PDA

View Full Version : Guy chases burglar outside and shoots him away from the house.


cloud8a
June 30, 2009, 06:14 PM
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Suspected-burglar-shot-after-allegedly-pulling/6p7unJzvIEukGFWvlF79PQ.cspx

This is interesting. A guy breaks down the door of a abode. I guess when he saw the tennant he took off. The tennant and his brother track the guy a few blocks away. The BG pulls a gun and the tennants brother opens fire and kills him.

They took what started out as a HD situation into a SD situation. From the article it sounds like they knew the guy.

"Police are not sure if the homeowner's brother will face any charges, saying the shooting may be considered a case of self defense."

The thing that makes this different is they left the scene to look for the guy.

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 06:22 PM
I give chase, crook brandishes so much as a finger pistol at me and I will serve up a heavy dose of 2 lead aspirins!
Brent

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 06:30 PM
If I were certain folks who regularly post here, I would say something along the lines of; 'Good Job, they stopped a criminal, and made our quickly-declining society safer as a result. He got what he deserved, anyone who attempts a crime and then thinks better of it and tries to run forfeits his rights to live'

However, since I am not that person, I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 06:38 PM
I give chase

If you know the guy, why would you "give chase" ?
Why not call the popo and say "such and such just tried to rob me" rather than chase him down and force him to defend himself?

What is with this sudden "I'm gonna be a self appointed Marshall" syndrome ? Ain't ya'll changin' the water in the poke salet ?

Tucker 1371
June 30, 2009, 06:41 PM
The fly in their ointment is gonna be the fact that they went and chased outside of their home (and y'all say "well duh").

Breaking it down it looks like they are legally justified in shooting, but maybe not in following (is it legal to follow a criminal after witnessing a crime?). If it goes to court they can say "hey we were just following the guy so we could tell the police where he went and then he pulled a gun on us, luckily we weren't foolish enough to follow him unarmed". That would creat reasonable doubt aplenty.

Legally are they justified? Probably.

Morally? I wouldn't have. (and let's leave the Moral v. Legal at that please)

Edit:


If you know the guy, why would you "give chase" ?


I'm scratching my head as well. Maybe they just wanted to have a word with him... but then they were armed... idk, smells funny to me.

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 06:44 PM
Why not call the popo
I normally handle any situation with a person I already am acquainted or familiar with from "inside" and only rely on "popo" for situations out of my control. I am not chest thumpin' on this. If I know you and you "wrong" me it won't be the police knockin' on your door. Sort of a little old school "redneck mafia"... Actually if a buddy asks for my help in such issue i will gladly help them too!
Police are busy with real issues not to get involved in a good ol' squabble!
Brent

Wildalaska
June 30, 2009, 06:44 PM
However, since I am not that person, I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.


Well said!

WildiwillwaittoseehowLEhandlesthisoneAlaska ™

Gary L. Griffiths
June 30, 2009, 06:46 PM
I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.

Err, NO. The law doesn't require a crime victim (the homeowner) to simply allow a felon to escape. The true victim and his brother pursued a fleeing felon, essentially, to make a citizen's arrest. The felon chose to use the threat of deadly force to effect his escape. The victim's brother was not doing anything unlawful in helping the victim pursue the felon, so was entitled to use deadly force to terminate the threat against him and his brother. This being Texas, it is difficult to envision charges being filed.

Creature
June 30, 2009, 06:47 PM
Giving chase was stupid.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 06:47 PM
Legally are they justified? Probably.

Morally? I wouldn't have. (and let's leave the Moral v. Legal at that please)

Unfortunately "RESPONSIBLE" firearms ownership requires that both be joined at the hip. If you have to start defending it this way, then you already know it was wrong.
Sure, your nads want to say "good Job" But your brain already knows better. ;)

Drake Remoray
June 30, 2009, 06:49 PM
Once the guy runs away from your house it's no longer self defense. You're now taking police authority ( apprehending criminals) upon yourself. If you know who it was call the police and report it.

Coming at it from the other end, I don't see how the BG could claim self defense considering that he is 100% responsible for the conditions that caused him to have to draw his handgun.

It's a world where Joey is a neurosurgeon :eek:

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 06:51 PM
"Give Chase" is incorrect since I know the feller... More like "let's go see what dumb bud was thinkin..." I am not forcing them to defend themself even if they just kicked in my door 5 minutes earlier... Option one is to shut up while I talk, answer the questions about when you will fill my grubby paw with green backs for repairs to save yer sorry hide. Option two is to run yer cake grinder and get lumped up for not taking option 1. Number 3 is to draw a gun on a person not threatening your life (ME!) and get yerself shot in my selfdefense...
First guy with a gun out is aggressor, second gun is self defense... Seems logical anyway!
Brent

PT111
June 30, 2009, 06:56 PM
This is going to be interesting especially now that the BG is dead and can't tell his side of who pulled their gun first. Good test of the law whether the act of searching for the BG would up as him being attacked, in fear of his life and trying to protect himself. Adding to all of it is they knew each other. Sounds like more to it than just a simple break-in and foot chase.

Creature
June 30, 2009, 06:57 PM
"Give Chase" is incorrect

No...I would say that gave chase is actually correct in this case. Knowing the 'feller' doesn't change that. Unless of course they "had a leisurely stroll" and just happened to meet up with the burglar.

Dragon55
June 30, 2009, 07:00 PM
If the homeowner recognized the guy then there is a lot more to this story than is in the short article.
On the face of it it appears these 2 overstepped from a moral standpoint BUT....
the homeowner apparently had some concern about this guy coming back possibly.
I know of situations around here in years past where multiple trips were made by the same people to the same residence.
Maybe the homeowner wanted to end it.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 07:01 PM
Err, NO. The law doesn't require a crime victim (the homeowner) to simply allow a felon to escape. The true victim and his brother pursued a fleeing felon, essentially, to make a citizen's arrest.

Err would be correct, as in the Error you made in this statement. First, burglary is NOT a felony, and second, you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony, sorry. It quit being a crime when the guy ran. Simple B&E .

Creature
June 30, 2009, 07:03 PM
I know of situations around here in years past where multiple trips were made by the same people to the same residence.
Maybe the homeowner wanted to end it.

Then that would make it a case of vigilantism. Still wrong any way you slice it.

Creature
June 30, 2009, 07:05 PM
Simple B&E .

Uhhh...not quite. "Armed Home Invasion" would be the correct charge...still, giving chase was stupid.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 07:12 PM
"Armed Home Invasion" would be the correct charge

You might be correct bro, but I would suspect that if the "invader" had been holding a weapon upon the attempted entry, he would have either used it, or the brothers would have started firing, IMHO, YMMV :)

Gary L. Griffiths
June 30, 2009, 07:41 PM
Err would be correct, as in the Error you made in this statement. First, burglary is NOT a felony, and second, you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony, sorry. It quit being a crime when the guy ran. Simple B&E .
Of course you've checked the appropriate Texas statutes. :rolleyes: Burglary is, indeed, a Felony. Since it occurred in a dwelling house in the nighttime, it is Burglary. And where do you get the idea that you can't make a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor. As a matter of fact, I'm aware of cases where officers have requested citizens to make "citizen's arrests" for misdemeanors witnessed by the citizens, because the officers could not make warrantless arrests for non-felony crimes.

Wildalaska
June 30, 2009, 07:47 PM
Putting aside the legal and moral issues here, it makes no sense tactically to chase.

WildthatsagivenAlaska ™

mikejonestkd
June 30, 2009, 07:47 PM
Wow, the person is the victim, the LEO, the Judge, Jury and the executioner all rolled into one...

Bad shoot, bad idea and bad for guns owners everywhere.

hoytinak
June 30, 2009, 07:50 PM
it makes no sense tactically to chase.

That is correct.....they should have shot the burglar while he was still on their property.

Composer_1777
June 30, 2009, 07:55 PM
As soon as he chased the guy off the property he became a vigilante...

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 08:07 PM
First, burglary is NOT a felony
Kicking in the front door of an occupied dwelling in florida is the heinous violent homeinvasion that brought about our castle doctrine. I can use any force needed to stop the crime and criminal up to and including lethal force.
Brent

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 08:36 PM
... which have a degree of sovereignty in setting their criminal codes.

Knowledge of Tennessee or Florida or Alaska law might, but does not necessarily, help with knowledge of Texas law.

Texas tends to give homeowners a lot more leeway in the defense and recovery of property. The posters from Texas all seem to believe nighttime burglary falls under Texas felonies, and would allow homeowners to pursue.

I don't know how this will pan out, but just bear in mind that your legal absolutes may not have bearing in other people's instances.

Tactically, was it smart to pursue instead of call the police? Probably not. Was it illegal in this case? We'll see...

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 08:52 PM
Yes our state allows the florida resident to handle this case the same daylight or dark.... Property issues not with standing either!
Put a boot on the door of an occupied dwelling and you are committing a violent felony and any means needed may be used to stop this crime and the criminal.
Home invasion is an absolute~! Female dog equivalent slang comes to mind!:eek:
Brent

James K
June 30, 2009, 08:53 PM
The law gives a lawful occupant of a house the right to defend himself against an intruder. But once the intruder has left the house and even the property, that right of the occupant to protect himself in his home vanishes, even in Texas.

Here, the persons took it on themselves to leave the house and hunt down the intruder; at that point they became the aggressors. I suspect they saw themselves as avengers and would probably have killed him no matter what he did; his attempt to defend himself gave them an excuse of sorts for the killing.

Some posters seem to think they can kill anyone who bothers them and get away with it. Those folks need a dose of reality; I hope they don't kill someone and find that life in prison is not a TV show.

Jim

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 08:53 PM
Knowledge of Tennessee or Florida or Alaska law might, but does not necessarily, help with knowledge of Texas law.


You are correct, of course.

Of course you've checked the appropriate Texas statutes. Burglary is, indeed, a Felony.

Of course I have, and you are incorrect, it is not a felony. Read, and be enlightened, to wit; (TEXAS PENAL CODE)


§ 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
A number of terms in this statute are defined in the TPC. “Effective consent” basically means voluntary consent by a competent person. Sec. 1.07 provides
(19) "Effective consent" includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if:
(A) induced by force, threat, or fraud;
(B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner;
(C) given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable decisions; or
(D) given solely to detect the commission of an offense.
Sec. 30.02 (b) provides:, "’enter’ means to intrude: (1) any part of the body; or (2) any physical object connected with the body” (e.g., crowbar). Notice that the common law requirement of a “breaking” is not included, and the person does not have to get completely inside the habitation or building. The second form of burglary, requires no entry with intent. It requires “remaining concealed” with intent after entering, even if the initial entry was with consent. Note that the intent to commit the other crime,(a) (1) and (2), must occur at the same time as the entry or remaining.
Other terms are defined in sec. 30.01:

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
129 Burglary, Trespass, Arson, and Mischief
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
Note that unlike burglary, there is no requirement of any intent to commit another crime. Some of the key terms are defined in the section:
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.
Note the difference in the definitions of ‘entry’ between burglary and criminal trespass. “Effective consent” is defined as in the offense of burglary. Depending upon the type of area entered and certain other circumstances, the offense ranges from a Class C Misdemeanor (fine only) to a Class A misdemeanor.



And where do you get the idea that you can't make a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor

Perhaps I just pulled it from my rear, same as you, unless , of course, you would care to post the statute that gives you arrest authority. perhaps you could cite some of the cases you claim knowledge of ?

wickedrider
June 30, 2009, 08:59 PM
One major point that no one seems to have addressed. So far in the report, I haven't heard of a gun being recovered. The only people who "saw" the gun were the Homeowner and his brother. BG's not talking.

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 08:59 PM
Florida law allows detainment of a suspect involved with a violent felony at any means of force needed until LEO arrives!
Going after the suspect so LEO knows where he is likely allowed if you had a visual ID of said punk!
Brent

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 09:01 PM
Wicked, No weapon is required in the hands of the violent felon in florida! Not burglary... home invader.
Brent

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 09:03 PM
The law gives a lawful occupant of a house the right to defend himself against an intruder. But once the intruder has left the house and even the property, that right of the occupant to protect himself in his home vanishes, even in Texas.

