Home Invasion: Did Homeowner Go Too Far?

[xrocket]

Home Invasion: Home Owner Taken Into Custody!

This morning in Dallas Texas according to Dallas Morning News:

DALLAS — An attempted home invasion ended with what police called an all-out gun battle early Wednesday in a North Dallas residential neighborhood.

Police said four heavily-armed men attempted to break into a house in the 9000 block of Woodshore Drive near North Central Expressway and Royal Lane at 2:30 a.m.

The homeowner had a gun and opened fire on the suspects. He pursued them as they fled, hitting at least two of them, police said.

One was found dead in an SUV several blocks away from the crime scene. Another was taken to Baylor University Medical Center in very critical condition. The homeowner was not hurt.

A third suspect was taken into custody and the fourth fled the scene. An AK-47 assault rifle was found near the suspects' vehicle.

Police said a gunshot victim who showed up later at Parkland Memorial Hospital may be linked to the home invasion attempt.

While investigators said the homeowner was within his legal rights to fire on intruders, he may be subject to charges because he left his property to pursue the robbery suspects in his vehicle.

The homeowner, whose name was unavailable, was taken into custody for questioning. No charges had been filed against him.


I think the fact that he got into his car and gave chase might put his tail in the ringer. Was it reckless? Was he foolish? Yes he was, but he got three of them. JMO. :]

[PJW001]

I think the fact that he got into his car and gave chase might put his tail in the ringer. Was it reckless? Was he foolish? Yes he was, but he got three of them. JMO.

Based on the very preliminary details you have listed here you may be correct and I would agree with you however there still remains a void as to exactly what transpired and what ALL of the facts are and IMHO until the true details are known everything else is conjecture.

[SpookBoy]

I say more power to him I'd have done the SAME thing. btw 3 outta 4 aint bad:D Imo he did not go too far.

[nate45]

Your right he should not have pursued them but hopefully he won't be charged.

Those guys got what they deserved or at least so far one of them did.

[xrocket]

Obviously, there will be much more details and facts to evolve from this newsflash. I thought it newsworthy enough to open a discussion on the homeowners tactical decision to leave his property and pursue the perps by auto. Raging gun battles through Dallas suburbs at 2:30 AM in this particular neighborhood are not normal. The homeowner has allot of moxie.

[OuTcAsT]

conjecture

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I think the fact that he got into his car and gave chase might put his tail in the ringer. Was it reckless? Was he foolish? Yes he was, but he got three of them. JMO.

Based on the very preliminary details you have listed here you may be correct however I would stress that there still remains a void as to exactly what transpired and what ALL of the facts are and IMHO until the true details are known everything else is conjecture.
__________________



+1 To the fact that he likely went too far, we shall see.

Those guys got what they deserved or at least so far one of them did.



I say more power to him I'd have done the SAME thing. btw 3 outta 4 aint bad

All I can say is WOW, just WOW, I hope that nate45 and SpookBoy don't really own any firearms.:barf:

[joab]

By Florida standard yes he went to far

Hopefully he can argue heat of the moment and get off or at least a very minimal sentence

Maybe he can make an argument that they were a danger to the community

And yes Outcast
Anyone who gets killed while invading a home with murderous intent gets what he deserves
And getting three out of four while being surprised and outnumbered four to one is good work

[mattro]

more scum off the streets! good job homeowner.

LEGALLY he went too far, but that is it - "legally".

[zeroskillz]

wow, I don't think I'd want to leave my property, but I can see getting caught up in the heat of the moment...

But regardless, I like the fact that these home invaders are meeting more and more armed response here in the Dallas area. Good for getting a few more off the streets and making others think twice.

[The Tourist]

This is another debate (sigh) where I am pulled both ways.

First, Ayoob put it best when he stated that a citizen/homeowner/CCW licensed user is not a sworn officer. Not only would he be reacting beyond his legal limits, but far beyond his training. He is also "out in the world" and he is responsible for every shot he takes.

Having said that, I get angry when I'm attacked. I'd be furious if I was attacked in my home. That act would not only make me feel violated in my own space but it endanger my wife, my dogs and any nearby neighbors by ricochets and penetrating shots.

Like you do, I keep firearms in various places in my home. (We have no children.) One such automatic pistol is in/on a table facing the front door.

In the heat of an exchange, hoping I am still alive, I can foresee an adrenaline dump that just might want to make me hit back. It's a feeling that I have had before. I may very well give chase. Sitting here, calm, before my computer, it would be a foolish thing to do.

Yes, arresting the home owner is a very real problem, and probably correct until everything is straightened out.

In law we have The Doctrine of the Reasonable Man. Taken into account, I hope a reasonable DA or jury will consider that.

[Musketeer]

Legally he went too far. It is hard to make a self defense case when you chase the criminals through the streets.

Tactically he went too far. Chasing four armed men in a car with your own is not a smart idea.

This sounds fishy... He was targetted by four attackers at 2:30 in the morning with at least one AK and who knows what else... Somehow he got the drop on all of them and then saw fit to chase them down... I would be interseted to see what else comes out of this as I would be willing to be he might have known who these guys were and that there was a reason for his being targetted.

[Spenser]

We'll have to see the facts. In Texas, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent someone from fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping the property, and the actor believes (reasonably) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or not using deadly force would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Tex. Pen. Code §9.42.

There's a newish DA in Dallas. We'll see if he's going to be a typical Democrat about self-defense issues or not.

We'll also have to see what exactly the facts were in this case. Does he fit in with any of the criteria as put forth by the above Penal Code definitions?

[Hornett]

Looks like just another student of Machiavelli.

"Men ought to be either indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared."

:)

[Creature]

Did he go too far? Probably.

But because we really don't know all the details and background involved in this incident, we'll just have to wait to see what the jury says.

[Hobie]

I happened to wake up the other night to use the pot. Looked out the back and saw the motion detector light on. Told the who/whatever in the back yard to get going and now. Heard what sounded like a kid say "aw ****" and a single set of footsteps head down the drive.

If I'm ever on a jury and a fellow who otherwise was acting in self-defense and a gun fight started in his home but he pushed them out of his house (off the objective), he has my vote for not guilty.

