Man Chases Intruder from House, Shoots

[Eskimo]

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

There are obviously many other factors that can come into play. There is really no need to delve that deep into this, some of you are being WAY too critical.

The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better.

 

[Evan Thomas]

The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better.

From the article cited in the OP:

A 49-year-old man who chased a young man from his living room in the middle of the night two years ago, repeatedly shooting the drunken college student in the street, was indicted this week on a murder charge.

Um... he shot and killed an unarmed, drunken, fleeing teenager. To say "he could have handled it a little better" is a bit of an understatement, IMHO.

It's not nitpicking, on OldMarksman's part, to point out that in order for the homeowner's actions to have been justified, the legal criteria he mentioned -- ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion -- all need to be met.

Contrary to what some here choose to believe, someone who breaks into a house doesn't magically lose all his rights, nor does the fact of a break-in automatically mean that a homeowner can do whatever he wants and whatever happens is all somehow the fault of the intruder. This argument is a classic example of blaming the victim -- who is the NOT the homeowner in this case, but the teenager who was shot. It's an argument frequently used by people who know themselves to be on shaky moral ground: "But he MADE me do it..."

And it won't wash in this case, or in any other. If you shoot someone, you are responsible for your actions, and they'd better be legally justifiable.

 

[KCabbage]

Well said Marksman and Vanya. I say give em' a manslaughter charge and 2 years of prison to think about it.

 

[mjoy64]

But...But... This is Texas, where you can shoot to protect property, Oh wait, the suspect was fleeing !

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

And even though the suspect was empty handed, he could have had a gun.

And what if he decided to come back and retaliate ?

And of course, the college kid did commit the "heinous" crime of home invasion !

According to the opinions I have seen as of late, it would seem this just cannot be happening !

If you can't see the difference between the two situations you are referring to... well no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

You paint with an awful wide brush. Bagging on Texas and other people lends a *whole* lot of credence to your viewpoint I might add. :barf:

 

[OldMarksman]

There is really no need to delve that deep into this, some of you are being WAY too critical.

Eskimo, the question is one of whether there was reason to believe that imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm existed and whether deadly force was necessary. A, O, J, and P are usually the determinants. That's not being critical at all.

The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better.

???

 

[OldMarksman]

If you can't see the difference between the two situations you are referring to... well no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

You paint with an awful wide brush. Bagging on Texas and other people lends a *whole* lot of credence to your viewpoint I might add.

Mjoy, Outcast was using sarcasm here, and in no way was he criticizing Texas.

 

[mjoy64]

Mjoy, Outcast was using sarcasm here, and in no way was he criticizing Texas.

The sarcasm and flame of other opinions was duly noticed. It is really a detriment to making a cogent point.

 

[OldMarksman]

The sarcasm and flame of other opinions was duly noticed. It is really a detriment to making a cogent point.

I took it differently. A lot of people have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity. Texas Rifleman, for one, has expressed dismay at the ignorance and bravado of some of the posters and particularly of some from Texas, if I recall correctly.

The Joe Horn case has been oft mischaracterized, and the case of the Muhs really takes the cake.

The indictment in the case at hand gives the lie to the apparently widespread misconception that Texas has no law, and I took Outcast's words to mean just that...

...and to point out the issues inherent with the attitudes of many posters from all over these United States that if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will, whomever Will may be, using Texas as the place that so many characterize as the place to be if you want to shoot someone and get by with it.

Just my take.

 

[Ricky B]

preclusion

What do you mean by preclusion?

 

[OuTcAsT]

I took it differently. A lot of people have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity. Texas Rifleman, for one, has expressed dismay at the ignorance and bravado of some of the posters and particularly of some from Texas, if I recall correctly.

The Joe Horn case has been oft mischaracterized, and the case of the Muhs really takes the cake.

The indictment in the case at hand gives the lie to the apparently widespread misconception that Texas has no law, and I took Outcast's words to mean just that...

...and to point out the issues inherent with the attitudes of many posters from all over these United States that if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will, whomever Will may be, using Texas as the place that so many characterize as the place to be if you want to shoot someone and get by with it.

Just my take.

You hit the nail on the head, spot on.

mjoy64, it was more of a commentary on several of the "GG shoots BG" threads of late.

 

[OldMarksman]

What do you mean by preclusion?

See this:

....even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

http://www.useofforce.us/

Some laws contain the term "necessary" or "immediately necessary", and in some places retreat may be required. The latter is not true in Texas.