Here, the persons took it on themselves to leave the house and hunt down the intruder; at that point they became the aggressors.

Mr. Keenan has it spot on.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 09:08 PM
No weapon is required in the hands of the violent felon in florida!

You are correct Brent, FL does indeed classify burglary as a class 1 felony, but we are discussing a different State, so different rules apply.

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 09:15 PM
If the homeowners pursued with intent to engage, an argument could be made that they intended to escalate the situation, and it could conceivably be inferred that they acted as aggressors.

OTOH, if the homeowners pursued with intent to report to police on the location of the burglar, and the burglar caught on and confronted them, it could easily be argued that the burglar escalated the situation.

The intent of the pursuit could matter.

Again, not sure what the law in Texas says about pursuing a person who has committed a crime on one's property.

With regard to OuTcAsT's comments, I think he may have confused two separate crimes. Criminal Trespass is not a felony. However, if he'd read a bit further down the Texas penal code on burglary, it becomes obvious that this crime would have qualified as either a second or first degree felony, depending upon intent:

§ 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion
of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a
felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony,
theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or
attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other
than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a
habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation
with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed
or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 09:16 PM
Yes it is a different state. But does that state deem forcible violent entry into an occupied dwelling as just burglary or is it a "home invasion" by simple definition? Sliding the window of the bathroom compared to booting a main entry door is often the difference in many states....
Brent

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 09:27 PM
With regard to OuTcAsT's comments, I think he may have confused two separate crimes. Criminal Trespass is not a felony. However, if he'd read a bit further down the Texas penal code on burglary, it becomes obvious that this crime would have qualified as either a second or first degree felony, depending upon intent:



MLeake,

That part did not escape me, and it is possible you may be proven correct. The article is a bit thin on detail but, it appeared that the guy kicked in the door, and the chase began, whether the decedent entered the residence will be he deciding factor I reckon. Excellent point, as details emerge we shall see more I'm sure.

Either way, a pursuit is likely not the wisest action legally, or tactically.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 09:31 PM
But does that state deem forcible violent entry into an occupied dwelling as just burglary or is it a "home invasion" by simple definition?

Usually that would depend on whether the BG Knew the dwelling was occupied or not, tough to prove if the BG has assumed room temperature. ;)

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 09:34 PM
While I don't know in this instance what the intent of the homeowner was, or the intent of the decedent, or whether the decedent initiated gunplay, I'd like to ask a question about another pursuit by civilians.

A few years ago, my father was badly injured in a crash caused when a young idiot in a Mustang forced his way from an on-ramp into busy interstate traffic, then cut across three lanes to try and go fast. He ran my dad into the median. My dad's car spun out of control, ending up in the oncoming lanes, and in an offset headon with a Jeep. The Jeep driver was hurt even worse than my father was.

The Mustang took off. Several witnesses in other cars followed the Mustang, giving running reports via cell phone to 911.

Theoretical: What if the Mustang driver had attempted to run those witnesses off the road (assault with a deadly weapon: vehicle) or had pulled a gun on the other drivers? Would it have been the fault of the other drivers for "escalating?"

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 09:36 PM
That whole room temp thing is a kick in the shorts for bad folks in many of the 50 states these days.... same with those outside the auto... let the kind officer know he slapped you and told you the car was his now...
Brent

skydiver3346
June 30, 2009, 09:37 PM
:confused:
Let's see now: The bad guy who is armed, breaks down your door in a home invasion, (scaring the hell out of you and your family). You and your brother grab your guns and chase the felon down the street so you can make a citizen's arrest. The bad guy pulls a gun on you (for stopping him because he just broke in your home) so you shoot him before he shoots you!

May not be "textbook" justified in the eyes of some, but I guarantee you that a lot of folks out there might do the exact same thing. Some of you would not, I can understand that as well. I would have probably done exactly what the victim did, (knowing myself and my beliefs). The burglar is the bad guy here! He pulled a gun on the citizen (he just tried to rob) and unfortunately, paid the price for his decisions. Right or wrong in this situation, things like this have to happen to you personally, (before you can really understand why people react the way they do to crimes being committed against them). I know, because I have been there before myself.

Nnobby45
June 30, 2009, 09:38 PM
"Police are not sure if the homeowner's brother will face any charges, saying the shooting may be considered a case of self defense."


Seems to be more and more common that the police feel the incident could easily be self defense, but members of a forum condemn the citizen.

It appears that some are rather phobic in that respect.

Once again someone has condemned the intended VICTIMS and claimed they put themselves in the situation by FORCING the criminal to defend himself after committing an armed invasion of their home.

I'm not defending their tactics, but I'd like to see Bubba share some of the responsibility for his own demise.

OK, I'm drinking Red Bull again, but some folks are sick and tired of being crime victims. If I'm on the jury with a couple of posters I could mention, we'll have one hell of an argument, won't we?:)

Composer_1777
June 30, 2009, 09:49 PM
[quote]Churns my stomach to hear some point out that the original VICTIMs "put themselves" in the situation without mentioning the initial criminal act by the[COLOR="red"]CRIMINAL[COLOR="red"] while the intended VICTIMS turned the tables on the CRIMINAL who then DREW A GUN and was shot by his intended VICTIMS[quote]

Vigilantism is irresponsible, people who own guns should know better.

hogdogs
June 30, 2009, 09:59 PM
Since this forum is a worldwide meeting place... i revert to florida's rules... commit a violent felony and the guy running you down is not a vigilante. He is a concerned citizen well within the law and doing his state given right to stop a violent felon at any level of force he may need! Bugger for the bad guy! Legal use of force is fine by me! so far I see nothing that makes this less than clean shoot had it occurred in Florida.... I doubt Texas has too much more limitation in these situations of violent home invasion. Booting a front door and not expecting a person home is a big ol' stretch... I don't care if everyone on the block is at work and you ring my door bell, I choose who I answer to! Home? Front door? obviously not an abandoned home... CONSIDER IT OCCUPIED! Bed ridden elderly folks or preggo wifey.... They may wish to ignore the possible magazine salesman and religious recruiters! Didn't ring? No reason to consider the dwelling unoccupied!
No defense for the defense!
Brent
Brent

Nnobby45
June 30, 2009, 09:59 PM
Vigilantism is irresponsible, people who own guns should know better.

We agree on that. What me may disagree on is the definition of vigilantism.

In a number of instances where the police said it was self defense, we still had the usual condemnations by folks who seem to have their own definition.

Some believe it's always the fault of the citizen attempting to apprehend the criminal should an injury, or worse, occur to the latter. Talk about quick on the trigger.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 10:02 PM
A few years ago, my father was badly injured in a crash caused when a young idiot in a Mustang forced his way from an on-ramp into busy interstate traffic, then cut across three lanes to try and go fast. He ran my dad into the median. My dad's car spun out of control, ending up in the oncoming lanes, and in an offset headon with a Jeep. The Jeep driver was hurt even worse than my father was.

The Mustang took off. Several witnesses in other cars followed the Mustang, giving running reports via cell phone to 911.

Theoretical: What if the Mustang driver had attempted to run those witnesses off the road (assault with a deadly weapon: vehicle) or had pulled a gun on the other drivers? Would it have been the fault of the other drivers for "escalating?"



Wow, Bad situation, good question. I will assume we are trying to contrast these two incidents, in the burglary, the BG saw the residence was occupied, and fled, thus basically ending the threat himself. Had the brothers not chased him, called the 5-0 and reported this guy they knew, that would likely have ended in an arrest of the BG, and end of story.

In the case of your Dad, this was a crime that had the potential to continue. had the guy kept driving, and good witnesses continued to go their merry way while providing intel to police, resulting in an arrest, that is the best outcome. Had the H&R driver started running people off the road, or pulled a weapon, that would be a crime that was continuing, and would be dynamic until he was arrested or bit the dust himself. Driving down the road and passing info to police is not aggressive, chasing a wanna-be burglar, and confronting him yourself is. (IMHO)

skydiver3346
June 30, 2009, 10:06 PM
Quote: "Vigilantism is irresponsible. People who own guns should know better".......

Yeah, that is a brilliant assumption for sure! Why the hell should we own guns, if we can't prevent a crime being committed against us or our family? Does that make us irresponsible? To you I guess it does.

When the bad guy (who just broke down you door) pulls a gun on you (when you try to stop them), he definitely risks being shot for making bad decisions like this. All this happens in just a few seconds and no one is thinking "I"M A VIGILANTE"......... They are trying to stop the intruder and make sure he is arrested for his actions. If the bad guy escalates the situation by pulling a gun on his victim, (again that is another bad decision on his part) and he may get more than he bargained for with that decision.

Composer_1777
June 30, 2009, 10:08 PM
[Quote]We agree on that. What me may disagree on is the definition of vigilantism.

In a number of instances where the police said it was self defense, we still had the usual condemnations by folks who seem to have their own definition[Quote]

This is how i see it, strictly just my opinion. This scenario is pretty simple the BG fled, they wanted revenge and justice because they knew the guy.

Composer_1777
June 30, 2009, 10:13 PM
quote: Yeah, that is a brilliant assumption for sure! Why the hell should we own guns, if we can't prevent a crime being committed against us or our family? Does that make us irresponsible? To you I guess it does.

When the bad guy (who just broke down you door) pulls a gun on you (when you try to stop them), he definitely risks being shot for making bad decisions like this. All this happens in just a few seconds and no one is thinking "I"M A VIGILANTE"......... They are trying to stop the intruder and make sure he is arrested for his actions. If the bad guy escalates the situation by pulling a gun on his victim, (again that is another bad decision on his part) and he may get more than he bargained for with that decision... Quote]

If you blatantly chase a BG down its vigilanstism. The intruder already removed himself thus ending the threat. Someone chasing a BG down and shooting them is just as bad as a gang hit. Of course i'd kill someone in self defense but I won't go driving around trying to kill someone.

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 10:15 PM
because I still don't know what the intent of the brothers was (revenge, citizen's arrest, recon to pass location to police - could be any of the above, or something I haven't thought of).

Therefore, I can't really contrast the two.

However, for those who feel that citizens should not pursue bad guys, and that any citizen who should pursue, for whatever reason, bears liability for outcome to the bad guy, I thought it would be interesting to throw in the traffic hit and run scenario.

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 10:17 PM
Case in point: years ago, some friends of mine were burglarized by the stepbrother of one of the victims. They had no idea where he was, because he'd already been kicked out of the house for previously stealing jewelry from his mother.

If they had wanted to be able to give his location to the police, they'd have had to follow, and the guy was related to a victim...

Just saying, people are making a lot of assumptions, before facts are in evidence.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 10:20 PM
Seems to be more and more common that the police feel the incident could easily be self defense, but members of a forum condemn the citizen.

It appears that some are rather phobic in that respect.

Once again someone has condemned the intended VICTIMS and claimed they put themselves in the situation by FORCING the criminal to defend himself after committing an armed invasion of their home.


See that word I highlighted ? AFTER ?


Once the threat is over, and the BG is gone, there is no threat.

If he is in your house, and threatening you, or your family, he is a threat, and whatever force is necessary to protect yourself within your State laws is certainly warranted. If he flees the scene, the threat is over, if you chase him down you are the aggressor, and he can defend himself same as you. A firearm is not a license to exact revenge.

You are not empowered to rid the world of scum, only to protect your life from an immediate threat.

This is not rocket science, but it sure is confusing to some.

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 10:26 PM
Not all pursuits are revenge. Not all pursuits make one an aggressor. However, laws governing citizen's arrest vary widely from state to state.

If one is allowed to affect a citizen's arrest in their state in a given scenario, then pursuit in furtherance of that arrest is not escalation in a criminal sense. It does not make the pursuer an aggressor. However, the level of force allowed for citizen's arrest is more likely to be "reasonable" than "deadly."

Again, know your state's laws.

Pursuit for purpose of citizen's arrest is not the same thing as pursuit for purpose of revenge.

The issues in this case are: what was the intent of the pursuit? did the decedent produce a weapon? did the brothers reasonably fear for their safety (assuming their pursuit were not for criminal purpose, they didn't waive their right to SD)?