[SpookBoy]

Well outcast I really dont care if i offended you :barf:what right does that give you to discern anyones firearm ownership?,all I have to say is shame on the people that come to my place in the middle of the night,we cant all offer them tea and crumpets!
And on the subject of legality what about the 4 armed assailants who drove to his house,at 2:30 in the morning with concealed weapons (maybe stolen) with the intention of commiting a felony,no one seems to be worried about that legal issue.

[BillCA]

If a person's home is invaded by four "heavily armed" thugs and that person manages to drive them out of the house is the job done?

Not hardly.

Even if the invaders are "in flight" across the front lawn, they still pose a substantial danger to the homeowner. You don't know if their motives are to rob you or to kill everyone in the house. Since they did fire, you have to presume the worst (murder intent) in which case the homeowner cannot relax until they have been driven off.

So the homeowner stands on his porch, firing his uber-tactical gun as the thugs pile into a car parked in front of the house next door. In technical legalese, some lawyers will argue that defense rights stop at the property line. However, in realistic terms, the threat to the homeowner does NOT stop simply because the thugs have run to the street.

As the car drives off, should the homeowner fire parting shots at the fleeing thugs? Some will raise the liklihood of injuring "innocent parties" if the car goes out of control, though this seems thin for a residential zone at 2:30am. But I think a case can be made that thugs who are this brazen and violent certainly are a danger to the community and actions taken to stop them are justifiable under the law. A departing car still holds danger for the homeowner as it may contain heavier weaponry. They may use it for a final drive-by before leaving the area.

And there is the recognition that in such dramatic life-threatening events it is very difficult to try to "shut off" the defensive mode upon crossing some imaginary boundary.

Jumping into one's car and pursuing for blocks is, I'll agree, a bit overboard. But I'd still be likely to vote "not guilty" for a homeowner defending himself and family.

[dyoun06]

Police said four heavily-armed men attempted to break into a house in the 9000 block of Woodshore Drive

Four men break into your home... (I have a 2 year in mine) that are heavily armed and engage you are beggin to come back, especially after you shoot 1, 2, 3, of them. While I don't wish this on anyone he did what he thought best -- remember he did not initiate this. Now he will worry about retaliation from family (gang members) until he can safely move. WAY TO GO PROTECTING YOURSELF (AND PROBABLY FAMILY).

[Birdville2011]

He shouldn't have pursued, but i hope he isn't charged

[JWT]

Even though the thugs weren't exactly driving home from Sunday school when the homeowner shot them, he probably overstepped his boundaries and shouldn't have gone that far.

That being said, it would be hard not to want to pursue them.

Hopefully the 'authorities' will be lenient.

[JunyTuck]

Yes he went way TOO far. Chasing four heavily armed men into the streets is not the smartest thing to do. Secondly, their's the issue of collateral casualties. If he avoids criminal charges, ( which I doubt ), he will most likely face a civil trial from the families of those shot. I'm afraid he will pay dearly for the momentary lapse of judgement and control.Some of you commando types may see his actions as heroic, but I think it's just plain dumb. Let's follow the story and see if I,m right. Wouldn't want to be in this guys shoes, because he needs a good lawyer now!

[45Marlin carbine]

He may face charges but depending on the circumstances and jury sympathy he probably won't be convicted of felony charges. I'd be interested in knowing more details and particularly what firearm he was using. wanna bet a shotgun and maybe a pistol?

[brickeyee]

“In Texas, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent someone from fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping the property, and the actor believes (reasonably) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or not using deadly force would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Tex. Pen. Code §9.42.”

Except they did not have any property if he drove them off before they entered so he could not “believes (reasonably) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means”


“He pursued them as they fled, hitting at least two of them, police said.”

This is going to come down to the DA and possibly a grand jury.

[xrocket]

OK fellows and here is the update.....

Here is the rest of the story updated by the Dallas Morning News @ 2:45 PM this afternoon. It clarifies and sheds some new light for consideration.


A robbery gone bad in northeast Dallas turned into a gun battle early Wednesday that ended with one man dead, another injured and another facing charges.

Police found small amounts of marijuana during their investigation and were looking into whether the events were drug-related.

Police said Wednesday afternoon they had not confirmed the identity of the man who died.

It started about 2 a.m. at a home on the 9000 block of Woodshore Drive, in a neighborhood near where Greenville Avenue intersects Royal Lane. Four or five intruders broke into the home and surprised its owner, 25-year-old Mark Stinson, while he was sleeping.

They forced him at gunpoint to open a safe containing several thousands of dollars, police say, and then they tried to flee in an SUV. But Mr. Stinson had a gun of his own and fired it as they tried to drive away.

It was unclear whether they fired back, Dallas police homicide Sgt. Larry Lewis said. “But we did pick up different caliber rounds out there so we know at least more than one gun was being shot.”

The sergeant said at least 30 rounds were fired in all.

Less then a mile away, the occupants of the SUV pulled over because tires were shot out. They called 911 as one of the occupants died of gunshot wounds. Another, a 17-year-old boy, was arrested at the scene. The others fled.

Another man, 18-year-old Davane Jones, soon showed up at a local hospital with gunshot wounds. Police arrested him and the 17-year-old on charges of aggravated robbery.

As for the homeowner, Mr. Stinson, police say they will leave any possible charges up to the district attorney’s office and a grand jury. “Even though by our investigation it appears he was justified under Texas law to defend his house and his property...we don’t make that decision,” Sgt. Lewis said.

[Spenser]

Sounds like this could be justified. Again, we'll have to wait and see what all the facts are.

However, given the Penal Code definitions, he might just have an argument that his actions were justified to prevent anything else from happening....

We shall see.

[jrock18]

While I don't know all the facts I think this man should be given a medal. If these guys were willing to force entry into a home with high powered rifles, what aren't they willing to do? This man may have prevented numerous other deaths.

[Hallucinator]

Unfortunately, he did. He shouldn't have chased them.

[Walter]

I think it was a violation of the law to chase the "home invaders" in a
vehicle after they had fled his property in their vehicle.
That's just my opinion, having sat through several CCL classes concerning
how, when, and where you can legally shoot a person.

