Man Chases Intruder from House, Shoots

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

First, we can quibble whether a strong-arm robbery refers to a threat to use force in the form of a beating or whether a strong-arm robbery is the application of force without a threat (someone tries to grab what you have and you struggle with him). I see the two as different. The robber who explicitly issues a threat, IMO, presents a greater risk. In some neighborhoods, people make sure not to leave home without at least a few dollars on their person because they know that if they get robbed and don't have any money on them, the robber can get infuriated and beat them severely. But let's not quibble.

Here is the connection with strong-arm robbery that I see. The website states that the robber gives "an ultimatum like 'give me your money or I’ll hurt you'." This is an explicit threat. Since you are not legally required to agree to turn over your money, it's not a conditional threat. Personally, I would turn over the money, but a victim would be well within his rights not to. (Of course, so would I but I wouldn't be interested in asserting my rights at that moment.)

Therefore, if the victim is not going to turn over his money to a robber, he would, IMO, have a reasonable ground for fear of imminent serious harm. Now maybe the victim knows the robber and thinks the robber is some kind of punk who talks big but won't use any force. Or maybe the robber is 6 years old. Fair enough. In those cases, the victim can't use force because he doesn't truly believe he is in danger. But the typical strong-arm robber does present an imminent threat of serious harm. That's why people turn over their money.

And self-defense can apply to resisting a robbery in and of itself.

Here are the instructions in CA for self defense in the case of justifiable homicide:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime>)];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.
Click to expand...

In addition to "imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury" there is the alternative choice (depending on the case) of being "in imminent danger of being ... robbed."

Here are some other instructions that might apply:

A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.
Click to expand...

"Stand your ground" in CA therefore not only means not retreating but also being able to "defend himself or herself" while doing so.

I read these jury instructions to mean that, assuming one one may lawfully resist a strong-arm robbery by using force.

Is it possible that a victim of a robbery who shoots and kills an unarmed thug who is in fact attempting to rob him could be prosecuted for using excessive force? Yes, but I see that as unlikely. A strong-arm robbery by its nature will take place with the victim and robber within striking distance of each other. Simply drawing a gun or knife in self-defense risks immediate (if perhaps ultimately foolish) attack by the robber.

To avoid igniting a debate on the issue of pursuit, everyone please note that the right to "pursue an assailant" ceases in this circumstance once the danger has passed.
 
There are a few posters on this and many other boards that whether turthfully or not appear to search the laws every day looking for a legal reason to use their gun on someone. I don't know that Texas has any more than any other state in relation to the population but there are a lot of people that do love to use Texas as an example of the way they want it to be. I really think that if I ever have to use my gun for protection the last thing on my mind will be whether or not it is legal.

You have to remember that if you consider the legalities of an action it will not matter what your opinion of it is, the actual legality of it will be decided by 12 people that you do not know. The prosecutor, your attorney, the judge and all the TFL Internet lawyers can quote all the laws they want to but those 12 people will still make the decision on whether or not it was legal.
 
defcon5 said:
should have shot him inside the house!!!
Click to expand...
Defcon5, you need to work on your reading comprehension. From the article in the original post:
...prosecutors Thursday said their investigation revealed Lemes and Glass didn't encounter each other until the young man already had run from the house.​

And if you think shooting a drunken teenager is a good idea... oh, never mind.
 
should have shot him inside the house!!!
Click to expand...


And if you think shooting a drunken teenager is a good idea... oh, never mind.
Click to expand...


Ya know Vanya, This is likely a response of someone who thinks that "castle laws" mean that you get to shoot anyone that comes into your home without any repercussions. It's a license to kill. No questions asked. And that is sad. If I am wrong defcon 5 then please tell us why you would suggest such a thing ?
 
OuTcAsT said:
Ya know Vanya, This is likely a response of someone who thinks that "castle laws" mean that you get to shoot anyone that comes into your home without any repercussions. It's a license to kill. No questions asked. And that is sad.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's exactly that sort of response, and it is sad. And it becomes clear, at a certain point, that the chances of persuading someone who thinks that way to reconsider are, well, minimal.

If I am wrong defcon 5 then please tell us why you would suggest such a thing ?
Click to expand...

Seconded.
 
This [("should have shot him inside the house!!!")] is likely a response of someone who thinks that "castle laws" mean that you get to shoot anyone that comes into your home without any repercussions. It's a license to kill. No questions asked. And that is sad.
Click to expand...

Could well be, and if it is, it is sad indeed, and it cheers on the "antis" who have wrongly characterized castle laws as having the effect of legalizing murder.

Of course, that belief is as wrong as the antis themselves, as evidenced by the recent conviction of the man in Oregon--where a strong castle doctrine applies due to case law--who shot a man in his house who was not supposed to be there.

The man ended up getting off with a relatively light sentence, but he won't have any guns any more.

Ignorance seems to abound. There are even still those who also believe that if they shoot someone, the thing to do is to "drag them back into the house." Ever notice how many of the people who say that say that they were told that by a sheriff, policeman, etc.?
 
