The temptation of vigilantism

Grant , your post was a misrepresentation to state that the 911 call was how it went down. It was the witness that saved him. Your implication was that it was an easy shoot to take down the robbers was not correct.

Let's be real here.

God may bless Texas or not but the witness was the crucial factor from all accounts. It was not an open season on BGs as you implied.
 
A common mistake on the Joe Horn shooting is that people get the impression it is OK to shoot to protect the property of a third person in Texas. The circumstances where you can legally do that in Texas are VERY limited and Joe Horn would likely have not been covered by that law.

Joe Horn's lawyer stated to the press and the grand jury that when Joe Horn confronted the men outside, they charged him and Joe Horn shot in defense OF HIMSELF, shooting one of the men in the back as he veered away at the last instant. This account was coorborated by a plainclothes officer who had arrived in response to Horn's 911 call and witnessed the entire shooting.

Horn was not real far away from having shot two men, one of them in the back, in a situation where deadly force in defense of property was not authorized and where there were no witnesses to support his version and forensic evidence was ambiguous. Throw in his 911 tape and he could have been in a world of trouble. Horn was very lucky. He was lucky he had a credible witness whose story matched his perfectly. He was lucky he had the attorney he did.
 
Regardless of what may or may not have happened in TX, vigilantism and defense of life and limb are two very different things. Vigilantism is hunting down alleged criminals and punishing them, whether or not they are involved in or there is evidence of their involvement in the commission of a crime. It borders on terrorism, and is unacceptable in any civilized society under rule of law.

Defense of life or limb is different, you have the right to act in defense of others to prevent their death by persons or animals. Yes, I would take on a person trying to break into the neighbor's house if I knew for sure that they were home and their lives were potentially in danger. Otherwise the break-in is a burglary, and burglary is not punishable by death in our country.

I say watch fewer movies, be less scared of others, and be less judgemental in general. If you don't know exactly what is going on, don't intervene, and don't let your fantasies run away with you. And remember, you will be tried under the "reasonable man" rule (i.e. would a reasonable man have acted in this manner?).
 
It's never a easy shoot to take someones life.That isn't what I was implying.
The fact is you can protect your neighbors property in this state.
But his life will never be the same.
 
IMHO your not an officer of the law so call one. The problem is you will spend more in legal fees and possibly losing your permit when you, your family or property are not a direct threat. Call 911 & report the situation to authorities. Not saying close the blinds and look the other way I just wouldn't jeopardize my lively hood or permit.
 
A number of years ago, there was a man in New York City who used the subway and traveled around in places where he was very likely to be mugged. He shot several young men that tried to rob him. If I remember it right, he was convicted of vigilantism and murder because it was said he was putting himself in a position to be robbed and wanted to shoot these criminals! Many people thought this was not right for him to be convicted because he was defending his right to travel anywhere and defend himself! There is a fine line here on this issue and if you have ever been robbed at gunpoint or by someone with a knife, you are kidding yourself if you think you weren't in danger of losing your life! :eek:
 
Well, being Buddhist I have no reason to try and kill someone for breaking into a house or stealing something/destruction of property. Objects mean little.

Life and Death on the other hand means a lot, and shooting someone for assaulting my neighbor seems a bit lopsided. Slopemeno brought up a good point, be a good witness. Skans brought up another, confronting the person, if their attention goes to you and you defend yourself, that seems fine. Being a "Hero" like Joe Horn is ridiculous in my eyes, he seems like he was after the chance to kill someone, for Burglary no less.

Not knowing a situation, physically interfering without first calling the police and trying to deescalate the situation is stupid. Making a citizens arrest is an option, but good luck.
 
KBP said:
A number of years ago, there was a man in New York City who used the subway and traveled around in places where he was very likely to be mugged. He shot several young men that tried to rob him. If I remember it right, he was convicted of vigilantism and murder because it was said he was putting himself in a position to be robbed and wanted to shoot these criminals! Many people thought this was not right for him to be convicted because he was defending his right to travel anywhere and defend himself! There is a fine line here on this issue and if you have ever been robbed at gunpoint or by someone with a knife, you are kidding yourself if you think you weren't in danger of losing your life!
Click to expand...
If you're thinking of Bernard Goetz, he wounded 5 men who tried to rob him on the NYC subway and was eventually convicted of possession of an illegal firearm and served less than a year in jail.
 
KBP said:
...A number of years ago, there was a man in New York City who used the subway and traveled around in places where he was very likely to be mugged. He shot several young men that tried to rob him. If I remember it right, he was convicted of vigilantism and murder...
Click to expand...
[1] Care to provide a citation or reference?

[2] These sorts of "...there was a man...if I remember it right..." statements are worthless and a waste of time without some documentation.

[3] And as Don points out, if you're thinking of Bernie Goetz, who was called the "Subway Vigilante" in the press, you've got it all wrong.
 
The story was covered pretty heavy by the National media at the time. If I recall, didn't Goetz shoot 4 men, one of them twice? I think he had a 5 shot S&W .38 and after shooting each MUGGER once, he turned to one and stated something to the effect of "You don't look too bad... here's another" BANG! I think at least one of them had a screwdriver and they WERE intent on hurting / robbing him. I think the crime rate DROP in NYC in the following weeks, prior to Police catching Goetz, as there was speculation of a DEATH WISH type of crime fighter roaming the streets? I could be wrong, as it was over 25 years ago.
 
shurshot said:
If I recall, didn't Goetz ... I could be wrong, as it was over 25 years ago.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to risk being wrong about stuff like this. There are records, and information is preserved and available. If you'd just take the time to Google Bernard Goetz, you'd find a bunch of material, including an extensive Wikipedia article. A little research never hurt anyone.