That said, being a native Texan, and having lived in North Texas (DFW)
for 40 years, I will be shocked if a Grand Jury doesn't "no-bill" the guy.

Walter

[Don H]

think it was a violation of the law to chase the "home invaders" in a
vehicle after they had fled his property in their vehicle.

It appears that he didn't. See post #24.

[sigfreak]

after the tragedy that happened in Conn. i say this guy did GOODERS'.the cops can't protect us,the government won't protect us(allow millions of illegals to come across at will)and lawyers and judges side with the criminals.i say it's long past do we take care of ourselves,and he done just that!

[mattro]

+1 sigfreak

I have a feeling this situation does not necessarily apply to what you are saying, but in general I agree 100%. Things don't add up on this situation. I have a feeling it was druggies robbing a dealer - just speculation.

Regardlesss, there is a one less puke in the world.

Armed citizen retaliation is the only real crime deterent. Expecting a cop to STOP a crime, is like asking a firefighter to drive around and look for fires...

[Willie D]

Put a bullet in someone's back, you WILL have to answer for it.


I'm sure these perps were scum and having someone flee the scene might not bring satisfaction but legally, the decision to use lethal force must be made before every shot. If you or others aren't immediately in harms way before you pull the trigger, what happened a minute before has little bearing.
As for a jury acquitting you out of goodwill; they will be told by the judge exactly what constitutes manslaughter and will likely do what the law requires.

Also, there have been a more than a few cases where ex-army or police have said "I was taught to keep firing until the threat was neutralized." and have gone to jail because civilians can't play that way.


I don't want to see anyone on this forum doing time.

[obxned]

An innocent citizen is suddenly put a horribly stressful and dangerous situation by vicious thugs crashing their way into his home.

His actions in defending his life may or may not have been 100% in compliance with laws written by people who were safe, unstressed, and had nearly unlimited time to do their job.

If he were to be charged, he could not be convicted if there was but one person on that jury who could honestly imagine himself in such a desperate situation.

[Spade Cooley]

The law as perceived by our board members and the actual law is flawed when it would punish a citizen for taking action against people who were trying to hurt him. This is the prime reason our legal system needs an overhaul. This citizen was at war and he was determined to finish it and win. They started it, he didn't. He no doubt was trying to kill all of them in order to prevent them from coming back another day to kill him. There is nothing wrong with that. Even some of our far right thinking board members think he went too far. As a country, we are in trouble when people think like this.


In the end it will most likely come out that the homeowner was a dope dealer and had large somes of money in the house, thus the reason for the home invasion robbery. Whenever bad guys die in a gun battle, we all win.

[Double Naught Spy]

Legally he went too far. It is hard to make a self defense case when you chase the criminals through the streets.

Not in Texas, he did not. We have the option of using lethal force in situations where we are not in fear for our lives or not in fear any longer. That is, based on the fact that the crime took place at night, there was a felony committed (multiple), and the owner undoubtedly believed that he had no other way to get back what the robbers stole from him and so he used lethal force to attempt to stop their flight, that is all 100% legal.

Of course, this all assumes that what was reported was accurate.

[pdkflyguy]

This sounds fishy... He was targetted by four attackers at 2:30 in the morning with at least one AK and who knows what else... Somehow he got the drop on all of them and then saw fit to chase them down... I would be interseted to see what else comes out of this as I would be willing to be he might have known who these guys were and that there was a reason for his being targetted.


These guys MUST have known this guy, or been following him for some time to know he had a safe with several thousand dollars in it. It sounds like even if he didn't know his attackers, they certainly knew him.

That being said, he would have been justified in shooting them dead in his home or on his property, but the second he leaves to give chase, he becomes a vigilante.

IMHO, and if it were me, I'd have shot as many as it took to make the rest flee, then worry about my family first before chasing bad guys. If 4 guys are this interested in getting your money, you should think that there may be more. Or there could be a lookout ready to shoot you as soon as you run out after them. To me, giving chase is bad both legally and tactically.

I hope that he doesn't get charged, because as it's been said, adrenaline is a crazy thing, and he did what he thought was best after being attacked. But if he is, I hope people realize that he WAS outside of the law, and that the DA in any jurisdiction has the right to narrowly interpret the law.

[JoeBlackSpade]

Bad move any way you look at it:

Remember the AK-47 they found at the vehicle? Anybody?

That guy could have been cut in half by the perps, and become a victim, because of his overwhelming need to get revenge.



Legality aside, leaving your home is not sound from a PURELY SURVIVAL mode of thinking.

If you repel their assault/invasion, the right thing is to take cover INSIDE THE HOUSE, reload, constantly scan, and dial 911 ASAP. The sooner you have law enforcement on the way, the better.

If you are defending from a covered and concealed position, your odds of survival -in the event they return- are much higher, even against numerically superior odds.

[Mainah]

Another perspective is this is why it stinks to live near a drug dealer.

[Thumper]

A lot of you guys talking about what you believe to be legal have a very poor understanding of Texas law.

[Spenser]

How so? Just curious...

[JoeBlackSpade]

I don't know about everyone else, but that's why I said "legality aside". To be very frank, in a life or death situation, I'm not thinking about the law. Law enforcement is there to protect me. If they aren't around, I have to protect myself.

The fact remains that staying INSIDE the house, allowing the attackers to flee is statistically SAFER than running out in the yard and exchanging gunfire.

Please don't take what I said the wrong way. Under almost any conceivable circumstance, I always abide by the law, and I've got a spotless record to back that up. The point I'm making is that in a dangerous encounter, your WILL to live should make your decisions for you, not some internal debate about the law. Having said that, I can't imagine a scenario where running down the street after a perpetrator is a good idea- legal or not!

Priorities are:

1.) escape if possible
2.) if escape is NOT possible, draw down and shoot to stop the threat to your life
3.) move instantly to the nearest covered and concealed position
4.) assess the threat; once the threat is completely neutralized, contact law enforcement immediately.

[Thumper]

Not you, Spenser...

[Spenser]

Thanks, but I'm up for schoolin' if I need it.....;)

[45Marlin carbine]

still interested in what firerarm(s) he used to repel them, anyone know?