Wildalaska
June 30, 2009, 10:37 PM
Lets give you chasers a dose of tactical reality here...by doing so you can sign your own death warrant and your killer can get away scot free...think about that when you take off after your stereo

WildorvisitthebuildingwhenthealarmgoesoffAlaska TM

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 10:48 PM
Not all pursuits are revenge. Not all pursuits make one an aggressor

There are some legal eccentricities that make this a true statement...to a point, however, I am talking "Common Sense" for the purpose of discussion. No offense intended, but;

It is common sense to imply that, once the BG has left your vicinity, he is no longer an immediate threat to you, or your household. This is where your duty (normally) lies. You are usually justified in protecting yourself from an immediate threat. <period>

If you decide to pursue, you have (generally) opened a whole new can of worms. You will have to prove your intent was benign rather than malevolent. This is why pursuit is not usually considered "reasonable" nor tactically sound for the general public. The premise is a simple one; protect yourself from the immediate threat, anything more can be a legal pitfall.

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 10:54 PM
Arguing that something is not illegal is not the same as arguing that it is tactically sound. Then again, arguing that something isn't tactically sound isn't always the same as arguing it should never be done. Circumstances have too many variables.

Having looked at the codes, Texas law does allow citizen's arrest for felonies committed in view of a citizen. Effecting a citizen's arrest does not provide any legal immunity for injuries to third parties (not a factor in the case under discussion), which should be enough to make folks think twice about whether pursuit is a good idea.

Legally, the brothers were within their rights to pursue, based on having observed the burglary of their premises by the decedent. This did not make them liable for the decedent's subsequent escalation, if that is what happened...

Not knowing what happened, I won't offer any further defense than that.

Now, would I recommend pursuit? Not really. Odds of things getting anywhere from violent to deadly are higher than I'd prefer. Potential risk to others needs to be considered. Coming home to loved ones is also a plus, in my book.

But would I always recommend against pursuit? What if one witnessed a kidnapping? An ongoing attack on a child? Examples could get cumbersome, but the idea is that there are times when the risks are definitely justified. Of course, while conducting such pursuits, one should be in communications with the police. (Don't remember where I read it, but somebody once said that if you carry a gun, you had better also carry a cell phone, and that makes good sense to me).

Generally, while I am not too keen on pursuits, I find it highly inappropriate to equate a pursuer of a person who has been observed firsthand committing a felony (pursuer is attempting to effect citizen's arrest) with a vigilante. In my book, at least, vigilantes are not those who attempt citizen's arrests, but those who deliberately set out to harm people whom they think deserve it because they are bad. I personally think it's very dangerous when people are quick to sling the V word any time a citizen gets involved in a crime in progress.

Funny how so many things go back to motive...

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 11:01 PM
So now you're bashing scotsmen, WA?

Sorry, just kidding.

On a more serious note, though, the BG has very likely lost his legal right to SD by initiating the crime that resulted in the pursuit. If your point is that a pursuit, in and of itself, gives him license to act against the pursuer, that is very likely not the case.

On the other hand, you could simply mean that now the only witness is dead, killed in the pursuit, and so the police will need good forensics or a lucky break. In which case, you are very likely right.

Years ago, when I had to stand occasional sentry duty, it was reinforced time and again that if one sees a bad guy on the perimeter, first and foremost CALL IT IN before attempting to engage. Bad for a sentry to get killed or incapacitated, without having warned his comrades of the danger.

Goes back to my point about carrying a cell phone. Call to 911 should be made immediately, whether pursuit is chosen or not.

Composer_1777
June 30, 2009, 11:10 PM
^ very good ponts. I seen this news story: the guy saw someone breaking into his neighbors house and went outside and shot them when they tried to run away(they briefly crossed onto his property) but he was on the phone with 911 decribing the situation, long before engaging. So yeah if they had called 911 during the persuit it would eliminate much of the speculation.

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 11:10 PM
the BG has very likely lost his legal right to SD by initiating the crime that resulted in the pursuit.

Point of fact my friend, the BG surrenders no rights until he is arrested, and if he waives the "Miranda" rights.

Until he is found guilty, he has all the "rights" we all have in common.

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 11:15 PM
... in a discussion of constitutional law sense.

However, from a prosecutor's perspective*, the initial commission of the felony that resulted in the pursuit, if proven, subsequently means the convicted felon cannot claim self defense for any violent act carried out as a direct result of the felony.

So, if the pursuer were killed, there were no witnesses to the initial crime, a case couldn't be made, etc then the BG might get off scot free, no offense to our Gaelic friends.

If there were other witnesses, forensic evidence, etc, then the odds are the BG is in a world of legal hurt.

* I am NOT a prosecutor, just stating an opinion based on reading charging documents or decisions not to charge from previous incidents.

MLeake
June 30, 2009, 11:18 PM
... is that if the prosecutor believes the original felony did occur, then he is likely to interpret that action as having robbed the decedent of the right to SD against the resulting pursuit.

So, while the BG may not have lost his rights yet, the end result could well be that the prosecutor opts to bring no charges against the decedent's killer(s), due to an assumption that the BG would eventually have been found to have had no right to use violence against his pursuers.

We'll see what happens.

For all I know, the brothers chased the guy with the intent of making an example of him, thinking they could. But, for all I know, they could have had every intention of either effecting arrest, or providing the police with info. Just don't know.

Tucker 1371
June 30, 2009, 11:19 PM
Outcast: Sure, your nads want to say "good Job" But your brain already knows better.

Haha, yeah, right now the boys are sayin "rahrah yaay clean the gene pool good shoot rah" but I'm thinkin, "uhh... huh?"

Personally I don't think they should be charged with anything but I do think they went a little further than they should have, definitely further than I would have. I'm very leery of the complications of being involved in a self defense shoot outside my home... not too sure how that's gonna pan out when I get my CHL but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Sportdog
June 30, 2009, 11:21 PM
Bad guy attempts home invasion. Homeowners halt home invasion and pursue Bad guy. Bad guy pulls gun on homeowners. Homeowners gun down Bad guy. One less Bad guy around to attempt more home invasions. Sounds good to me!

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 11:22 PM
Just don't know.

Agreed, you make a fine argument though...

Let's wait for more evidence, then we can debate on even ground. :)

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 11:26 PM
One less Bad guy around to attempt more home invasions. Sounds good to me!

Seriously, Sportdog, read the thread a bit.... There are good arguments that see both sides.

Tucker 1371
June 30, 2009, 11:29 PM
One less Bad guy around to attempt more home invasions. Sounds good to me

Mathematically it sounds great... but I've always hated math and we're not dealing with numbers here, we are dealing with lives... living, breathing, human beings. Justice is about balancing punishment against the crime. The only way this was a justifiable and clean shoot in my mind is if the pursuers intent was something less violent than what actually occured (something along the lines of giving the guy a good lecture and maybe a slap upside the head). Unfortunately there is now way to discern the purseuers' original intent other than taking their word for it.

mjoy64
June 30, 2009, 11:33 PM
So if this scenario actually ended with a police officer seeing the fleeing suspect, chasing the suspect down, suspect drawing gun, and officer fatally shooting the suspect is it a bad shoot?

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 11:34 PM
Haha, yeah, right now the boys are sayin "rahrah yaay clean the gene pool good shoot rah" but I'm thinkin, "uhh... huh?"

Personally I don't think they should be charged with anything but I do think they went a little further than they should have, definitely further than I would have.

^^ The force is strong with this one^^


Look inside yourself and know what is true, do not succumb to the dark side...:D

Seriously , your gut is leading you to the truth. ;)

OuTcAsT
June 30, 2009, 11:39 PM
So if this scenario actually ended with a police officer seeing the fleeing suspect, chasing the suspect down, suspect drawing gun, and officer fatally shooting the suspect is it a bad shoot?

You are comparing the actions of a sworn officer, as compared to a homeowner. the comparison is not equal.(apples to oranges)

A police officer follows one set of laws, a homeowner another.(though I am sure some will argue this point)
A gun does not give you the same powers or protections as a badge.

Ricky B
June 30, 2009, 11:46 PM
First, burglary is NOT a felony, and second, you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony, sorry. It quit being a crime when the guy ran. Simple B&E .

First, burglary was a felony at common law, and I would be very much surprised if breaking and entering an occupied dwelling (night or day) was not a felony in any state. It certainly is in CA. But maybe TX has a more liberal attitude toward the underprivileged criminals than we have here in CA. "Simple B&E" is normally a felony, and one considered inherently dangerous to human life.

Second, you can make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is not a felony, at least here in CA.

CA Penal Code §837 provides:

A private person may arrest another:

1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.

2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.

3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=42351616480+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

To arrest for a non-felony offense, the offense must be committed or attempted in the citizen's presence. So Outast's statement would have been correct if he had said "you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony UNLESS it was committed or attempted in your presence."

Ricky B
June 30, 2009, 11:51 PM
it appeared that the guy kicked in the door, and the chase began, whether the decedent entered the residence will be he deciding factor I reckon.

If the BG kicked in the door and a portion of his foot went past the threshold, that would probably suffice to constitute an "entry" for the purpose of burglary.

Even if there were no entry, there was an attempt, and the statute I quoted allows a citizen's arrest for an attempted offense.

mjoy64
June 30, 2009, 11:56 PM
You are comparing the actions of a sworn officer, as compared to a homeowner. the comparison is not equal.(apples to oranges)

A police officer follows one set of laws, a homeowner another.(though I am sure some will argue this point)
A gun does not give you the same powers or protections as a badge.

So it would be your contention that the police officer had more rights (by law) to kill the fleeing suspect?

Ricky B
July 1, 2009, 12:01 AM
I think it's important to distinguish between self-defense. Once the BG fled, there was no issue of self-defense.

The occupants were legally privileged to pursue the BG. At least in CA, and again, I can't imagine TX is more restrictive.

CA Penal Code §839 provides:

Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

CA Penal Code §844 provides:

To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.

A vigilante is a person who violates the law to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals. Pursuing someone who attempted to enter your home to turn him over to the cops is not vigilantism. And anyone who says it is simply doesn't know what the word "vigilante" means.

Once the BG used deadly force by exhibiting a gun, the pursuers were legally privileged to use deadly force (not to make an arrest but in self-defense).

If you pursue a purse snatcher who snatched some old lady's purse, the thief is not the "victim" and you are not an "aggressor" against who he is entitled to use force. The BG here had no right to self-defense any more than he would if he were being chased by a cop.

Tucker 1371
July 1, 2009, 12:13 AM
So if this scenario actually ended with a police officer seeing the fleeing suspect, chasing the suspect down, suspect drawing gun, and officer fatally shooting the suspect is it a bad shoot?

No, but the police officer is sworn to uphold (enforce) the law. That means he is not only legally justified in following the subject but also legally obligated to do so. An officer in the process of upholding the law being forced to take a life is worlds different from Tom and Huck pursuing Joe Thug to have words with him and then because of that finding themselves in a situation where they had to defend themselves.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have defended themselves. Once put in that situation it is the only acceptable course of action. I'm questioning the legality, morality, and reasoning regarding their pursuit of Joe Thug in the first place.

Of course they knew the guy, maybe not on favorable terms but they knew him. Common sense would say that you would be able to go talk to the guy and give him a piece of your mind (common sense might also say you wouldn't need a gun to do that but then again the smart money says to always be prepared).

One little piece of info I think we need is who had their weapon drawn first? If the two shooters had their's drawn first it may be self defense but in the dead guy's favor (not that it's going to do him much good).

Ricky B
July 1, 2009, 12:16 AM
A point of clarification.

I have been assuming for the purpose of the discussion that the occupants chased the BG to turn him over to the cops. If they were chasing him to beat him and teach him a lesson, that would be vigilantism.

csmsss
July 1, 2009, 12:30 AM
I have a couple of thoughts.

First, there is a profound dearth of reliable information on this case, so it's way too early to make any determination as to whether the shooter's actions were justified, somewhat justified, or entirely unjustified.

Second, I don't agree with those who assert that one should *never* pursue a fleeing bad guy. There may be no immediate danger to you, but could be extreme danger to others in the vicinity. I liken this to, for example, an active shooter in a mall. The shooter runs past you, therefore there is no immediate danger to you, but there is extreme danger to everyone else in the shooter's path. Is the best course of action really to stay your ground and do absolutely nothing? My opinion is no.