In any case, Goetz is off topic. This thread is about coming to the defense of another person.

Let's get back on track.
 
Yes, it depends on the state. If you're in Texas, look at Texas Penal Code 9.43.

And of course, as always, there are variables. Is there only one intruder? Is your neighbor HOME? Is your neighbor a couple of college girls? A combat vet with 38 loaded guns on the wall? A 90 year old lady living alone?

You would have to a little soul-searching in deciding what to do if it was a lone woman, elderly, etc. and you saw somebody breaking in a window. I would probably approach with a firm "get away from that window! NOW!" and my gun drawn and pointed, or ready to quick-draw and fire. Or maybe I would have a shotgun.

But again, as with so many of these hypothetical scenarios, it just depends.
 
Sec.*9.41.**PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b)**A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1)**the actor reasonably believes the other ha
d no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2)**the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec.*9.42.**DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)**if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2)**when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)**to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B)**to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3)**he reasonably believes that:
(A)**the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B)**the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec.*9.43.**PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1)**the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2)**the actor reasonably believes that:
(A)**the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B)**he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C)**the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Click to expand...

So if you live in Texas and want to shoot someone over your neighbor's property, you need to first at least meet the following conditions:

1. The neighbor must be in lawful possession of the property.
2. The property must be land or tangible, movable property.
3. You must reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the interference with the property.
4. The other person has no claim of right to the property.
5. The crime being prevented is arson, burglarly, robbery, theft during nighttime or criminal mischief during nightime.
6. You must reasonably believe the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by other means OR using less force would expose you to substantial risk of death or serious injury.

When those conditions are met, THEN you just need to meet all the conditions in Sec. 9.43 and it is a good shoot.
 
Good post, Bart.

Some folks seem to think that Castle Doctrine laws are some kind of "get out of jail free" card. They are not.

Every Castle Doctrine, and every law permitting the use of force in self defense, includes a laundry list of conditions that need to be satisfied for their protections to apply. If there's any dispute about whether those conditions have been satisfied, you'll be in court.
 
But consider this. What if you could easily save someone that you don't know?
Click to expand...
Just who are you saving? Unless you personally investigate, do you even know what the circumstances are? And to investigate, what would identify you as an individual with the authority to detain and question another individual at gunpoint?
Like if an armed aggressor is attempting to smash the windows of your neighbors. What if you had a clear shot and could easily defend them?
Click to expand...
A very bad idea in my opinion. Plain-clothes cop could be chasing a hiding fugitive that holed-up in your neighbor's home?
Edit: perhaps I should be more clear. The point is that would you defend thy neighbor?
Click to expand...
Shooting a stranger for attempting to break a window is not defending your neighbor.
 
Grant D said:
The fact is you can protect your neighbors property in this state.
Click to expand...
While it is true that one can use deadly force in defense of property in TX--under very limited circumstances, I might add--Horn's case is not an illustration of that fact.

Joe Horn's actions were justifed based on a claim of self defense--NOT defense of property. He was backed up in that claim by a police officer who witnessed the shooting.
 
Edit: perhaps I should be more clear. The point is that would you defend thy neighbor?
Click to expand...

That's better.

I don't know the answer to your specific question, but it bugs the crap out of me when people toss around the word "vigilante" without understanding it's meaning. It's become a news media jargonese term. Law abiding gun owners don't use it---at least not when it applies to lawful acts. Vigilantes are the ones who circumnavigate the law. And lawful intervention does not equate to vigilantiism.

Now that I feel better for getting that off my chest, I don't personally know how the law is written iin your state, but if you ask yourself the question: Is anyone's life in immediate danger, then maybe you could answer your own question.

And if you answer another question: Would it be prudent to get the police rolling ASAP, before I consider opening fire?, then that might help, also.

Believe it or not, there could be a valid reason for someone trying to open a window that you wouldn't be aware of watching through your rifle scope.

Maybe "The police are on the way, why are you trying to enter my neighbor's house through a window?" would help solve the problem and save an awful lot of headache.

Call the Cops. Then call your neighbor and let them know about the problem. Think "gun" last--it's still there as an option.
 
I can understand the idea though. This is a moral issue. You see something that sounds your internal alarm. It doesn't involve you personally per se but will you just stand by and to allow "this" to happen to "them".

Added : Get to know your neighbors. Talk to one another. Exchange #'s. You don't have to like one another.
 
Last edited:
Terminology

You opened with the term "vigilantism." Vigilantism is not self defense or the defense of another, it is the usurption of governmental power by investigating, capturing and punishing the responsible party without authorization to do so. This is mob justice such as the widespread lynchings of blacks in an earlier era.

In NYS, one may only use deadly force in a property oriented crime to prevent the arson of an occupied dwelling. Any use of deadly force to prevent a property crime such as burglary or auto theft (not carjacking) will land you in jail, wipe out your net worth and permenantly cost you the privilege or right to own firearms.

Our justice system is far from perfect. Some get away with murder while innocents are sometimes convicted in a legitimate self defense situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top