PDA

View Full Version : Intruder shot with own handgun


xnavy
September 5, 2006, 08:57 AM
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/15442116.htm

I think this is justice, shooting the guy with his own weapon. The only question I have is did the perp actually lay the weapon down or did it fall out without his knowing. I find it amusing that he was able to get away and get him self checked into a hospital. I think the homowner was extremely lucky to have this turn out the way it did.

Double Naught Spy
September 5, 2006, 10:42 AM
That is a pretty hokey story where things are so weird that you have to wonder if they really went down like that or not.

Jones said the resident, who has not been identified, heard someone open the back patio door of his first-floor apartment, in the 3800 block of Great Oak Road south of Euless, around 3:30 p.m. When he went to investigate, he saw a 9 mm handgun on the sofa. Concerned, he picked up the gun and began to walk through the apartment when he came face to face with a man in a back bedroom, Jones said.

garryc
September 5, 2006, 11:22 AM
There seems to be a certain odor aroud this one reminisant of a cow pasture. I wouldn't be suprized if he bought that gun second hand and, knowing it wasn't registered to him, said it was the bad guys. Maybe the guy was legally prohibited from owning a gun. Who Knows

Hard Ball
September 5, 2006, 11:50 AM
Good!

stephen426
September 5, 2006, 11:52 AM
I'd have to say that this is a questionable shooting since the intruder was most likely not armed since he laid down his weapon on the sofa. While I am uncertain as to whether or not Texas has a Castle Doctrine, I personally would have taken the gun and locked myself in my bedroom and called the cops. I'm willing to bet that the intruder will probably sue and say that he was unarmed when the home owner fired 9 shots at him in anger, not self defense.

While I would never kill someone in cold blood, it is usually better when there is only one side to a story. Now if the home owner had said that a struggle ensued and he wrestled the gun away from the intruder, there would be much less doubt as to the shooting being justified.

v8fbird
September 5, 2006, 02:40 PM
"While I would never kill someone in cold blood, it is usually better when there is only one side to a story. Now if the home owner had said that a struggle ensued and he wrestled the gun away from the intruder, there would be much less doubt as to the shooting being justified."

There is no such thing as "cold blood" when someone has broken into my home. There's "whether or not a jury will convict me," but that's really immaterial.

Good for the homeowner, WHETHER OR NOT it was his gun, WHETHER OR NOT he was allowed to own a gun, and WHETHER OR NOT the guy reached for a weapon.

stephen426
September 5, 2006, 02:46 PM
v8fbird,

We are definately in agreement that it was "good for the homeowner". It is always a good thing when the good guys win and the bad guys lose. WHat I mean by kill "in cold blood" is shooting a guy when he is no longer a threat. If someone is unarmed and beating a hasty retreat, he is no longer a threat, even if he is still in my house. This same also holds true if the intruder is down (injured) and no longer a threat. To walk over and put one in his head becomes murder, not self defense. If the unarmed intruder was advancing on the home owner however, he deserved to get shot.

v8fbird
September 5, 2006, 02:54 PM
I pretty much agree with that. I am not going shoot someone who is clearly running away. And if I shoot someone and they "go down," I'm going to run and probably not going to wait to see if they're still a threat.

Syntax360
September 5, 2006, 03:55 PM
God I love living in Texas! :D

We do not have a Castle Doctrine (yet *crosses fingers*). However, DA's tend to be real understanding and sympathetic is instances like these. Also, Texas juries don't tend to be real sympathetic for the poor, misunderstood burglar who was forced into a life of crime by circumstance and bad parenting :rolleyes:.

In the event the BG tries to sue the homeowner, I suspect the jury will agree that it's too bad the homeowner wasn't a better shot.

If the BG wants to get paid to be shot by homeowners, he needs to move to a blue state like the PRK.

Don H
September 5, 2006, 06:14 PM
I wouldn't be suprized if he bought that gun second hand and, knowing it wasn't registered to him, said it was the bad guys.

I don't believe that it is required to register handguns in the free state of Texas.

v8fbird
September 5, 2006, 06:23 PM
I think what he means is that the guy could have lied about whose gun it was. If he didn't have to submit to a background check when he bought it second hand, he wouldn't have had to fill out a 4473, and even if the police canvassed the local gun shops it wouldn't come up as belonging to him. And, in the eyes of today's justice system, if he said it was the burglar's and not his, he looks more innocent and the burglar more guilty.

But at the same time I wouldn't be surpriZed if that wasn't what he meant. :D

S.Miller
September 5, 2006, 06:32 PM
I believe all states should adopt the Castle doctrine. We've seen crime drop in states that have concealed carry (much to the chagrin of the anti-gun crowd) and I suspect burglaries would go down everywhere if it were the rule across the nation.

Personally, if I found someone breaking into my home I would feel my entire family is being greatly threatened. I'm mindful of the law and would adhere to it as much as I am able, but I would be prepared to do whatever it takes to keep my family free from harm.

stephen426
September 5, 2006, 07:17 PM
Personally, if I found someone breaking into my home I would feel my entire family is being greatly threatened. I'm mindful of the law and would adhere to it as much as I am able, but I would be prepared to do whatever it takes to keep my family free from harm.