Hopefully we'll learn more about these events, the shooter's actions and the entirety of the circumstances preceding the shooting. Until then, I'm going to reserve judgement about the shooter's culpability, if there be any.

mjoy64
July 1, 2009, 12:33 AM
No, but the police officer is sworn to uphold (enforce) the law. That means he is not only legally justified in following the subject but also legally obligated to do so. An officer in the process of upholding the law being forced to take a life is worlds different from Tom and Huck pursuing Joe Thug to have words with him and then because of that finding themselves in a situation where they had to defend themselves.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have defended themselves. Once put in that situation it is the only acceptable course of action. I'm questioning the legality, morality, and reasoning regarding their pursuit of Joe Thug in the first place.

Of course they knew the guy, maybe not on favorable terms but they knew him. Common sense would say that you would be able to go talk to the guy and give him a piece of your mind (common sense might also say you wouldn't need a gun to do that but then again the smart money says to always be prepared).

One little piece of info I think we need is who had their weapon drawn first? If the two shooters had their's drawn first it may be self defense but in the dead guy's favor.

So the question I would have is... when "Tom and Huck" began their pursuit:

a) Was it a crime to do so?
b) Did the act forfeit their right of self defense?

I will add that I think it was monumentally stupid to chase after the guy but... do their positions as citizen vs. a police officer materially affect a decision to act with deadly force?

Even if it was a crime to pursue the BG... did "Tom and Huck" deserve to die because a BG decided to be their judge and jury?

All this assumes the BG did indeed escalate by drawing his gun first. If that isn't the case then this is, no doubt in my mind, vigilantism.

btw... I'm fairly sure a police officer is not "legally obligated" to pursue the subject. I'm pretty sure that police only have a general duty to protect with no guarantee to do so in any specific situation.

Nnobby45
July 1, 2009, 12:36 AM
This is how i see it, strictly just my opinion. This scenario is pretty simple the BG fled, they wanted revenge and justice because they knew the guy.

They may have wanted revenge because they knew the guy, but I'm glad you also mentioned they wanted justice.

The reason it isn't so simple is because chasing and apprehending a fleeing felon isn't necessarily illegal. If the chasing of the felon was legal, though tactically unsound, maybe the felon should assume responsibility for pulling a gun and forcing the GOOD guys to defend THEMSELVES.

Hey, they were boneheads for chasing the guy, but sometimes, in the face of violent criminal activity, the good folks don't always do the right thing in the ensuing SNAFU that tends to follow. Doesn't mean they belong in prison. Looks like the Police might agree.

Kyo
July 1, 2009, 12:36 AM
lol the criminal that runs off turns into a "victim" I can't stop laughing about this.
The argument can and will be made that because they knew him, they felt he was still a danger to them because he knew exactly where they were staying so he could come back another time

skydiver3346
July 1, 2009, 06:59 AM
(QUOTE): "If you blantantly chase a bad guy down, it's vigilantism"...

To make that broad statement for everyone is just irresponsible.
It is a quick reaction to what just happened, (someone just broke down your front door).
That may be your personal belief (and maybe others as well) but did you ever consider the possibility of the bad guy coming back again and finishing what he started? Could be worse for the home owner next visit. One thing is for sure, "He eliminated the repeat offender"!

Double Naught Spy
July 1, 2009, 07:14 AM
If you blatantly chase a BG down its vigilanstism.

Right, but if you do it covertly, then it is just downright legal! :rolleyes:

zonamo
July 1, 2009, 08:06 AM
So the question I would have is... when "Tom and Huck" began their pursuit:

a) Was it a crime to do so?
b) Did the act forfeit their right of self defense?

That probably depends on where you live. In Arizona, it is legal for a private person to make an arrest. Since it is legal to arrest the criminal, I believe you would not forfeit the right to defend yourself if the criminal you are legally arresting threatens you since Arizona is also a stand your ground state.

ARS 13-3884. Arrest by private person

A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Tactically, I don't want to be the test case for something like this. But for those arguing morality, which has greater moral force-letting a known violent criminal go or stopping them before they victimize someone else?

PT111
July 1, 2009, 08:34 AM
Before we get too involved in these technicalities of the law on whether or not it was a felony vs. misdomeaner and citizen's arrest deal we really need to check back in on the story. If someone has some more information that what was first reported it would help.

Fact is the fellow broke into the house. The report said he kicked the door in but in the long run that is not extremely important. It is assumed that when he broke in he found Bubba and Earl sitting on the couch watching reruns of Bill Dance. So he took off running. Bubba and Earl recognized him and gave chase.

This is where it gets interesting. They found him several blocks away. When we say they gave chase how long/far do you chase a BG that just broke in. Do you lock up before you go SEVERAL blocks after the BG, who incidently you know as a regular at the local Dew Drop Inn. Or do you just run off after him so his buddy can have free access to everything in your house while you are playing cop?

All that is still not important. Finally after probably about 30 minutes of chasing (I know it doesn't say how long but it also doesn't say a lot of other things) the BG you finally meet up with him. You ask him who is going to pay for that door and in not a nice way. He tells you to go do something that is impossible. You threaten to whup his rear end and he doubts you have the power to do it. You offer him a free sex change operation and start walking toward him. He pulls out his gun in fear that you are able to perform the operation that you offered to do. Your good buddy then takes matters into his hands and ends the argument without a fight.

Here is where it really gets strange.

FACT - You don't notify the police about the break-in or shooting. You leave the SOB beside the road. A good citizen comes by, finds the body, calls the police and after some investigation they find out that your buddy did the shooting.

Summary - BG (that you recognize) breaks your front door down, you chase him down, gun fight breaks out and you shoot the BG, you go home so you can see the last part of Bill Dance's tip of the week and don't call the police. Then everyone starts arguing about the technicalities of the law on citizen's arrest! :eek:

I know I am missing something here but just don't know what?

Big Ugly Tall Texan
July 1, 2009, 09:08 AM
If they had of chased him down and killed him, they would have been in big poo.

But when the guy turns and pulls a gun, it's open season on bad guys.

Clearly a case of self-defense. The bad guy had the option of giving up and living a bit longer, but chose a different path to the afterlife.

skydiver3346
July 1, 2009, 09:11 AM
If burglary is not a felony as some of you say here in your posts, then what the heck is it called then, (when this dirt bag kicks down your door while you are in your home at the time)? A misdemeanor? A misdeed?

I believe that you would get at least a year in prision for committing this crime and that is usually considered a felony in most cases.
The only reason this guy didn't continue into the home was the victim was in the room and his brother with him.

TailGator
July 1, 2009, 09:27 AM
PT111 gave voice to the same thing that bothered me: Why would you not call 911 after what you believed to be a justifiable SD shooting? And leave the scene so that a passerby finds a dead body and reports it? That really doesn't smell right. There is no mention of a weapon, either: Article to brief? Wasn't there? Lifted before LE arrived? Another reason to call promptly, it would seem to me.

There have been some reasonable SD scenarios presented here, such as following the perpetrator to report his position to the police and then being forced to fire when he confronts, that would seem to be belied by these significant details.

Brian Pfleuger
July 1, 2009, 09:53 AM
If the homeowners truly "tracked the man down" as is stated in the story then it is probably straight up murder. THEY became the aggressor.

Why does it matter if it's 5 minutes later or the next day? If they saw this guy on the street the next day and approached him with a gun then he would have every right to defend himself. So where do you draw the line? 2 minutes later? 20 minutes? 3 hours? Why? This man started a conflict and then made it clear that he was withdrawing from the conflict. In most any area, withdrawing from a conflict creates a necessary end for the other parties use of force. If the other party continues the use of force, the withdrawing party almost certainly has the right to defend themselves. He withdrew, they attacked, he defended, they killed him.


From all appearances, this is a case where the defender lost the fight, IMHO.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 1, 2009, 09:55 AM
There was the TX case that was well-known of a guy who followed someone who broke into his car (Austin, IIRC). Then he shot the guy - claimed the thief threatened him. But he was charged and went to trial. The claim of self-defense was quite ambiguous.

The thing that saved the guy's bacon was that the 911 operator told him to follow the thief. Great advice.

As far as if you follow the guy and he pulls a gun, it is SD - not a lawyer but that's iffy. If you are not in the right when you follow and the BG says he felt he was threatened by you - then you can be the BG and shot. If you said - stop or I'll shoot - then you are in the wrong, for example.

If you said you shot him to prevent a later crime - that would be a bad idea.

hogdogs
July 1, 2009, 09:56 AM
Peetza, At least in florida, the guy commited a heinous violent felony... Home Invasion, he can't stop what is already done. Crime was commited, citizen in florida (I know this ain't a florida case) can use any force required up to and including lethal force to stop and hold the criminal for LEO's.
Brent

PT111
July 1, 2009, 09:58 AM
If you said you shot him to prevent a later crime - that would be a bad idea.

According to the jury you get. Seems that there are a few on here that consider that justifiable homocide.

Brian Pfleuger
July 1, 2009, 10:00 AM
Home Invasion, he can't stop what is already done. Crime was commited, citizen in florida (I know this ain't a florida case) can use any force required up to and including lethal force to stop and hole the criminal for LEO's.

For how long and where? Certainly you couldn't find the guy the next day and shoot him claiming that he invaded your home. What about 5 hours later? 3? 15 minutes? There's no logical reason why any particular time would be the standard. If an hour later is no good then why is 10 minutes OK? Imminent and immediate threat is the answer. When the guy invades your home he is an imminent and/or immediate threat. If you track him down on the street, even 5 minutes later, YOU are the imminent and/or immediate threat.

If you saw a guy who invaded your home 3 days ago and approached him with a gun, would YOU not be the aggressor? It's no different if it's 10 minutes later.

hogdogs
July 1, 2009, 10:03 AM
If I reasonably feel an individual commited a violent felony, I can detain him/her at anytime following the act so long as he hasn't already been arrested and charged officially by the LEO... The wording in the law doesn't have a time restraint nor an expiration date on it.
Brent

A_McDougal
July 1, 2009, 10:10 AM
The right to justice is a universal right, in the constitution (under the penumbras and emanations section).

Since the police aren't obligated to protect me or get my property back after I'm robbed, why does society think that justice should only be available when the police and courts choose to dispense it?

Brian Pfleuger
July 1, 2009, 10:13 AM
The wording in the law doesn't have a time restraint nor an expiration date on it.

No, but it still has the "reasonable man" clause attached to it. Something like "if the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to affect the arrest or prevent the escape."

Such as NY Penal Code 35.30

4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she
reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

Note the "immediate flight therefrom"

What is the wording of the law in FL.

hogdogs
July 1, 2009, 10:16 AM
YEP! And if he hasn't already been arrested and charged, this reasonable man will see to it that he goes no further as a freebird. His options are 2... comply or face the consequences of trying to battle me for freedom.
Bugger that second option!
Brent

Ricky B
July 1, 2009, 10:24 AM
If the homeowners truly "tracked the man down" as is stated in the story then it is probably straight up murder. THEY became the aggressor.


Yes, if they were looking to beat him. The term "aggressor" implies a self-defense analysis, and once the BG flees, self-defense is no longer available.

No, if they were looking to find and hold him for the cops. If they were looking to find and hold him for the cops, they were looking to effect a citizen's arrest even if they didn't think of it that way. Then self-defense is irrelevant for the pursuit, and the pursuit is eminently legal. If the felon uses deadly force to resist arrest (even by a citizen), the felon is the aggressor, and the citizen is entitled to a claim of self-defense.

A felon does not have a right to resist arrest. Believe it or not, there have been robbers who have shot police and claimed self-defense because the police were shooting at them. The courts have said self-defense is not available as a defense in that situation.

TailGator
July 1, 2009, 10:24 AM
citizen . . . can use any force required up to and including lethal force to stop and hold the criminal for LEO's.

But wouldn't that citizen call LEO's? Leaving a dead body beside the road for someone else to find is not a way to make a citizen's arrest, even if one were so inclined.

We have very little information right now, but I won't be surprised if this goes badly for the shooter and WildAlaska is dancing in hideously decorated spandex again.