No matter how law abiding, intelligent, kind or well intentioned... There will still be a % of good people who lawfully own a firearm but are lacking in emotional control.
 
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...it-homeowner-of-college-student-s-1685756.php

I find the acquittal odd. There is no indication the college student ever entered the house. There was no B&E, nothing disturbed inside. He apparently was shot out in the street and was not involved in the theft of anything. The homeowner claimed he shot when the gun lunged at him, but all the shots were in the back, not the front. I thought the above quote was interesting because the dense attorney argued back in March that all the shots occurred while the suspect faced the shooter and that he stopped shooting when the suspect turned away.
http://www.ksat.com/news/27084518/detail.html

It was two trials, but not because of a hung jury or anything like that, but because of juror misconduct, doing outside research which is a no-no.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Curious-juror-could-land-in-jail-1063171.php
 
What ever happened to action of last resort?

I am aware of the incredible stress that one will be under if they encounter an intruder in their home. I'm as big a 2nd Amendment backer as you'll find. I carry almost 100% of the time, unless I'm entering a gun free zone like my kid's school.

I own a business and have caught and held burglars for the police. My adrenaline was sky high. I let them know that I would let loose some bullets if they did not cooperate. Thankfully they did. BUT, had they cut and run, I would not have tried to gun them down. The threat to me would be over. I was not sure if they were armed (they were not) but I gave them orders to lay on the ground with their arms out in front. In Alabama, the castle doctrine extends to your place of business. I could legally shoot if they ran, but I would not.

I'm 100% for a person protecting their home, property and life. Please don't get me wrong. I may get flamed for this post. That's OK. We're all entitled.

This case is a sad event for the homeowner and family as well as the dead intruder's family. Was there not a better choice than to chase, put yourself in further danger, and be forced to shoot because of a perceived threat?
 
Every time someone is charged for a shooting the Texas guys pipe up with "It couldn't happen in Texas." This should dispel that myth.

I don't know whether the homeowner should be indicted, but anytime one shoots a fleeing BG he opens himself up to a long legal battle at least.

Jerry
 
Well, well, well! :) Looks like all the armchair experts, of whom
only probably a few have ever been in this man's shoes have found
out that sometimes justice does prevail! I have no pity for the idiot
drunken college student that found his self in that man's house! I
call that "thinning" the gene pool! So, now, what are you guys that
think Texas is some kinda back-woods murder factory gonna say now?
The man was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and I would consider
this case closed! hmmmm?
 
I don't think Ray Lemes is going to be doing much celebrating. Having to go to a murder trial, challenge and disqualify a juror and then another murder trial (not counting the civil suit that was dropped) is likely to leave him with a six-figure legal bill that he will be paying off until he dies.

At the end of the day, I guess only Ray Lemes knows whether the threat that drunken teen presented required the action he took. Either way, it has got to be rough on him... either he chased a drunken, confused teen out into the street and executed him or he was in a fight for his life and got dragged through a legal grinder that will burden him for the rest of his life for defending his own home. Whichever one of those is true, it tends to be the kind of thing that weighs heavily on a person.
 
As usual, we only have bits and pieces of the story. The mysanantonio.com link reveals an article By Craig Kapitan which seems (to me) to present the prosecutor's point of view. That detail about the laser sight, come on.

I assume that Texas law requires the defendant who claims the justification of self-defense (for committing homicide) to prove self-defense to the jury. I assume that the article has left out the facts upon which the jury based their acquittal. The jury's decision to acquit must mean they decided that the defendant was justified in shooting Tracy Glass.

It seems that the premise that the shooter chased the intruder from his home was incorrect. The defense seems to claim that the shooter was on his driveway. "Lemes testified that he was standing in his driveway when Glass jumped out from behind a brush pile, charged him and got within eight feet before he was shot."

Regardless another fact remains, that the defendant has paid a high price to maintain his freedom both in dollars and emotion.
 
This is a sad story, if it is true the teen lunged at him and he was aggressive then he got what he deserved if he was innocent he should have stayed calm and waited for the cops.

I also agree that this man now has alot on his mind, legal bills, killing someone, ect. I only hope he is able to make it through this ok
 
Posted by hartlock: ...sometimes justice does prevail!
Click to expand...
F. Lee Bailey was asked whether he was troubled by the fact that guilty defendants whom he defended sometimes got off without justice having been served. He replied that none of them ever got off without punishment because his fees bankrupted most of them. Lemes was reportedly out of money after the first trial.

So yes, there has been some justice.

I have no pity for the idiot drunken college student that found his self in that man's house! I call that "thinning" the gene pool!
Click to expand...
Let us all hope that you are never involved in a shooting with sparse evidence in support of justification. That permanent and discoverable public statement could ruin your life.

So, now, what are you guys that think Texas is some kinda back-woods murder factory gonna say now?
Click to expand...
Not being one of them I cannot say, but I wouldn't be surprised if it reinforces the misconception.

The man was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and I would consider this case closed! hmmmm?
Click to expand...
He has been acquitted and cannot be tried again by the state for the same crime, but he was not tried by a jury of his peers. That's an old English concept that is not practiced in this country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top