[Spade Cooley]

It's all in how you explain why you did what you did so get yourself together before you start telling what happened. You chased the vehicle in an attempt to get the license number. When one of the occupants pointed a firearm at you, you shot back, merely defending yourself.

Just remember when you are on a jury to give the honest citizen defending himself and his property an even break because the rest of America will be dazzled by the rights of the criminal. What I have been hearing on this board scares me.

[jrothWA]

the best call.
Present all evidence to a jury of peers and have them define the law.


3 out four ain't bad :)

[SatanzBountyHunter]

Good for the homeowner. He obviously did the right thing. He is alright and 4 bad guys are either dead or in jail. Doesn't get much better than that.

If more people did this, home invasion/robbery would really decline.

The potential drug aspect of this may change my mind slightly about the homeowner, but it is still good that the other 4 criminals are out of commission.

[redblair]

I've thought about this for a while. I think that the homeowner did the right thing until he left his property and gave chase. Legally it's not a safe action and much more importantly, to me at least, I think it's a poor tactical decision.

He has forced the attackers to flee and then he leaves the relative safety of his property to chase armed men into what? Possible to encounter more armed men, say a lookout or two, in an open unknown area. By unknown I mean compared to his property. Has he left his family behind? He has no idea what's out there and to give chase increases his, and perhaps his families, risk.


I understand that giving chase is a natural desire. Just think it's an overly dangerous one.

B

[JohnKSa]

In Texas, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent someone from fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping the property, and the actor believes (reasonably) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or not using deadly force would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Tex. Pen. Code §9.42.Not to prevent them from fleeing, but to prevent them from escaping with property. There are other restrictions, the law isn't quite as simple as stated above.

Legalities aside, he may be charged, but it will be hard to get an indictment. If they manage, all he has to do is ask for a jury trial. IMHO it would be pretty hard to seat a jury that would convict him.

[edcrosbys]

Bad idea to take pursuit, IMHO.

BUT, we do not know what was said or done to make him take pursuit (it could have JUST been trying to get property back). What if they started talking about coming back later, sometime this guys daughter and/or wife were home (i don't know if he had any). Would that still be considered "Fear for Life"?

Again, I don't believe it is an intelligent move to pursue, but it's easy enough to understand where he was coming from.

On another note, I'd love to know what kind of collateral damage was done from stray shots. 30 rounds fired... Tires blown out... All that steel had to end up somewhere. Thankfully not in an innocent.

[Spenser]

"Not to prevent them from fleeing, but to prevent them from escaping with property. There are other restrictions, the law isn't quite as simple as stated above.

"Legalities aside, he may be charged, but it will be hard to get an indictment. If they manage, all he has to do is ask for a jury trial. IMHO it would be pretty hard to seat a jury that would convict him."

You're absolutely correct. If I generated a misconception, I apologize.

Another statute to consider is Tex. Pen. Code §9.32, which states that deadly force can be used if justified under 9.31(basically: reasonably necessary to use) and a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated, and when and to the degree he reasonably believes deadly force was necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, to prevent the imminent commission of ag. kidnapping, murder, sex assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. You can use deadly force to protect someone else from the same perceived threats. Tex. Pen. Code §9.33.

Tex. Pen. Code 9.34 says that a person can use deadly force if reasonably believed necessary to to preserve his life in an emergency.

A court of appeals in this state has ruled that a person responding with deadly force to a drive-by isn't reasonable after the drive-by had already been completed. Hernandez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 218. There has also been a similar finding that deadly force wasn't justified after the perpetrator had left and might have intended to come back and rob the shooter. Fry v. State, 915 S.W. 2d 554.

Again, not knowing all the facts makes this a hard call. Time will tell if the shooter falls into any of these categories. If it is as reported, he might have some trouble under the law.

I think the shooter in this case will probably have raised enough evidence to get a self-defense instruction at trial (if it makes it past the grand jury, which it seems it will). It's then up to the state to prove beyond a reasonble doubt his actions were not justified by 9.32, 9.33, or 9.42.

[JunyTuck]

Most of you are not considering civil liabilities. He may not be indicted on criminal charges or may be aquitted by a jury, but he could face a civil trial by the families of those he shot. Remember the O.J. Simpson case!! Aquitted on criminal charges but lost big time in the civil trial! All they need in a civil trial is a preponderence of evidence that he went too far, and he is toast, financially!

[Double Naught Spy]

OJ Simpson was in California. This is Texas.

It is a shame the event didn't happen after castle doctrine goes into effect, but even so, Texas has a history of shootings in defense of property that have gone very well for the shooters, even when folks have been killed.

Maybe this should be compared to the recent Ft. Worth shooting where a good guy CHLer pursued after a guy who robbed his wife and then threatened him with a gun. Are we also worried about this guy getting sued?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253748&highlight=albertsons

[JunyTuck]

You betcha!!!

[redblair]

I'm not as worried about civil litigation as the impression that this set of actions may leave on others. It may just increase the chance of others pursuing their assailants which, as I wrote, I believe to be a tactical error.

B

[jurassicnarc]

I think we all agree that three of the four got what they deserve. IMO number 4 needed a hole in his posterior to assure equal opportunity in this educational situation. If all housebreakers, car jackers, etc, could have the experience of having body parts rudely perforated or removed, the next time they would have pause to reflect on the advisability of kicking in another's door. However..............

When you climb into a car to give pursuit, the argument "I feared for my safety" goes right out the window. The sheriff (had he been on the ball) should have retroactively deputized the homeowner (wishful thinking) to preclude the civil lawsuit that's probably coming. Now where do we get some jurors whose homes or cars have been hit??? Hmmm..........

[SLOMountaineer]

A jury will never convict him.

In CA you can fire on a fleeing felon who does not stop and surrender if that person is known to have used or threatened to have used deadly force.

[SLOMountaineer]

Also, how did he know they wouldn't be coming back? In light of what happened to the good doctor who saw his wife and daughters murdered, I can't believe they would file any charges against this guy.

[9mmsnoopy]

Hes a hero in my book! I would MUCH rather have him living next door than the family of human crap that i am dealing with now.