Where I live, the training addresses the need for avoidance, disengagement, escape, and evasion as well as A, O, and J.

....avoidance, disengagement escape and evade....this model is useful as a tactical strategy and as a framework through which to describe the objective circumstance that lead to the subjective conclusion that the use of force was necessary.

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

In Missouri, if one is in attacked while his domicile or automobile he need not retreat. Outside...well, there's no explicit statutory requirement to retreat, but we're told that the case law calls for "ADEE." ...which I take as demonstrating that the lawful use of deadly force is necessary--that it is not precluded.

 

[mjoy64]

I took it differently. A lot of people have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity. Texas Rifleman, for one, has expressed dismay at the ignorance and bravado of some of the posters and particularly of some from Texas, if I recall correctly.

The Joe Horn case has been oft mischaracterized, and the case of the Muhs really takes the cake.

The indictment in the case at hand gives the lie to the apparently widespread misconception that Texas has no law, and I took Outcast's words to mean just that...

...and to point out the issues inherent with the attitudes of many posters from all over these United States that if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will, whomever Will may be, using Texas as the place that so many characterize as the place to be if you want to shoot someone and get by with it.

Just my take.
You hit the nail on the head, spot on.

mjoy64, it was more of a commentary on several of the "GG shoots BG" threads of late.

Any people that really "have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity" aren't worthy of responding too. Frankly I have seen the tiniest fraction that could even remotely be construed as having this attitude. To address it in sarcastic generalities as reflecting most people's opinion is just ignorant.

"widespread misconception that Texas has no law". What a crock. Please tell me you don't really believe this!

"if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will". Again, you really can't believe this is what most people (or even Texans on this board) think.

"commentary on several of the "GG shoots BG"". When you compare an incident of chasing down an unarmed person vs. an armed person you invite criticism of your see-I-told-you-so kind of post.

I'm a Texan. I'm a responsible gun owner. I find the implications that Texas is somehow a lawless place that is friendly to killing people (or even than most people believe this) outlandish. Just because you can lay out some straw man arguments to support the original na-na-na-na-na-na see-how-right-I-am post doesn't prove squat.

Just my take.

 

[OldMarksman]

Any people that really "have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity" aren't worthy of responding too. Frankly I have seen the tiniest fraction that could even remotely be construed as having this attitude.

I've seen more than "the tiniest fraction" myself, and the number has been sufficient to put it in as an example among the FAQ in corneredcat.com. It also often comes from someone from somewhere else saying something like 'God bless Texas" in response to such posts

To address it in sarcastic generalities as reflecting most people's opinion is just ignorant.

And no one has.

"widespread misconception that Texas has no law". What a crock. Please tell me you don't really believe this!

Not at all, but it's far, far more widespread on this board than is healthy. And it doesn't just apply to Texas.

"if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will". Again, you really can't believe this is what most people (or even Texans on this board) think.

Most people? No. "even Texans"? Not at all. Bt there is a very pervasive attitude that if someone is reported to have shot someone and contends that his property was threatened or that someone was trespassing, he was in the right. Spend some time reading the posts.

Are there as many people who state otherwise? Yes.

I'm a Texan. I'm a responsible gun owner. I find the implications that Texas is somehow a lawless place that is friendly to killing people (or even than most people believe this) outlandish.

Great! That's good for all of us.

Just my take.

Actually, I think that Outcast's post has proved helpful in bringing your thoughts into play here. Texas Rifleman has expressed chagrin at some of the posts, but it's high time for some reinforcements to give the lie to the nonsense that we see so often.

Why the mention of Texas? For your information, there has just been a discussion on this board about a case in San Antonio in which one of two brothers had killed a man. After the body was found, one of the men claimed that the man had kicked in their door and fled, they claimed that they had pursued him, they claimed that the man had been armed, and they claimed that they had later had to kill him in self defense. The number of people on this board who have stated that they believe the story of a break in, that they believe that the men should legitimately have pursued the man (a man whom the brothers claim to have known) for whatever reason, that they believe the man to have been armed, and that they believe the killing to have been justified, staggers the mind. Some posters ridiculed everyone who suggested that the wiser approach just might have been to call the police.

The case in this string is entirely different, and I think the contrast is Outcast's point.

By the way, had Texas remained independent, there are a couple of other states that could have filled the vacuum in this regard here...

Again, however, your forceful contribution as a responsible Texas gun owner is valuable for all citizens and gun owners. I'm glad to read it.