PT111
July 1, 2009, 10:30 AM
This is one of the comments from the article. Strickly rumor but does shed some llight on it if true.

Info from a Neighbor.... The idiot that died was at Fast Eddies on Grissom being a drunken fool starting crap and was thrown out. His "friend" who lives near by known to have guns in the house.... he went over, kicked down the door, grabed a gun and fled to return to the bar. Owner and brother ran after him, caught up to him to get the gun back and the Owners brother shot him and ran off. That's the word in the neighborhood. That's all I know.

hogdogs
July 1, 2009, 10:31 AM
Not everyone has a cell phone?
If I had one on me I am not sure I would want to incur the 911 use fee of $1.99 or waste minutes calling the regular number... Heck I done wasted the money of a shell on the guy...:D
I am not sure if these guys had returned home to a phone or not...
Brent

Ricky B
July 1, 2009, 10:32 AM
The argument can and will be made that because they knew him, they felt he was still a danger to them because he knew exactly where they were staying so he could come back another time

Posters say things like this quite frequently in this forum, and they should understand that it is a fantasy defense ungrounded in reality. Anyone who makes that argument in his own defense should simply plead guilty and save himself some time and money. That argument has zero chance of winning. The law is very clear that fear of future harm does not allow a claim of self-defense.

See this thread that I started on California law on self-defense. It's laid out there in black and white.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=364416

Vanya
July 1, 2009, 10:42 AM
Since the police aren't obligated to protect me or get my property back after I'm robbed, why does society think that justice should only be available when the police and courts choose to dispense it?

I bet we could have almost as much fun with a thread on "What is the nature of justice?" as we did with the "Legal vs. Moral" thread... (Yah, mods, not in T&T, though...)

But the short answer is that civilized societies have found that a "justice system" (police and courts) is a preferable alternative to a free-for-all, in which "justice" tends to be confounded with revenge and the like, and in which weaker citizens have very little chance of getting any.

Potential risk to others needs to be considered.

I'm a bit surprised no one else has elaborated on this. If you can identify the person who tried to break in to your home and report him to the cops so they can arrest him, doing that is a way better choice than chasing him, armed, at the risk of the situation's escalating into a gunfight in the street, where other, innocent people will be put in jeopardy...

Query: if this situation had involved three "gangbangers" (all with clean records, hitherto) and a stolen bicycle, would so many people here be defending the shooters? I think one problem with these discussions, in general, is that a lot of us assume we always know who's a "law-abiding citizen" and who's a BG. The difference is a matter of who has or hasn't committed a crime, not of whom we identify with.

Vanya
July 1, 2009, 10:44 AM
Interesting. Do you have a link to that? Don't recall that being in the story linked in the OP.

PT111
July 1, 2009, 11:19 AM
Vanya - It was in the reader comments portion of the story in the OP. Click on the comments link and it about the 7th comment down from Spurs Fan 1985. As I said pure rumor and gossip but makes you wonder.

PT111
July 1, 2009, 11:25 AM
$1.99 911 use fee???????? Never heard of that, can you explain. Originally all calls to 911 or police were not timed at all. I know that there is a 911 fee on phones whether or not you call 911 or can even call 911. I used to have to pay it on my data lines that I couldn't even call out on.

hogdogs
July 1, 2009, 11:44 AM
It may be no longer... But there once was a time, at least with my cingular service in florida, if you dialed 911 in that month once or multiple times there was a fee on the bill... IIRC, it was there to cover the other folks who were able to use 911 even if service was off due to no payment. this was back in about 2002. But I do not have a cell now... just the wifey-poo.
Brent

PT111
July 1, 2009, 12:00 PM
I remember now, new federal laws on cell phones and 911. All cell phones must be capable of dialing 911 for free. This includes deactivated phones. If your wife gets a new cell phone and deactivates her old one you can carry it with you to dial 911. Someone can give you an old phone to use in fact there are some groups that collect old cell phones to give to abused women for emergency use.

Like my CWP instruction said, "If you carry a gun then carry a cell phone. If you don't carry a cell phone then don't carry a gun. If you are involved in a shooting the first one to tell their side of the story will be believed the most". I know this contradicts the ones that say don't talk to the police but getting in the first word usually helps.

Vanya
July 1, 2009, 12:51 PM
Thanks, PT111, for the source of that rumor... sounds like these were fine, upstanding citizens all around... :rolleyes: Possibly a bit closer to my hypothetical gangbangers than terms like "homeowner" lead us to imagine... and that wouldn't surprise me, given the part about shooting the guy and leaving him by the side of the road, not calling police, etc. (I'm not up enough on Texas Culture to know the subtle distinctions between gangbangers, Bubbas, white trash, etc. -- although I do, of course, know that there are no TFL members to whom any of those terms would apply... :D)

And good info about being able to use deactivated cell phones to call 911... I hadn't known that. If I can just keep the old one in the bedroom for emergencies, that would be a heck of a lot more convenient than what I'm doing now.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 1, 2009, 02:03 PM
Just in case anyone wants to see the relevant Texas code on the issue, here it is.

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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 had 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.

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.

I think we are lacking all the information we need to make a call on this one. If, as alleged, the dead guy stole a gun and was heading back to the bar he just got kicked out of, then the owner chasing him down and shooting him might have saved all of us (gun owners in particular) a lot of grief. If the dead guy was running down the street with a stereo, it gets a lot muddier.

Either way, we are missing a lot of information that we need to answer whether it complies with the statutes above.

Brian Pfleuger
July 1, 2009, 03:54 PM
It sounds to me like the entire issue may rest on the definition of "immediately" in Section 9.42 Para 2B.


If the law determines that the thief was in "immediate flight therefrom", and there was actually a gun stolen, then it would be reasonable to believe that "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." from the same section, para 3B.

Chasing the guy would still have been a stupid thing to do, not calling the police first (or EVER!) was even "stupider" but they may very well get away with it.

rampage841512
July 1, 2009, 03:58 PM
If I were certain folks who regularly post here, I would say something along the lines of; 'Good Job, they stopped a criminal, and made our quickly-declining society safer as a result. He got what he deserved, anyone who attempts a crime and then thinks better of it and tries to run forfeits his rights to live'

Since I am that person, I'll say good job.:eek:

MLeake
July 1, 2009, 04:03 PM
PK, you are so focused on SD and defense of property that you are completely disregarding the arguments about citizen's arrest in Texas. There is no "immediate" requirement that I can find.

The question is whether the shooters were attempting to effect a citizen's arrest.

If, as some posters have alleged, the guys never called the police, before or after the shooting, then I think they will have a hard time arguing that they were attempting a citizen's arrest.

However, I haven't seen any official accounts so far that make that claim.

Brian Pfleuger
July 1, 2009, 04:15 PM
you are completely disregarding the arguments about citizen's arrest in Texas.

Disregarding because no one has posted the appropriate statute and I have enough trouble finding the laws of my own state to bother looking for the laws of some other.:);)

Thursday
July 1, 2009, 04:24 PM
I don't see how anyone can jump to conclusions and know the answer to the case given the information provided. There is way too much left out of the news report to really make a decision.

On one hand the man entered with intent to burglarize the home where the two men where. On the other hand you must look at the fact that the police were notified only when the body was found. Another thing to look at is that the knew the man and "tracked him down a few blocks away" granted the news usually uses words that don't exactly describe the situation but the way that is worded is no good IMO.

I can see how people can come to a conclusion either way, but the only thing you can judge on is what you read from that little news report and the rest is assumption. We are all entitled to our own opinions but the truth is no one can even begin to rule on this until they release more details.

Nnobby45
July 1, 2009, 05:33 PM
If the homeowners truly "tracked the man down" as is stated in the story then it is probably straight up murder. THEY became the aggressor

Ah, jeez. Let's try it again.:rolleyes:

If they weren't in violation of the law with re: to apprehending the criminal who committed armed home invasion, then why would said Bros have committed "straight up murder" when the bad man drew a gun and attempted to murder the two bro's who were , at that point, acting within the law?

It's not like Bubba was shot down after he surrendered.

Once again, the aggressive act of the violent criminal seems to be of little concern to those who condemn the bros and refer to them as vigilantes, murderers, etc. :cool:

Brian Pfleuger
July 1, 2009, 06:00 PM
If they weren't in violation of the law with re: to apprehending the criminal who committed armed home invasion, then why would said Bros have committed "straight up murder" when the bad man drew a gun and attempted to murder the two bro's who were , at that point, acting within the law?

There are a lot of variables influencing "acting within the law". If you check my most recent assessment (post #109), I pretty well break down the likely outcomes.

So many mentions of this "apprehending" and "citizens arrest" and so few posts, like zero, with the actual statute.... hard to make a claim or judgement without the law...

MLeake
July 1, 2009, 06:05 PM
Emphasis by me; from the caselaw website. (Note: Forcible entry of a habitation by any part of the offender is a felony in Texas; this applies to even a toe of the foot that kicked in the door; see previous post with Texas law regarding burglary.)

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any
other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the
offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the
offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the
public peace.
(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant
for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.

MLeake
July 1, 2009, 06:08 PM
Still awaiting official claim that brothers were attempting to use citizen's arrest powers. It may not apply.

However, it is a possibility that many seem to refuse to acknowledge.

Brian Pfleuger
July 1, 2009, 06:40 PM
It is somewhat impressive that there are no other qualifications or restrictions to that statute. Is there no other mention of such a thing in TX law?

How is a person supposed to go about this arrest for example? Is there any approved method? Required verbalization(s)? What is the penalty for resisting a citizens arrest?


Still awaiting official claim that brothers were attempting to use citizen's arrest powers. It may not apply.

However, it is a possibility that many seem to refuse to acknowledge.

I would GUESS, yes, it's only a guess, that the fact that they did not report the incident may well disqualify the idea. If not in a technical legal sense, very likely in the minds of any jury.

MLeake
July 1, 2009, 06:57 PM
both referred to the failure to notify police.

However, when pressed, PT111 said that info came from reader comments under the article, not from the article, the police, or the DA.

The article actually said the police were looking at it as a possible case of self defense.

It would be interesting to have some actual facts.

It would be nice to avoid accusing the shooter of something based on reader's comment number 7 under an article online.

KAOS
July 1, 2009, 07:14 PM
However, since I am not that person, I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.


so would you also agree that someone running from the police could legally turn and shoot a cop since the police were chasing him/her, forcing that person to defend theirself?

we as citizens have the the right to chase and detain a suspect until law enforcement arrives. ( i just heard this on a old episode of cops)

Glenn E. Meyer
July 1, 2009, 07:48 PM
Let's be realistic. The police are in their legal rights to chase you.

But citizens and police can't chase and use deadly force to terminate the pursuit except in very specific circumstances.

You even legally can use deadly force against the law under certain specific circumstances if they violate their mandate and are threatening you with grievous bodily harm. But you'd better check out the statutes for that and it would hard to prove.

Straw man arguments here don't add much.

Hawg Haggen
July 1, 2009, 07:51 PM
FWIW I'd chase him down too.

mjoy64
July 1, 2009, 07:58 PM
Let's be realistic. The police are in their legal rights to chase you.

I'm willing to be realistic. Are you contending that it was not within the pursuers rights to chase after the guy that forcibly entered their domicile? Did the initiation of that pursuit negate any and all rights to self-defense?

Which strawman do you speak of?

Brian Pfleuger
July 1, 2009, 08:07 PM
I'm willing to be realistic. Are you contending that it was not within the pursuers rights to chase after the guy that forcibly entered their domicile? Did the initiation of that pursuit negate any and all rights to self-defense?

It might. In TX, it may not, depending I suppose on the time frame of the "pursuit".

In at least some states, NY included, you'd up crap creek with a sponge paddle, except under EXTREMELY specific circumstances and, even then, it would almost certainly depend on the DA.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 1, 2009, 08:09 PM
No, geez - I was referring to the post that you could turn and shoot the cops for chasing you.

so would you also agree that someone running from the police could legally turn and shoot a cop since the police were chasing him/her, forcing that person to defend theirself?

Not what you said. If you carry a gun and don't know when you can use deadly force, one needs to study up. The right to use deadly force to terminate a chase has been discussed in detail. Google it.

Nowhere did I say you didn't have a right to pursue. That's your misinterpretation.