Would any of those jackasses be in jail now had he not done what he did? Highly doubtful.

[akr]

That man is a hero. Since common sense is left out of the legal system, he may be in trouble, unfortunately.

[redblair]

Here's my question to those who read this for training purposes.

Was pursuing the felons a wise choice? If this was a training exercise, what would the instructors say? I know real life is different. I'm just trying to see what the thinking out there is on this.

Blair

[Spenser]

I think he probably did go too far, from a defensive standpoint.

I don't know this for certain, having no experience in the matter, but it would seem to me that a person defending his home (or any position, for that matter) has tactical advantage. It would also seem to me that if you give up the cover of your home to pursue out into the street, you've given up cover, concealment, and all the other tactical goodies that come from defending a position as opposed to attacking. If he's beat them out of his home, I would think the prudent thing to do is call 911, and hunker down until the constabulary makes its appearance. Pressing the attack doesn't seem to be the best thing to do.

From a legal standpoint, cases are easy to win when there's good guys and bad guys. When you can point to someone and say definitively they are the bad guy, the contrast makes things easier. This homeowner, rightly or wrongly, chose to step out of his home to continue the fight. As noted, there might be some legal justification, only time and all the facts will tell. However, he did blur the line to an uneducated citizen/juror as to the good guy/bad guy equation. Pressing the attack in this case now has made him harder to defend, legally. From a valiant homeowner, he can now be portrayed as a bloodthirsty vigilante. That's the angle I'd take if I were prosecuting him.

[SpookBoy]

well as for thinking process 4 armed people with semi-auto rifles(1 at least)
is not a robbery it is a murder squad.I agree with alot of you here he should be given a medal & a free nra membership!

[Double Naught Spy]

Was pursuing the felons a wise choice? If this was a training exercise, what would the instructors say? I know real life is different. I'm just trying to see what the thinking out there is on this.

From a self preservation standpoint, absolutely not. I do not see where there was a life or death reason to chase a larger force.

With that in mind, it sounds like it was a perfectly legal thing to do here in Texas, but not all legal things are good ideas.

[akr]

I would be interested in knowing what kind of weapon the homeowner used. It doesn't make that much difference, but I'm nosey.

[9mmsnoopy]

Right about now i am REALLY wishing that guy was my neighbor. We need more like him.

[schwarz_06]

I'm sure it has been brought up in several replies. But the homeowner most definately went too far in terms of legality and definately in safety. Im sure he shot more than 3 times. so where might the rest of his rounds have gone. Was he well within his rights to defend his home? Absolutely but he was out of his damn mind to chase after them in his vehicle firing a weapon in a residential neighborhood.
In the federal law enforcement system, deadly force is authorized when the threat or action of seriously bodily harm or death is imminent. And why you present your weapon it is used solely for deadly force, not to wound, maim, or warn. If someone is fleeing, he is no longer presenting a threat to you of bodily harm or death.

[Magdaddy]

It's hard to say what you would do. But I think if my home was invaded by armed men, jeopardizing the safety of my children. I would follow them to the end of the earth, especially if I thought they were untrained and unskilled. Wrong, yea.

[MacGille]

Awakened in the middle of the night, terrorised, threatened with a gun, He got a chance at them and did the right thing. I probably would have done the same. However, our society has all these stupid laws about the rights of the criminal, so he will be charged. I hope he has a good lawyer. Maybe the NRA will weigh in.:)

[ojibweindian]

He didn't go too far, and he wasn't persuing (according to post 24, updating the originating post).

As far as I can tell, from both post #1 and post #24, this is a good shoot.

[Yellowfin]

Legally, he's in some doo-doo. However I must take the position that I am not him, was not in his circumstances, and know all I know about the situation after the fact. It took courage from him to do what he did and zero from us or anyone else to Monday morning quarterback his case. All the perfectly legally sound strategizing and analysis means exactly zero compared to what happens when bullets are flying at him--we are in a position of luxury which chance did not afford him. Placing myself in his shoes I would not have wanted the possibility that those people could have simply retreated to return another day or go to someone else's house. There's a possibility that they might have considered a career change, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Given that repeat offenders tend to be more the norm than the exception, I would argue that the threat is not extinguished by that kind of group simply being flushed from the home. It's not at all unreasonable to say this was far from an isolated incident nor an undeliberate act on their part.

[Duxman]

One of my main issues here is if you look at the crime:

Homeowner was forced to take thousands of dollars from his safe. There is more to this case than meets the eye. Not a random home invasion for sure. Lets wait until all the facts come out before we hail this man a hero or a villan.

It could be that he was a drug dealer and wanted revenge on the stoolies that robbed him. Or there could be a perfectly legitimate reason to chase down 4 heavily armed men through a neighborhood.

Theres more to meet the eye here.

[Silvanus]

It does sound a little odd...

[joab]

Doesn't matter if he is a criminal or not
If he was not engaged in criminal activity at the time he is entitled to the same self defense measures the rest of us are

Courts have already ruled on that several times

[Duxman]

Actually it does matter if he is a criminal and a member of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

First of all - I do not think any criminals are allowed to posses firearms.

Second of all - how would you like it - if a criminal "defending" himself from other criminals shooting indiscriminately shoots up your house and injures your SO, dogs and kid?

[redblair]

Looking past the specifics of this one incident, I'm still hoping to hear from more people on the tactical aspect of leaving one's home in pursuit of armed men.

B

[BlkHawk73]

After the left his property, they were no longer a danger or threat to him, his family or property. At that point there wasn't any emminant danger and I don't see how firing on them after leaving his property was a legal act. More or less hunted them down and shot them. Can't say they didn't deserve it but legally, the homeowner is in the wrong here too. I can't say I wish for him to get off on any charges from this as if he broker the law, he should be punished just as the perps would be. There's lines in the sand on this stuff and if the line is crossed, ou gotta expect the consequences to be there.

[joab]

There's lines in the sand on this stuff and if the line is crossed, ou gotta expect the consequences to be there.Different lines in different sand

[odsixer]

I would also like to find out what weapon he used, and I wonder what bearing this would have on the outcome of the trial(handgun vs assault rifle?)