S.Miller,

I too would feel threatened. My first reaction would not be to shoot the stranger in my house though. I would probably yell something like don't move or I'll shoot. I would then attempt to hold him while I call the police. Some people disagree with this and would just tell the intruder to get the heck out. This guy will just break into someone elses house or come back when no one is home and steal my guns. If the bad guy makes sudden moves that make me feel he is going for a weapon, I shoot. If the guy advances towrds me or my family despite being at gun point, I shoot. I'm am in decent physical condition, but I am not going to tango with an unknown attacker and risk losing my gun, which can and probably will be used against me.

garryc
September 5, 2006, 09:49 PM
I think what he means is that the guy could have lied about whose gun it was. If he didn't have to submit to a background check when he bought it second hand, he wouldn't have had to fill out a 4473, and even if the police canvassed the local gun shops it wouldn't come up as belonging to him. And, in the eyes of today's justice system, if he said it was the burglar's and not his, he looks more innocent and the burglar more guilty.

Exactly what I ment. Ohio doesn't have a registration law either

v8fbird
September 6, 2006, 07:58 AM
"I would then attempt to hold him while I call the police."

You mean "at gunpoint," or would you two cuddle on the couch and wait for the cops?

So you, likely an average guy, would attempt to hold him, perhaps a professional burglar, at gunpoint, until police arrived? You think he's never thought out that situation in his head? How far away will he be from you in your home? 10 feet? You think you can get off shots --- lethal shots --- in the 1.X seconds as he rushes at you? Willing to bet your life on that? The lives of your family members? You either retreat, or you go in guns blazing.

Hoverboy26
September 7, 2006, 05:18 PM
I think this guy should have placed his aim a little better.......:D

-RC

stephen426
September 7, 2006, 05:36 PM
v8fbird,

Whats wrong with cuddling? :p I meant hold him at gun point :rolleyes: DUH!

Lets say I go out and greet my unwelcomed guest with my Remington 870. Do you think that might be enough to convince him not to try and attack me? That will avoid the whole stopping power arguement. If he moves towards me, he is dead. If he moves away from me without making sudden moves (such as reaching for a gun) I keep my weapon trained on him without pulling the trigger.

As for retreating or go in guns blazing, I don't that is called for in most situations. Say you go to check out a bump in the night. It could be little johnny going to get a sip of water (assuming you have kids), or it could be Jack the Ripper (well, maybe a copy cat). Are you going out blasting? I believe that is how many people have accidental shootings. They simply see a person and their gut reaction is to shoot.

While I do value my life and the lives of my family, I would still try to hold an intruder at bay. I am not a police officer, but I feel an obligation to get this scumbag off the streets. If I retreat, he leaves and burglerizes another person or worse. If the cops arrest him, he is out of comission for a little while. Now if he comes towrds me or my family, I put him out of comission permenantly.

Hamhawk96R
September 7, 2006, 06:05 PM
From a police officer's prospective, based only on what I read here, the homeowner's going to come out on top on this one. #1) Suspect has no reason to be inside victim's Apt. #2) Using a "reasonable officer" standard (which is what they do here in CA for use of force scenarios) homeowner feared for his life when he saw suspect reach for waistband and thus fired the newly aquired weapon. It is a very common practice for suspects to carry more that one weapon (yes, even guns) Homeowner had not coducted a patdown search of suspect for additional weapons, so he has good reason to be in fear for his life. #3) homeowner made the 911 call for medical aid for suspect, showing that he is not simply trying to "execute" same. #4) even if the un registered / stolen gun was actually owned by the homeowner, the police will be hardpressed to prove it. No jury in TEXAS is gonna believe it's not the suspect's gun. In short, its just too bad he didn't shoot him in between the :eek: eyes.

v8fbird
September 7, 2006, 06:19 PM
Stephen,

I never said shoot blindly at anything. I think you know what I said. I said if you find someone in your home, you should either retreat or attack.

Let's say you catch this guy, he puts his hands up. You say "freeze while I call the cops." He says "whoa, ya got me, I'll leave now" and turns to leave. Are you going to shoot him in the back to keep him there? What if he pulls out a gun, whips back around and shoots you? And much as you may *think* you can aim and fire at a running/lunging person, do you really want to try? People make the point time and again that action is faster than reaction (point a paintball gun at my head, give me a paintball gun in a holster, you can't shoot till you see me move, and assuming we have similar reaction times, I can draw and shoot you before you can react and shoot me). The point is, there are a ton of variables, and none of them are worth your life.

You have no obligation to "get him off the street." If you think so, then shoot him, or keep less than lethal slugs in your shotgun.

Turning and running and locking yourself and your family in a bedroom is not cowardly -- it's smart. If you want a fight, take a jiu jitsu class or something. Who knows, maybe we'll meet. ;)

stephen426
September 7, 2006, 06:29 PM
v8firebird,

I will not get into a physical confrontation with an unknown intruder. While I hold a first degree black belt in TKD, it has been quite a while since I practiced it. Besides, you should never underestimate your opponent. Why give up my advantage and go hand to hand? :rolleyes:

I apologize if I carried your thought too far when I said shooting blindly. You can assume that the burgler is armed but would that hold up in a court of law? You are using deadly force to protect property up until the point you have determined that the intruder proves he is a threat. I'm talking about moral grounds here versus legal. Shooting an unarmed intruder may or may not have legal repurcussions. I am not going to wait for him to draw and have a stare off. Like I said, if he goes for a weapon, he had better be pretty damned quick. I will have my weapon trained on him and he has to draw and fire on me. I am still pretty young so I have very fast reflexes. Maybe when I get older, I'll just shoot him first. :D