PT111
July 1, 2009, 08:14 PM
PT111 and TailGator

both referred to the failure to notify police.

However, when pressed, PT111 said that info came from reader comments under the article, not from the article, the police, or the DA.

The article actually said the police were looking at it as a possible case of self defense.

It would be interesting to have some actual facts.

It would be nice to avoid accusing the shooter of something based on reader's comment number 7 under an article online.

Please reread the posts your are refering to and please quote accurately. The failure to notify the police came from the article and you would have known if you had read it and watched the video. The comments also made some reference to it but the article stated out with that a body had been found. The troubling part is that they never said how they linked the two.

Rich Miranda
July 1, 2009, 08:16 PM
Why do people feel the need to chase down suspects?

He ran off. Let him go.

My job is to defend myself and my family. It's the police's job to find the suspect.

I'm not sure what will happen legally but morally those guys are responsible for the suspect's death.

MLeake
July 1, 2009, 08:18 PM
PT111: Vanya - It was in the reader comments portion of the story in the OP. Click on the comments link and it about the 7th comment down from Spurs Fan 1985. As I said pure rumor and gossip but makes you wonder.

As far as reading the article, the only link I've seen was in Post #1. That article said nothing about an unreported body. If you have other links, please send.

No, I didn't watch the attached video, as I tend to prefer print articles over most video, unless the video is actual footage.

Ricky B
July 1, 2009, 08:20 PM
morally those guys are responsible for the suspect's death

Assuming that those guys were chasing someone who had broken and entered their dwelling and were chasing him to turn him over to the police, and assuming that the suspect pulled a gun on his pursuers, MORALLY the suspect is responsible for his own demise. Sheesh.

MLeake
July 1, 2009, 08:21 PM
Assuming his assumptions are true.

If these guys pursued with intent to do harm, that's a different story entirely.

Rich Miranda
July 1, 2009, 08:23 PM
Assuming that those guys were chasing someone who had broken and entered their dwelling and were chasing him to turn him over to the police

It is not my job to turn people over to the police. It is the police's job to catch them. My job is to protect what is mine and report what I know to the police, not chase people down for the police.

Rich Miranda
July 1, 2009, 08:25 PM
If these guys pursued with intent to do harm, that's a different story entirely.

They gave chase with a firearm, when they were no longer in any danger....

Why not just hunker down and wait for police?

Rich Miranda
July 1, 2009, 08:30 PM
RickyB, after re-reading your post, I had a thought.

The burglar chose to do the burglary, so yes, I agree he was responsible for his own death.

But the homeowners didn't have to give chase. They could have just sat tight until cops arrived. Is there no moral responsibility for having handled the situation incorrectly?

Most situations like this are complex and there are likely multiple points when someone could have walked away (or stayed put) and avoided a death.

MLeake
July 1, 2009, 09:00 PM
Need to work on my reading thoroughness. The article did say police responded to a call after a body was discovered. This also means I may have misunderstood his comment to Vanya.

However, I have not seen any police or DA statements about whether the shooter also called it in, or failed to do so. Article does not mention how the shooter and his brother were identified.

Can't find any follow-up articles so far.

PT111
July 1, 2009, 09:48 PM
I did not catch the part about the body being found the first time I read it either. I watched the video and there is where I picked it up and reread the article. Since they did not give any names it has been hard to seach for more info in it and the only additional thing I found was the rumor in the comments. I tried to be very careful in saying that those were rumors. I would like to know how they traced the body to the shooter.

Nnobby45
July 1, 2009, 10:57 PM
So many mentions of this "apprehending" and "citizens arrest" and so few posts, like zero, with the actual statute.... hard to make a claim or judgement without the law...


Now that we agree, perhaps you could be less judgemental with re: to labeling a controversial incident not framed in precise statutes as "straight up murder".;)

cloud8a
July 1, 2009, 11:00 PM
So are the cops morally responsible for the suspects death if they shot him when he pulled a weapon, after they chased him down? OR SINCE WE PAID THEM to do it with our tax money they are not morally responsible any more?

I guess the laws of morality change when money is involved.

Ricky B
July 2, 2009, 12:22 AM
But the homeowners didn't have to give chase. They could have just sat tight until cops arrived. Is there no moral responsibility for having handled the situation incorrectly?

Yes they didn't have to give chase. But they didn't have to not give chase either. They were well within their legal and moral rights to pursue the intruder.

Is pursuing someone who has kicked in your door somehow immoral? I don't see that.

I agree that if the purpose was to administer a beating it would be improper if they actually caught the guy and harmed him instead of turning him over to the cops.

But if the purpose was to catch the guy and turn him over to the cops, I see nothing morally incorrect about pursuing him. And if the end result is that the pursuers shoot the BG in self-defense (BG pulls a gun to keep from being captured and turned over to the cops), I see no moral responsibility on their part.

Keep in mind that breaking and entering an occupied dwelling has a high degree of moral culpability (as well as being a serious criminal offense), not only because it inherently involves dishonesty but also because it creates an unnecessary of risk of death or serious injury. To shift blame to the victims of the crime is not something I can accept.

Personally, I am unlikely to take the course of action of pursuing BGs, and I wouldn't recommend it to most others, but that's because of practical considerations, not because I think it morally or legally improper.

skydiver3346
July 2, 2009, 07:53 AM
Your quote: "They gave chase with a firearm, when their life was no longer in danger".... Says who?

What if the dirt bag decides to come back later for revenge for confronting him? Maybe he brings a couple buddies, etc. It is certainly possible.
No, this needs to end here and now. Breaking down your front door is a serious crime and puts you and your family's life in danger.

What about the nice folks who have their door kicked in like this and they DON'T have a firearm to protect themselves? No, this depends on each of us and our beliefs on how to handle this situation. The bad guy here needs to be arrested or taken out of the equation (if he pulls a weapon on you). That is my personal opinion (and opinions vary). I just can't envision some scum bag kicking down my front door (committing a home invasion) and being able to just walk or run away without any repercussions for his actions.
Ain't going to happen in my home, period. Like I have mentioned in earlier posts, I live pretty far out of town and the police would take forever to get to my house. No, I believe I would have my wife call the police while I am going after the perp.

OldMarksman
July 2, 2009, 08:31 AM
What if the dirt bag decides to come back later for revenge for confronting him? Maybe he brings a couple buddies, etc. It is certainly possible.

Absolutely and completely irrelevant to the legality of using deadly force, whether by a civilian or a sworn officer.

While a civilian may be able to effect a citizen's arrest, it is dangerous and fraught with not only civil but criminal liability. Better to leave that to sworn, trained, and indemnified officers.

Breaking down your front door is a serious crime and puts you and your family's life in danger.

Yes indeed. Opponents of "castle laws" don't seem to get that.

What about the nice folks who have their door kicked in like this and they DON'T have a firearm to protect themselves?

I've argued that point for decades.

I just can't envision some scum bag kicking down my front door (committing a home invasion) and being able to just walk or run away without any repercussions for his actions.

Most people agree with that, but personally, I prefer to leave the enforcement task for those we pay and equip, and to avoid the risks of being shot, stabbed, sued, charged, and possibly convicted and imprisoned.

What these guys did was incredibly risky. Depending on the outcome, it may also prove to have been incredibly stupid. But none of us can decide that.

Winchester_73
July 2, 2009, 09:02 AM
How many posters does it take to realize most of the arguments/opinions put forth rely on speculations about what actually happened? The answer is everyone before me. The article does not have enough information to voice opinions on whether the burgular is innocent or whether the guys pursuing him were innocent in what happened. Since he's dead its possible that the truth will never be known.

One thing that I think people are forgetting is this: you can say all you want that they should have let the burgular go and it was stupid to chase (I do agree with that) HOWEVER until it happens to you, don't try to say what they should have done. Its easy to say what they should have done as we sit on our PCs and laptops, throwing out opinions from the comfort of our own home or workplace. How many of the posters actually have personal experience with any of this?

Think about it...

OldMarksman
July 2, 2009, 09:20 AM
How many posters does it take to realize most the arguments/opinions put forth rely on speculations about what actually happened? The answer is everyone before me.

Well, no, CSMSSS said something similar in Post 76:

...there is a profound dearth of reliable information on this case, so it's way too early to make any determination as to whether the shooter's actions were justified, somewhat justified, or entirely unjustified.
......

Hopefully we'll learn more about these events, the shooter's actions and the entirety of the circumstances preceding the shooting. Until then, I'm going to reserve judgement about the shooter's culpability, if there be any.


...which I believe is right on point.

The article does not have enough information to voice opinions on whether the burgular is innocent or whether the guys pursuing him were innocent in what happened.

Many others, including I, have said or implied that.

Its easy to say what they should have done as we sit on our PCs and laptops, throwing out opinions from the comfort of our own home or workplace. How many of the posters actually have personal experience with any of this?


I've had two home invasions and one attempt at forcible entry, and stopped all of them with firearms. My own home was less "comfortable" during each of these events.

And I sure as heck didn't venture out into the dark unknown in pursuit of any of them. Not because I was thinking about the law or morality, but because I thought it would have been foolhardy.

Rich Miranda
July 2, 2009, 09:36 AM
until it happens to you, don't try to say what they should have done. Its easy to say what they should have done as we sit on our PCs and laptops, throwing out opinions from the comfort of our own home or workplace. How many of the posters actually have personal experience with any of this?

Winchester, I can't speak for others but I operate under the assumption that we are all armchair quarterbacks (unless stated otherwise). Thank God, most of us have not had similar experiences, so all we can do is give our opinion as to what is right and wrong and give our best guess as to what we would have done.

I personally would never go after the suspect. What if I lose him and he circles back around and goes right back in the house? Unlikely but possible. Then, while I'm outside playing grabazz in the bushes, he has the run of my home and family.....

Nah, I stay in the place I'm able to mount the best defense I can: my home. The cops can have the job of "playing cops".

Ricky B
July 2, 2009, 10:32 AM
How many posters does it take to realize most of the arguments/opinions put forth rely on speculations about what actually happened?

Most, if not all, of us realize that we are responding to a hypothetical that is based on an actual incident. We assume certain facts to make the hypothetical complete. That doesn't mean it's not a useful exercise. After all we are not sitting as the jury and are not in fact deciding the actual fate of the actors in the actual incident.

For example, sentiments like the following are often voiced on this board:

What if the dirt bag decides to come back later for revenge for confronting him? Maybe he brings a couple buddies, etc. It is certainly possible.
No, this needs to end here and now.

This is a sentiment that needs addressing. If the purpose of ending it "here and now" is self-defense, posters need to be told that self-defense is not available to prevent future harm and therefore someone who decides to ends it "here and now" may be found guilty of criminal homicide. Even if the person who makes such a post is not deterred, others reading reasoned rebuttals of tough guy talk may conform their conduct to the law.

MLeake
July 2, 2009, 10:52 AM
Went to school with a girl whose dad did a stint in prison for either manslaughter or lesser homicide. Some dirtbag had threatened to harm the girl to retaliate for some perceived harm done him by the father. The father took him seriously, and killed the guy to prevent him from coming back later to follow up on his threat.

While the threat may have been believable, it wasn't imminent, and preventive self-defense/defense of loved ones didn't fly in court.

OldMarksman
July 2, 2009, 11:39 AM
For example, sentiments like the following are often voiced on this board:


What if the dirt bag decides to come back later for revenge for confronting him? Maybe he brings a couple buddies, etc. It is certainly possible.
No, this needs to end here and now.

This is a sentiment that needs addressing. If the purpose of ending it "here and now" is self-defense, posters need to be told that self-defense is not available to prevent future harm and therefore someone who decides to ends it "here and now" may be found guilty of criminal homicide. Even if the person who makes such a post is not deterred, others reading reasoned rebuttals of tough guy talk may conform their conduct to the law.

Copying and pasting because it bears repeating---again and again.

RevJim
July 2, 2009, 12:47 PM
We do not have enough information so far to determine what happened. But for those who are quick to condemn the two men for vigilante justice, what about this...