[Rifleman 173]

In Texas something going too far? Naw. He'll get off and the bad guys will of "had a bad day" as far as most people will be concerned. At most I suspect he'll get a rear ned chewed up a bit and threats will be made but not much else will probably happen.

[Double Naught Spy]

After the left his property, they were no longer a danger or threat to him, his family or property. At that point there wasn't any emminant danger and I don't see how firing on them after leaving his property was a legal act. More or less hunted them down and shot them. Can't say they didn't deserve it but legally, the homeowner is in the wrong here too. I can't say I wish for him to get off on any charges from this as if he broker the law, he should be punished just as the perps would be. There's lines in the sand on this stuff and if the line is crossed, ou gotta expect the consequences to be there.


Your lacking of understanding simply means you don't know or understand Texas law. There are circumstances in Texas law that allow the use of lethal force to protect property. This was one of them.

I find the notion of property line magic to be interesting. What makes you think the crime stopped at the property line such that the homeowner no longer had a right to stop the bad guys? What makes you think that just because the bad guys left the property that they were no longer a threat? Just what sort of magical property lines do y'all have up there in Maine?

[zeroskillz]

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j271/zeroskillz2/misc%20crap/dancing.gif

[hj28rules]

That area of Dallas is a predominately up-scale community. Unless there are some unpublished mitigating circumstances, the guy will probably be no-billed. With that said: once he left his residence in lethal hot pursit, he unzipped his fly. It will be interesting how the new DA in Dallas handles the case.

[sw_florida]

Can you imagine this having happened in the old West? Four bad guys breake into a home and threatens the home owner, and the home owner chases them away but stops at the border of his dirt lot and watches the scumbags ride away in laughter? They are pest. They need to die, or they will return and finish him. I would say not guilty if I was in the jury. The law is wrong.

[gak1]

I hope he's never charged. If the bad guys woulda' regrouped a block away, then come back and killed the guy, would then the courts be happy ?:mad:

[riverkeeper]

It probably would've been illegal to shoot at fleeing bg's during the 'follow'.

But I do not think it would be illegal to follow them to be able to report on their location.

Stupid to follow, possibly cuz they had an AK, but not illegal unless shots were initiated or crazy driving was involved.

[SpectreBlofeld]

According to the follow-up article, he didn't actually persue them, as such, beyond the street. He fired at them and their car while they retreated.

I would've done the same thing. Four friggin' men with battle rifles, and he is supposed to fall back as soon as it looks like they might be leaving? No thank you. This was not a peeping tom or cat burglar. These guys were using threat of deadly violence, actively, and he acted while he had the upper hand.

Imagine if he did not pursue. They run out the door. He goes to call 911. They circle the block, talk each other up with macho crap about going back to rub out his a@@ and finish the job... the story in the newspapers might have been VERY different the next day. "Man found dead in home riddled with rifle rounds."

I don't fancy having to go up against four guys with AKs (and maybe all he had was a pistol!). They could've circled the block and come back while he was still reloading. Hell, what if they just lit up the entire house from outside! 7.62x39 won't care much if there is drywall between the gun and your body.

He neutralized the threat while he had the upper hand.

There are fishy elements here. They knew about the safe and the money in it. Article mentioned marijuana; didn't make clear whether it was his or was on one of the assailants - it's not unreasonable to speculate that he's probably doing some small-time dealing. If that's the case, I still don't think that should affect the question as to what he did in defense here. Prosecute that separately. Dealing pot may not be legal or smart, but it shouldn't nullify your right to defend yourself from death by the hands of armed assailants.

I wonder if he had a handgun stowed in the safe, and that's how he got the jump on them?

Anyway, given the information, all I can say is, "Nice shootin', Tex."

Just don't forget that one of them is still alive and free out there...

[MosinM38]

OK.
This has been hashed out throughly but here is my view.

Sure. He shouldn't have pursued them.... Sortof dumb to chase them and might(More likely than not chasing) get yourself killed.

BUT>..Heat of the moment I can see it...

And....Well...4 guys tried to break into my house.... AK-47's..... Who knows who they might go after next?

As for him firing while they left..Yeah.... If I could I would...Even if they are leaving they might get Macho and come back..

[1911 fan]

I am glad no innocent bystanders go hit by stray bullet fire. Let this incident be a reminder to all criminal scum. WE WILL SHOOT BACK!!!

[chrisandclauida2]

this is very simple and everyone regardless of their feelings thoughts or beliefs should let it soak in.

AS SOON AS TH SUSPECTS FLED HE WAS NO LONGER IN DANGER AND SHOULD HAVE STOPPED. AS SOON AS HE CHASED HE BECAME THE AGGRESSOR.

he is not a police officer and after they left he was in the wrong and became the criminal. even though they were technically committing a crime by fleeing from the scene it no longer was a deadly force issue.

ofcourse lots of things like how they fled and what danger that put someone in may change the story. but as reported the guy is up a creek.

[drinks]

It is a fact that this happened in Texas, you cannot make a guess about legality of the man's actions without knowing Texas law and especially without knowing the facts in the case.
Texas is not friendly to perp loving bleeding heart types.
If you come to Texas, be prepared to keep your nose clean and keep your juvenile delinquents well in hand, unless you decide to live in "Sodom on the Colorado".
"After dark" turns pranks into deadly force use cases, leaving with the loot does the same. We are really not criminal friendly.
:D

[parrothead2581]

Call me crazy, but after the criminals had fled, my main priority would have been my family, not to chase them. How do you there aren't more waiting to finish the job on your family at the house while you're away?

Now, one could say chasing them and hoping to insure no future attack would be protecting your family as well, and I can see that. Unfortunately, we can't be everywhere at one time.

I can recoup the money via insurance. Not a wife, children and pets.

I do understand the heat of the moment however. I can't seem to bring myself to praise him, but I can't bring myself to codemn him either.

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

OK...this is a dope case, plain and simple. The guy who was robbed was some kind of supplier and the four guys were street dealers (or maybe vice versa). I am a little familiar with this type of stuff...it reeks of some kind of dope money.

That being said this guy probably wasn't the innocent brave hero he's being made out to be...but still has the right to defend himself...he could've even stole that money from his invaders. At the end of the day the situation is probably a little more complex than we'll know about.