 

[MLeake]

Re the Texas case

Hopefully you are bearing in mind that there are also many of us who have pointed out that IF the brothers' claims are accurate, then Texas law could provide affirmative defenses for their actions.

This does not mean we are taking the claims at face value, just that some of us have pointed out that Texas law allows for citizens' arrest when a felony is witnessed, and also for defense of property under certain circumstances.

Many of us who have made these points have also noted that we don't particularly recommend such pursuits, even when legally justifiable, due to tactical considerations and the possible risks to third parties.

If you discount posts along those lines, I think you'll find the percentage of testosterone killers is smaller than you allude. It's still higher than it should be, but it's not a large percentage.

 

[OldMarksman]

Hopefully you are bearing in mind that there are also many of us who have pointed out that IF the brothers' claims are accurate, then Texas law could provide affirmative defenses for their actions.

Well, yeah, their actions might well have been legal, not only in Texas but in most places, I think...just that their story is not all that convincing.

This does not mean we are taking the claims at face value, just that some of us have pointed out that Texas law allows for citizens' arrest when a felony is witnessed, and also for defense of property under certain circumstances.

Many of us who have made these points have also noted that we don't particularly recommend such pursuits, even when legally justifiable, due to tactical considerations and the possible risks to third parties.

Noted. All states but one have the provision for citizen's arrest, and while the subject came up in the discussion, the brothers have not been reported to have stated citizen's arrest as their intent. Property has not been reported to have been in question.

If you discount posts along those lines, I think you'll find the percentage of testosterone killers is smaller than you allude. It's still higher than it should be, but it's not a large percentage.

Agree. And your posts were not painted over by my brush---and never have been.

Fact is, there have been recent cases in Virginia and Florida, and one in California, about which similar discussions have transpired.

My concern about the posts of the would-be testosterone killers is two fold: they can mislead the neophyte into doing something extremely unwise, and they can damage our continued rights as citizens.

 

[MLeake]

OldMarksman,

I agree with you on both counts.

I'd add a third: They are really setting themselves up for serious unpleasantness if they ever become involved in a SD shooting.

DA: So, Mr X, on July 10th, 2009 you posted an article in an online forum for gun owners that you felt it was your duty as a man to kill people to prevent future crimes? You also indicated that anybody who carried a weapon should also carry a throwaway weapon to leave on the body? Is it true you recommended ensuring the victim died, so he couldn't testify against you or sue you?

 

[Ricky B]

Preclusion

I agree with the concept of "preclusion" as a tactic, but I don't think that the site gives correct information as to the law of self-defense.

Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.

Maybe there are some states which hold that you become the BG when the robber demands your money and you resist, but I am skeptical. I doubt very much whether this would apply at all to stand-your-ground states.

But as a tactic, looking to see if there is any safe alternative to shooting is a good one. One never knows when what he thinks is absolutely justified may turn out to be a misperception on his part.

Discretion really is the better part of valor.

 

[MLeake]

In Italy,

you really cannot respond to unarmed robbery with a fist. Anything more than an openhanded slap can theoretically result in prosecution. Navy buddy learned this in Naples after he and his wife got in a tug of war with three local national thugs* over her purse. When he notified authorities on base, he was advised that it was a good thing he hadn't thrown punches....

I'm pretty sure there is no state in the US where you can't punch a strongarm robber, at least until he ceases his threat behavior.

But there are some places out there with truly crazy laws.

* these particular local nationals were thugs; Italians in general are not; my family bloodline is largely Sicilian, and most of my relatives aren't thugs...

 

[BikerRN]

Since Texas and Joe Horn keep getting brought up a lot in the various forums I feel it is necessary to add one important, but often overlooked fact.

Things would've turned out very differently for Mr. Horn had not a plainclothes Detective witnessed his altercation/shooting. I seriously doubt that Mr. Horn would repeat the actions he took that night if the same situation happened again.

Biker

 

[OldMarksman]

Maybe there are some states which hold that you become the BG when the robber demands your money and you resist, but I am skeptical.

So am I. Every state I have researched allows physical force or reasonable force to defend property, but only two allow deadly force in any circumstance, unless one refers to defense of the home or other occupied place.

I doubt very much whether this would apply at all to stand-your-ground states.

The "stand your ground" concept has to do with whether a person w must retreat. if he can do so safely, before using deadly force to defend himself against imminent danger of death or serious harm. No connection with strongarm robbery that I can see.

Stand your ground laws are relatively new and largely untested. They do not explicitly eliminate the requirement for immediate necessity. I wish we had a law of that kind here, but too many people believe it would legalize "murder."