The man had been drinking at a local bar. Suppose he got angry with another patron and decided to settle the issue with a bullet. Since he has no gun himself, he decides to visit someone that he knows has several guns. Suppose he asks the people he knows for a gun, but they refuse. So he breaks in, grabs a gun, and heads back for the bar. The two brothers race after him to try to calm him down and talk him out of his intent to kill someone at the bar. (That would be referred to as "tracking" and not "pursuing" or "hunting down for vigilante justice.") The man refused to back down from his intent - he became a threat to a 3rd party. At that point, suppose the brother pulled his gun to stop the man from his stated intent. The thief, in a drunken state, imagined himself to be Jesse James and tried a quick-draw. The brother then shot the man in self-defense.

The two brothers had every right to be there. Whether they were pursuing a man they had seen commit a crime (legal in Texas), tracking the man down to talk him out of his intended action, or following him to make a good witness, the two brothers had the right to be there. It remains to be seen whether they had the right to shoot the man - were they in pursuit of a man who committed a crime, were they following the man to give the police an account, or were they following the man to seek revenge? If the other man had the gun in plain sight, then the brother had the legal right to defend himself. But perhaps they knew the man had stolen their gun, so they knew he was a danger, both to themselves and to others.

Having said all of that, why did they not call the police immediately? That makes their actions look suspicious! But in Texas, there are many ways the shooting would have been self-defense, and only a few ways that it would not. We can say they were foolish to "track the intruder down," but perhaps they did not think the man would use the gun on them (especially if they knew him). So let's keep discussing the tactics and what we would do, but let's wait before we pronounce the two men guilty (and there may be plenty of time for that).

Vanya
July 2, 2009, 01:03 PM
Since he has no gun himself, he decides to visit someone that he knows has several guns. Suppose he asks the people he knows for a gun, but they refuse. So he breaks in, grabs a gun, and heads back for the bar.

...Which raises another point: it's probably not the best idea to leave guns lying around where someone who knows you have them can bust in, grab one, and dash off again. If the gun in question had been locked up, none of this need have happened.

I know this is yet more speculation, which isn't what this thread needs, but the facts as given do suggest that the gun the fellow stole was lying around in plain sight, or (at best) in a drawer or some other location he knew about. The "tactical" lesson here isn't too hard to figure, I don't think: lock them up, keep them on you, or at the very least, don't boast about where you keep them to barroom acquaintances...

OuTcAsT
July 2, 2009, 06:51 PM
What if the dirt bag decides to come back later for revenge for confronting him?

Why does this come up so often?

Is anyone naive enough to believe this is a legitimate question you get to ask ?

Just so everyone is crystal clear on this subject...

You cannot legally use this as a defense, you cannot (IMO) Morally justify this as a defense.


"What if he comes back ?" is no more valid than "What if the sky falls ?" is. You likely will fail miserably if you go to court and tell a jury "I shot him in self defense because I was afraid he might retaliate" or if you pursue him due to that fear, and then claim " I was chasing him to effect a citizens arrest, he pulled a weapon and I had to defend myself"

All this "citizens arrest" hoopla is a fantasy. While it could be construed as legal, your defense of it will be "difficult" at best.

While the basic tenets of law assume that the prosecution has the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" Do not believe that the real judicial system works that way. A Jury is simply clay, waiting to be formed. You are not at the mercy of 12, but of two lawyers.

Zombi
July 2, 2009, 08:48 PM
They murdered that man.

They took a gamble of tracking him down and confronting him and lost. This is what the police are for. They were not in immediate danger and should not have pursued and confronted the bad guy. Confronted is the key word, there is no way to prove how the confrontation went down, who drawed first. The dead guy could have been scared for his life not having any idea who the other two guys were.

Had this scenario unfolded in the house or on their property I would of sided the other way.

skydiver3346
July 2, 2009, 09:31 PM
Quote: "You cannot legally or morally use this as a defense".....

Wow, your knowledge of the legal system and you attorney skills are just amazing....

I never mentioned anything about what I was going to use as a defense for going after the bad guy. All I said was I would have my wife call the police and I would go after him myself. That is what I would do, period. Hopefully I could stop him and keep him under a citizen's arrest till the police finally arrive. If he pulled a gun on me, then I would have to shoot him, period. Nothing will change my mind about that.

As stated previously, I live far out of town and law enforcement would be a long time coming. In the meantime, the perp (who just kicked down my front door (in a home invasion attempt) is getting away scot free. Sorry bud, but that just ain't going to cut it with me.

We all are different in our makeup I guess. We aren't all wired the same and that is just the way it is. I have never been arrested before in my life. I am not looking to find any trouble. However, I am not going to let someone commit such an egregious act againist my family and just walk away without consequences. You do what you think is best, so will I.

Zombi
July 2, 2009, 10:00 PM
You're are not a LEO you are not protected under the law in a manner that allows you to pursue a fleeing burglar and use deadly force. It is absolutely ridicules to assume that your actions are legally justified. The perp is not going after you, you're chasing him.

The burglar can damn near be justified to shoot you. He is scared for his life and he is trying to get away from you.

If you can contain him at your residents great!!! If not its out of you hands.

skydiver3346
July 2, 2009, 10:38 PM
Hey Zombi, Aren't you the dude that just quoted: "They Murdered that man"....
Yeah, that is really a compassionate way to show your support for the bad guy.
Poor Perp, he kicks down the home owner's front door and then pulls a gun on him when they try to stop him from fleeing after his crime.

By the way, I don't believe I mentioned anything about being a law enforcement officer and/or being in any way "protected" for going after the bad guy who just licked in my front door. I also never said anything about being legally justified either. As you stated, "the burglar would be justified in shooting me", (for trying to stop him after he tried to break in my home).
Man, you are really something. You probably support Sotomayor for the Supreme Court too!

Zombi
July 2, 2009, 10:56 PM
I don't mean to defend the burglar. I would like to have seen the bastard shot dead at the house he was robing.

Unfortunately once he leaves the immediate area its a different situation. A non-LEO has no business going after him. The burglar has as much right to defend himself at this point. Its your word against his. If I was the burglar I would be in fear for my life not knowing the mental state or intentions of the person pursuing me.

Ricky B
July 2, 2009, 11:32 PM
The burglar has as much right to defend himself at this point.

The law is clear that burglars and robbers may not use force to prevent themselves from being captured by the police or for the police.

Sportdog
July 3, 2009, 01:16 AM
This thread needs to be transfered to the legal forum. All that is being discussed is the morality or legal aspect of chasing someone down after they attempt to gain forced entry to your home. Tactics would involve ways to keep yourself safe and/or shoot or beat the heck out of the BG trying to break down your door. Training would involve practice in shooting and beating BG's.

PT111
July 3, 2009, 06:22 AM
A little more on this story. If you read the comments I think you find that the citizen's arrest defense just will not hold up. So many holes in this story it makes like Swiss cheese look like pepper jack. However I think it will be self-defense in the end.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Police_investigate_shooting_death_.html


Police said a Northwest Side shooting death Sunday night could be justified in self-defense.


Witnesses told police that a 26-year-old man broke into a friend’s home in the 9600 block of Timber Laurel after he was kicked out of a bar for causing a disturbance.


Later in the evening, the owner of the gun confronted the alleged thief in the 5200 block of Northwest Trails.


The men struggled over the weapon before a third man, the gun owner’s brother, shot the suspect about 10:45 p.m., police said. The suspect died at the scene, while the shooter fled.


Police said the shooter likely would not face charges because he was defending his brother.


When detectives first arrived at the scene, the gun owner claimed to have shot the suspect, according to the police report.


A witness told police that the man urged everyone there to “shut up” about his brother’s role because he “would take the rap” for the incident, the document states.


The shooter eventually drove to police headquarters and confessed to shooting the other man in defense of his brother, police said. He has not been charged

OuTcAsT
July 3, 2009, 09:36 AM
The law is clear that burglars and robbers may not use force to prevent themselves from being captured by the police or for the police.


While the law is clear, the issues are a bit more complicated than that.

Let's put it this way, If I kick in your door, you confront me, and I run away, you can, in some States, attempt to chase me down, and hold me for police. Just as your statement says, I may not use force to prevent my capture by the citizen, but, If I decide to, and kill you in the process, what then? As far as anyone else is concerned, I am just a guy out for a stroll, and some nut just tried to attack me, I shot him to defend myself. You won't get to tell your side.

Can you see how many ways this can, and likely will, go wrong? You continue to quote the law as if that should make it fine to attempt a citizens arrest, based only on the fact that the law says the bad guy cannot resist. Problem is, bad guys usually don't follow the law.

Just because something is legal, does not make it a good idea.

Wow, your knowledge of the legal system and you attorney skills are just amazing....

Thanks, I think they are right on par with your tactical planning, could be we both need a bit more study? It has nothing to do with legal skill, and everything to do with common sense. Sadly, a character trait that seems less common all the time.

TailGator
July 3, 2009, 09:50 AM
To me, the quote and article referenced in post #157 reads quite a bit differently than the OP. Maybe the most important lesson is to be skeptical of getting the whole story from the press.

Vanya
July 3, 2009, 10:01 AM
All good points, OuTcAsT.
As far as anyone else is concerned, I am just a guy out for a stroll, and some nut just tried to attack me, I shot him to defend myself. You won't get to tell your side.
And since this is the Tactics Forum, I don't think it's off-topic to point out that this case -- as the quote above suggests -- is a good example of why it may be a bad idea to intervene, as a CHL-holding "good citizen," in a situation involving third parties.

Suppose you're a passer-by who sees all this happening. You see two guys, gun in the hand of one, maybe both, chasing a third. YOU DO NOT KNOW who, if anyone, is the good guy here. If you get involved, what's going to happen?

You pull your gun, tell them all to cut it out, and get shot by any of them...

You pull your gun, shoot the homeowner and his brother (assuming they are both holding guns and threatening the other guy, this might look like a "good shoot")... and then learn they were chasing a home invader...

The odds of a positive outcome aren't too good, I think. If ever there were a case for "Call 911 and and be a good witness," this is it.

Double Naught Spy
July 3, 2009, 10:26 AM
Just because something is legal, does not make it a good idea.

Just because it may not be a good idea does not make it wrong. In fact, depending on your personal perspective, values, etc., it may be a bad idea, but the absolutely right thing to do.

Lot's of things aren't a good idea to somebody just like the silly calls for morality when it comes to self defense or justice. The anti-gunners may acknowledge that gun ownership is legal, but certainly feel it is a bad idea. Heck, some even feel gun ownership crosses a moral line.

Is that going to stop you from being a gun owner just because somebody else thinks it is a bad idea?

Are you going to not do something because it does not agree with somebody else's morals?

The law is in place so that we might have a society standard by which behavior may be measured. Everyone has their own idea of what is a good idea or moral and that is perfectly fine at the individual level, but it doesn't work very well to supercede the law in determining what others should or should not, can or cannot do.

Can you see how many ways this can, and likely will, go wrong?

Yep, great argument against activism. Just like the notion of drawing a gun and using it in self defense against an attacker. Can you see how many ways that could go wrong? This argument has been the fuel for folks like anti-gunners against concealed carry or even against gun ownership for self defense.

So was chasing down the interloper bad tactics? We don't really know. We don't know what tactics were used in the process. We just know the result.

OldMarksman
July 3, 2009, 10:46 AM
To me, the quote and article referenced in post #157 reads quite a bit differently than the OP. Maybe the most important lesson is to be skeptical of getting the whole story from the press.

Good point. It's also probably not a good idea to assume that the reported comments by the police ("likely would not face charges") can necessarily be relied upon.

Same thing was apparently said initially in the Bexar County home invasion case, which resulted in the recent indictment of the homeowner for murder two years later.

Wonder how long it will take for this one to unfold?

Legality (and morality) aside, I agree with Outcast's assessment that the actions taken by the shooter and his brother may not have been a good idea from the risk standpoint. One or both of them could easily have been killed or maimed. And for what potential gain? It's not at all like a self defense incident in which the confrontation that led to the shooting could not be avoided.

How does the saying go? Something about the best way to approach a gunfight being to avoid one? If you know that someone has kicked in the door to your house, you have reason to assume that he is not a law abiding citizen and that he is likely very dangerous.

It would be very interesting to hear from a current or former police officer about how they would have approached the task of apprehending the intruder, what they would not have done, and how that might differ from what was reportedly done in this case.