Driving intruders out of your house gets a thumbs up. Continuing to shoot as they are running...I don't know about that one. In the heat of the moment I can see emptying your clip while standing at your front door hoping the guys hop in the car (if they can) and get the hell out of dodge. If that's your goal shooting out the tires of the car isn't exactly a good idea though...sounds more like you're trying to eliminate their escape and make them face you. Does looking at the situation in that light make any difference.

I saw that Kevin Bacon movie that was debated here...Death Sentence or whatever, these guys can admittedly come back on you in real life. Hopefully that's when LE would come into play and offer some form of protection to ensure everyone cuts their losses.

It just bothers me seeing these cowboy like Kill em all posts. Determining the threat (if it still exists and how to best deal with it) is something we Monday morning shooters can debate to death but I honestly get anything of tactical value out of most of what I read here. I get a wealth of reloading and general firearms knowledge that has helped me much in my shooting pursuits but I'd expect this to be the most pragmatic and objective place, instead adoration and emotion seems to rule. Giving Kudos without any critique or even exploring the situation from other angles is just saying Good Job...it's hard to learn like that. No offense to anyone here, just putting in my probably unwanted .02.

[Rifleman 173]

Did ANYBODY else learn anything out of this guy's shooting situation?

Obviously, the guy was not prepared for a night time attack or to do combat at night with his chosen firearm. There were 4 guys of which one died and two were wounded. He could probably have been more effective if his rifle would of had some sort of illuminated low power scope on it. Something along the lines of a 2 X 6 scope with an illuminated reticle. Another option would be to have a red dot mounted on the rifle. A third option could be using a laser for work at night. In other words, we should possibly consider having to fight bad guys at night with our equipment and modify our firearms for such shooting needs.

He also did not allow for distance shooting because he had to chase them off of his property and down the street. There is a possibility that if he would of had a long range shooting device and a bit of clear street area, the homeowner might have been able to engage the bad guys quickly and more effectively over distance with a scoped good rifle. So you want to think about controlling the ground around your house from zero to about 100 yards in any direction. This means that we should practice our shooting at different distances so that we become accurate and comfortable shooting quickly and effectively out to 100 yards.

Now, does anybody know what happened to this homeowner for follow-up purposes? Was he ever charged with anything at all?

[KCabbage]

Wow, I'm now going to take a breath now.
Pretty heated topic here fellas. Some GREAT points and opinions have been made. I don't think some of you are putting yourself in that mans shoes.
That's all im gonna say or I will be typing forever!
Does anyone miss the old days? Not that iv'e seen em'.:D Where there wasn't so many legal boundries.
Take care y'all. Live good and be happy, and if your not happy drop me a line.:)
P.S. If Texas wasn't so close to the ocean I'd be making moving arrangements.:D

[xrocket]

Well, since I started this post and noticed it was resurrected today a quick follow up is in order ......

There is nothing to report as of today.

I researched the public records and the Dallas Morning News and could not find any additional records. I don't think charges were filed against the homeowner or if there was he was no-billed.

Sorry I can't do better fellows, but unless someone else can add to it maybe it's time this thread was put to bed.

[Hook686]

joab posted:

By Florida standard yes he went to far

Hopefully he can argue heat of the moment and get off or at least a very minimal sentence

Maybe he can make an argument that they were a danger to the community ....

LEO's use 'In hot pursuit', why not this citizen ? How's a guy gonna make a citizen arrest, if he can't pursue ? That CCW badge would then be worthless. :D

[R W]

After reading posts, regarding a citizen using deadly force to protect
his self, family, home, etc, where that citizen may face legal procceeings
it is informative to be updated on the outcome of these procceedings (if any).
Thank You for Your Post Xrocket.

[TexasSeaRay]

Several things:

One of my old friends from back in my LE days said he's pretty certain the homeowner was quietly no-billed.

Also confirmed that the assailants were gang members, two of them on an "initiation."

Homeowner was also a business owner/partner on the lower Greenville area.

*I* keep a lot of cash in my gun safe. If four gang-bangers raid my house and try to force me to open my safe, does that automatically make ME a drug-dealer or criminal myself?

Jeff

[joab]

LEO's use 'In hot pursuit', why not this citizen ?Can a LEO shoot a "fleeing felon"
How's a guy gonna make a citizen arrest, if he can't pursue ?Hopefully he won't claim that he was merely unable to perform a citizens arrest, so he just shot them instead

[joab]

Actually it does matter if he is a criminal and a member of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Why?
If he was not engaged in criminal activity at the time of the crime why should he not be allowed to defend himself just as any other law abiding person
First of all - I do not think any criminals are allowed to posses firearms.Source?
Was he a convicted felon was he engaged in criminal activity at the time?
If not what is the prohibition on alleged criminals owning guns

Second of all - how would you like it - if a criminal "defending" himself from other criminals shooting indiscriminately shoots up your house and injures your SO, dogs and kid?I missed that in the articles.
But what if the preacher next door defends his home by shooting indiscriminately and hits something he didn't want to
That gonna make you feel any better?
But regardless being a criminal does not take away your right to life and self defense, until the state says it does
How I, or you, feel about it has nothing to do with nothing

[Perldog007]

I can't condone giving chase after a threat has ended unless you are empowered and duty bound to make an arrest, i.e. LEO. Even in armed security, generally once they are off the property it's time to let the taxpayer funded types deal with it.

Having said that don't think I will ever sit on a jury for a case like this. It would be very hard for me to condemn somebody who was minding their own business and was beset by armed home invaders.

Personally from the information given I think the brother went too far. The prosecutor would have to have a really good day to convince me to vote guilty though.

[Stevie-Ray]

Where am I missing that he chased them down the street? According to post #24, an update, it sounds like he shot maybe from his property at the vehicle. Did I miss another update? It sounds like he actually tried to shoot out the tires to stop them. That obviously didn't keep them from leaving, so he fired into the vehicle, hitting a few. You can't do that in Michigan, but it sounds like you can in Texas. Tell you something, though. If that had happened in Michigan, he WOULD go to trial. And, if I was on that jury, he would be acquitted or I'd hang the jury.

