong" argument*

BOHICA !

 

[Ricky B]

What the well-dressed Outcast wears

http://www.cafepress.com/lovethetroops/986625

What you need is a version with flame retardant!

 

[Ricky B]

But Wait, This is Texas, where you can pursue the suspect and make a "citizens arrest".

Sorry to point out the straw man in the room, but I don't think anyone in the other thread said you could shoot a suspect simply to make a "citizens arrest." And there is no evidence in this case that the homeowner had any fear of bodily injury or death from the fleeing intruder.

Here I go again, being "technical" and all.

I'd like to coin a saying that the last refuge of someone on the losing end of a correct analysis is to denigrate the other party as being "technical." Or is sarcasm only allowed for the less technical?

Anyway, to the main point of the thread: The homeowner made a serious mistake in tactics, law, and morals.

 

[OuTcAsT]

there is no evidence in this case that the homeowner had any fear of bodily injury or death from the fleeing intruder.

Technically speaking, that is exactly what the defendant stated;

Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing. He'd been trying to detain the intruder until police arrived, he said.

Sorry to point out the straw man in the room, but I don't think anyone in the other thread said you could shoot a suspect simply to make a "citizens arrest."

And I never claimed otherwise, in this thread, nor the other. I have never said, nor implied that you could shoot someone "simply to make a citizens arrest" I believe you have made a minor "technical" error.

but I don't think

That's a poor habit to have.

 

[Ricky B]

Technically speaking, that is exactly what the defendant stated;

Quote:
Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing. He'd been trying to detain the intruder until police arrived, he said.

Oops, my bad.

 

[Evan Thomas]

The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.

It's sad and it's tragic, yes -- but, as the indictment in this case shows, the fact that there was an intruder doesn't let the homeowner off the hook for his actions. Your comment about "a crushing level of stress" is accurate, but it points to the need for training. A very high level of stress is completely predictable in a situation like this; and that's why so many people in this forum reiterate, again and again, that it's not enough to have the gun and know how to use it: it's your responsibility to get training that's as realistic as possible, so you'll be better able to handle that stress.

 

[Eskimo]

If you have a pistol and someone "hostile" lunges at you, you have every right to shoot him.. (maybe not FIVE TIMES....)

If you have a pistol and you let that person get within range to take your weapon.. you're in trouble.

RIGHTS have nothing to do with laws.. I really think that any reasonable person would agree.

 

[KCabbage]

Who actually beleives the teen lunged at the shooter? That's just screaming shoot me!

 

[OldMarksman]

Who actually beleives the teen lunged at the shooter? That's just screaming shoot me!

"Lunged at him while he was fleeing"! Which is it?

While I very much doubt it, this just might turn out to be a case in which the distance at which the shot was fired makes some difference to the outcome. Maybe GSR will come into play.

But probably not....

"Lunged at him while he was fleeing...." Outside, unarmed.... fleeing.

But it usually isn't very wise to conclude anything from news reports.

If you have a pistol and someone "hostile" lunges at you, you have every right to shoot him

Really? Ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion all lined up here?