[thallub]

"*I* keep a lot of cash in my gun safe. If four gang-bangers raid my house and try to force me to open my safe, does that automatically make ME a drug-dealer or criminal myself?"

+1

Same here. Sometimes I am required to travel out of the country on very short notice. Some of these places are not credit card friendly.

[tegemu]

Pursuit = Bad shoot.

[Thumper]

I can't condone giving chase after a threat

Legally or morally? Threat to what? The individual's health or the threat of escaping with the individual's property?

In Texas, both are defenses.

[thallub]

In Texas self-defense stuff and protection of property stuff are a lot different than most other states. There was a case where an auto re-possession guy hooked up to a car at night. The car owner shot and killed the guy. The shooter was found not guilty because of a law that applies to protection of property at night.

Think of OK of being just like Texas with one possible exception. In OK the prosecutor does not have to take the case to a grand jury. In OK the family of the deceased perp is not allowed to sure in civil court.

[Yellowfin]

Does the possibility of the criminal returning later constitute sufficient threat? Repeat visits do happen.

[Thumper]

Doesn't matter if the criminals were escaping with property, though that's not clear in this case.

As noted a number of times before, a lot of folks in this thread are (mistakenly) applying their own state defense laws to Texas.

[P95GI180]

If he had not killed them, they would have likely come back, and seek revenge, rob, kill rape, or mame someone else. He did the right thing. By pursuing and taking out atleast three of the attackers, he saved many more lives, property, and tax money by preventing future crimes the thugs would have commited. He should get a medal.

But it may have been illegal for him to pursue, then he should suffer the consequence for breaking the law.

[Catchabullet]

whose to say they wouldn't have come back????

[thallub]

"As noted a number of times before, a lot of folks in this thread are (mistakenly) applying their own state defense laws to Texas."

Same thing happens on all the sites. Folks just do not understand that Texas (and OK) law is much different from what they are used to.

[BloodyBucket03]

If I was in his situation I would have defended my home and once the armed men retreated I would have stopped. In my state of Pennsylvania he would be going to prison. It would be nice to get rid of scum like that of the face of this earth but chasing down criminals and having a shoot out in the street is not safe and its not the OK corral.

[joab]

whose to say they wouldn't have come back????Does even Texas law permit shooting someone for what they might do later?
If that's the case then the antis are right
Guns should all be confiscated because
Whose to say that we all wont go a a shooting spree next week?

[trooper3385]

I commend him for protecting his property, but what would you say if he killed one of your family members with a stray bullet he fired while chasing them down the road shooting at them.?

[boss400]

do ya'll think that if 4 heavy armed men break in your home their intensions are to kill you and your family steal everythng you have. i might run them down and kill everyone to so they can't come back and get revenage

[joab]

I might go out and hunt down the ones that get away, but that don't make it legal

[Thumper]

Does even Texas law permit shooting someone for what they might do later?


No. Texas law allows for deadly force to recover escaping property. I don't know if the bad guys were getting away with any of his goods, though.

[joab]

No. Texas law allows for deadly force to recover escaping property. I don't know if the bad guys were getting away with any of his goods, though.
__________________Besides the fact that the article mentions only an attempt to break in and makes no mention of stolen property, which you yourself claim no knowledge of
Your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the comment of mine that you quoted
It is easy to find the motivation for my comment because I quoted it in my post

Further can you link me to the statute that allows for pursuing burglers off your property and shooting them to recover your stolen goods

[Thumper]

Please see Section 9.42.of the Texas Penal Code, specifically DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

(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.

Emphasis mine.

[joab]

(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

From the same penal code

§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.

From section 38.01
(2) "Escape" means unauthorized departure from
custody or failure to return to custody following temporary leave
for a specific purpose or limited period or leave that is part of an
intermittent sentence, but does not include a violation of
conditions of community supervision or parole other than conditions
that impose a period of confinement in a secure correctional
facility.

Not that that means anything

But again I ask you to provide the statute that allows a person to leave his property to pursue the thief, especially to get involved in a vehicular pursuit

I would also like to know what if anything any of this has to do with the comment of mine that you chose to address

[Thumper]

It's self explanatory there, joab. I quoted a question you asked, then answered it with the word 'no.' I understand you have an argumentative nature, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

Not sure why you also made note of portions of the code you admit are irrelevent.

The further question you pose:

But again I ask you to provide the statute that allows a person to leave his property to pursue the thief, especially to get involved in a vehicular pursuit


As far as I can read, the defense doesn't disallow you from leaving your property to attempt to recover your stolen goods.

In fact, in the case law cited in my CHL class, a Texas homeowner followed a thief several blocks with his deer rifle, then used a handy mailbox as an expedient rest to center punch the guy as he ran under a streetlight.

Wish I could cite you the case, but I don't have it. Perhaps someone else can.

[mountainclmbr]

I think the police would have done the same thing by persuing. This person, I am assuming is a tax payer, therefore the police are his civil servants. When a citizen can't do what their paid servants can do there is a serious problem.

[BigO01]

As far as I'm concerned they started a war with the homeowner and he finished it .

Just that simple .

Give the guy a medal and a free thousand rounds of ammo for his gun .

[joab]

I understand you have an argumentative nature, but you're barking up the wrong tree.If I am the one with the argumentative natire why was it you that started this by quoting me and then making a totally irrelevant comment regarding the comment I made

I never said that the info I gave was irrelevant, you however present a set of statutes that may or may not support shooting a thief when there is absolutely no indication that the BGs stole anything or that they even managed to actually gain entrance to the home in the first place
I have asked several times why you picked me out to do that

The penal code you posted clearly states that for the purpose of the section you posted the definition for word "escape" would coincide with the definition given in section 38.01
§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
I then gave you that definition, which makes no mention of pursuing off property in a vehicle

Nowhere in that 901 does it give permission for an ordinary citizen to get into a vehicular pursuit to hunt down and kill people who may or may not have committed a burglary on their property
The statute you provided is not one of disallowance it is a specific set of allowances

As far as I'm concerned they started a war with the homeowner and he finished it .I agree, but that doesn't mean that his actions are condoned by law