OuTcAsT
July 3, 2009, 11:08 AM
Just because it may not be a good idea does not make it wrong.

I agree completely, Just like some would argue that OC is a bad idea, that does not make it wrong.

The law is in place so that we might have a society standard by which behavior may be measured. Everyone has their own idea of what is a good idea or moral and that is perfectly fine at the individual level, but it doesn't work very well to supercede the law in determining what others should or should not, can or cannot do.


So, your argument is that, as long as it's "legal", then you, (collectively) are the only person who can decide whether it is "unwise"? OK fair enough. If I see someone dousing himself with gasoline, and about to light a match, does my pointing out that his actions may be unwise diminish his ultimate freedom to decide that for himself ?

Yep, great argument against activism. Just like the notion of drawing a gun and using it in self defense against an attacker. Can you see how many ways that could go wrong? This argument has been the fuel for folks like anti-gunners against concealed carry or even against gun ownership for self defense.

Not an argument at all, merely pointing to the gas can, and the match. And any statement taken out of context can be twisted in such a manner, but you already know that. Again, pointing out the gas can, and match makes me neither anti-gasoline, nor, anti-match.

We just know the result.

Respectfully, I don't think the final result has been determined just yet.;)

OuTcAsT
July 3, 2009, 11:27 AM
It's not at all like a self defense incident in which the confrontation that led to the shooting could not be avoided.


This is the key ! ^^

Ricky B
July 3, 2009, 11:52 AM
Can you see how many ways this can, and likely will, go wrong? You continue to quote the law as if that should make it fine to attempt a citizens arrest, based only on the fact that the law says the bad guy cannot resist.

Of course, I see how it could go wrong. I think you misunderstand me. I am in no way urging victims to pursue intruders and make citizen's arrests. I am rejecting arguments that others have made that a victim can't properly pursue an intruder, that only the cops can do it. Whether a victim is looking to turn the BG over to the cops or simply to beat the tar out of the intruder is a factual question that I don't address.

But it's wrong for posters here to say or suggest that a victim who pursues an intruder to catch the BG and turn him over to the cops is committing some kind of crime or is somehow morally culpable. And it's also wrong for posters here to say that a victim who kills the BG in the process is guilty of murder. It ain't necessarily so.

In some cases, the victim may not be legally responsible for the death of the BG. If I have gone beyond that, let me know.

OldMarksman
July 3, 2009, 12:10 PM
I am in no way urging victims to pursue intruders and make citizen's arrests.

Understood, and I am not aware of any knowledgeable person who would responsibly make such a recommendation.

I am rejecting arguments that others have made that a victim can't properly pursue an intruder, that only the cops can do it.

You are of course right regarding "can't and "can." The question comes down to "should", and to me it isn't a moral question at all.

But it's wrong for posters here to say or suggest that a victim who pursues an intruder to catch the BG and turn him over to the cops is committing some kind of crime or is somehow morally culpable.

Agree. To me, the issue is whether it is at all wise to attempt to do so. Very high risks, I think, for little if any potential upside.

And it's also wrong for posters here to say that a victim who kills the BG in the process is guilty of murder. It ain't necessarily so.

True. Of course, a jury could conclude, based on their evaluation of the evidence presented and their impressions of the testimony, that it is murder in one degree or another. And of course, there's the not so insignificant issue of civil liability....

If I have gone beyond that, let me know.

No, you are fine.

OuTcAsT
July 3, 2009, 12:18 PM
But it's wrong for posters here to say or suggest that a victim who pursues an intruder to catch the BG and turn him over to the cops is committing some kind of crime or is somehow morally culpable. And it's also wrong for posters here to say that a victim who kills the BG in the process is guilty of murder.

From a purely technical perspective you may, in some instances be correct. You might want to read this for an example of how the technical can turn against you...

="http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365683"

Wildalaska
July 3, 2009, 12:26 PM
Let me reiterate: Chasing a criminal fleeing the scene, is presumptively the stupidest thing someone can do from a tactical and legal perspective. There are situations where it MAY be appropriate, but, as in every aspect of life, the testosterone switch should always be in the off position from the get go

WildoooorahAlaska ™

Sixer
July 3, 2009, 03:37 PM
I agree with WA that the testosterone should be in check here. Still, there may be other reasons to follow or detain a BG. There have been cases where the BG has returned to finish the job. One could argue that by attempting to "catch" the intruder you have a better likelihood of keeping him away for good...

There is no textbook answer for this because there are just too many variables to consider. When it comes to using deadly force you should only be reacting to what the BG is doing... not what he has done.

Brian Pfleuger
July 3, 2009, 03:52 PM
using deadly force you should only be reacting to what the BG is doing... not what he has done.


and not what he MIGHT do in the future.

PT111
July 3, 2009, 06:08 PM
One thing we need to keep in mind is that unless there are some witnesses which I don't know if there are we only have the brothers side of the story. They say he broke into their house,stole a gun (?), they caught up with him, he struggled and tried to shoot the homeowner, the brother shot the bad guy, they left him there.

How much of this is actually true? Maybe they shot him in the house or yard and dumped his body a few blocks away. Maybe he never was at the house at all and they just happened to meet up with the dead guy. Maybe they shot him on sight and there was no struggle at all. We only have one side of the story and not a very complete one at that.

zonamo
July 3, 2009, 07:15 PM
When it comes to using deadly force you should only be reacting to what the BG is doing

Which, according to the brothers, was taking the gun he had stolen and threatening them with it. According to their story they didn't kill him for breaking into their house. They killed him to prevent the imminent use of deadly force.

Now one can argue until the cows come home about the wisdom or morality of attempting to catch this guy, but it doesn't matter that they would be charged with murder somewhere like Massachussetts because chasing him down and attempting to hold him is apparently legal in Texas and standing your ground when threatened is apparently legal in Texas, which all makes their reaction to getting the stolen gun turned on them apparently legal in Texas. It's no wonder given the way things work in Texas that the Texas cops said it was probably self-defense. Just don't try this in Chicago.

Or course, as PT111 noted, we have and only will have the brother's version of the story. "Lucky" for them.

skydiver3346
July 3, 2009, 07:32 PM
:mad:
I gotta tell you, you guys just kill me. It has nothing to do with our testosterone! It's got to do with being responsible for your family. Guess it's different up where you live.

Man, I am getting really tired of of all the. "let's be nice and don't do anything" response to the bad guys (for for committing crimes to us). Just call the police and everything will be taken care of............ Yeah, right.

This guy just kicked down your front door of your home! He decides to just walk away and you do nothing? He also was armed at the time (which was later found out). Of course upon reflection, you probably gotta know that anyone who kicks down your front door is probably armed to some degree.

In my opinion, it has a lot to do with, "DOING THE RIGHT THING". Which is arresting the SOB, and/or preventing repeat offenders, (even if you have to do it yourself). That is my personal opinion. You and your buddies counter every post (that refers to taking action) with a counter response of doing nothing (but making a phone call). "Call the police, don't do anything", and the bad guys just get away.... Another post said, "The perp has the right to shoot you if you chase him"......... What a crock!

You guys say, "it's not our responsibility to chase the bad guy". I'm sorry, but for some of us, that is just not acceptable. We will take action.

What's really at stake here, is not letting these dirt bags get away with their crimes. Something you say, (should be handled by the authorities). I agree, that the police should take care of problems like this. However, (depending on where you live), that is not always possible. You say, "Call the cops, its not worth the hassle of trying to stop the perp". No way can I allow that to happen.

You can come back and bitch at me if you want, ( I have thick skin, I can take it). But when it gets right down to it, (sooner or later) you have to look in the mirror.

You say "it's just not right to chase down the bad guy, as we can get in trouble with the legal system"? Yes, that may be a possibility and/or result of your actions. But you must understand, that some of us must stand up for what they believe is right.

I am a man and the defender of my home and family. It has nothing to do with being macho, but rather RESPONSIBLE. I don't go looking for trouble and really, try to avoid it (if at all possible). However, I will not allow these personal attacks on my home and property to go unchallenged. These are weird times we live in nowadays. Its just not the same as it used to be. For the criminals, there is no respect for authority and/or life and property.

I just wonder, what will you do one night when the bad guy comes calling on your family and kicks down the door? Call the Mounties?

wickedrider
July 3, 2009, 08:02 PM
OldMarksman's post "Man Chases Intruder from House, Shoots", provides the logical extension to the positions posited in this post. Though the law has changed since the date of occurrence in that situation, many of the principles and thoughts are the same. Texas law may have changed. However, there are many states that still subscribe to the old Texas law.

OldMarksman
July 3, 2009, 09:15 PM
This guy just kicked down your front door of your home! He decides to just walk away and you do nothing?

The guy in Bexar County did not "do nothing" and he has been indicted for murder.

You can use deadly force to protect yourself from imminent danger, but when the man decides to just "walk away," you cannot--it would be murder.

You can go after him to try to hold him for the police. Not wise. All downside, no upside.

He also was armed at the time (which was later found out).

So the shooter and his brother have said. Might be true. Might not be.

And either way, it is completely irrelevant to what you can do, and if he is armed, does that make it wiser to go after him?

In my opinion, it has a lot to do with, "DOING THE RIGHT THING". Which is arresting the SOB, and/or preventing repeat offenders, (even if you have to do it yourself). ... You guys say, "it's not our responsibility to chase the bad guy". I'm sorry, but for some of us, that is just not acceptable. We will take action.

So---you apparently think you have the skills and training. You do not have the indemnification or the back-up.

What's really at stake here, is not letting these dirt bags get away with their crimes.

Agree. They get caught by whomever, and they will probably be prosecuted. Maybe they'll get what they deserve, maybe not. Maybe they'll be back in your neighborhood before you are. You don't control that.

You say "it's just not right to chase down the bad guy, as we can get in trouble with the legal system"?


Not "right"? No, it's not that. It's just not smart. Not smart at all.

"Trouble with the legal system?" We'll, you can be charged, maybe tried, and lose most or all of your money even if you win. If you lose, you lose your clean record, your fortune, your livelihood, and your personal freedom, and your right to own guns--forever. Not to mention civil liability.

And not to mention the possibility of getting maimed or killed.

You say, "Call the cops, its not worth the hassle of trying to stop the perp"


You call the above "hassle?"

I am a man and the defender of my home and family. It has nothing to do with being macho, but rather RESPONSIBLE.

Wouldn't it be wise then to not put your ability to stay in your home, and your ability to provide for your family, at extreme risk?

But let's go along with your idea. A guy has just kicked in your door and taken off. You go after him. You catch up with him. What are you going to do? Say "stop"? If he doesn't, what then? You can't shoot him (but of course, you know that already). Think you can tie him up without being disarmed and shot? What if he is injured or becomes ill, or dies? That's your responsibility then. But of course you already know that.

Even if you should successfully effect a citizen's arrest successfully without being prosecuted, sued, or killed or injured--and that's by far the best case scenario-- how would your family possibly be any safer than if the perp had been brought to justice by the authorities?

If you want to be the man arresting people, attend the police academy. You'll end up with the training; equipment including cuffs, radio, dash-mounted camera, etc.; back-up, approved departmental procedures; legal authority; and indemnification to do the job.

Yes, you would still be exposed to legal risk or at least discipline for wrongful actions, but you wouldn't face the possibility of losing everything you own in civil court--your jurisdiction will take care of that. Yes, you would still face the possibility of getting maimed or killed, but you would at least have better training.

And you would have a much, much lower chance of being shot by the police or by an armed citizen who comes upon the scene.

Having a gun does not begin to confer police powers upon you. If you desire to have them, you have to take some steps to get them.

OuTcAsT
July 3, 2009, 10:32 PM
I gotta tell you, you guys just kill me. It has nothing to do with our testosterone!


I am a man


So, Which is it ?



Man, I am getting really tired of of all the. "let's be nice and don't do anything"

I don't blame you, that would be tiresome, however I have not seen any posts that suggest any such thing, got a quote to that effect?


it has a lot to do with, "DOING THE RIGHT THING"

Most of us are suggesting that the 'right' thing is also the 'smart' thing, and rushing head long into a situation that you likely are not equipped or prepared for is probably not going to be 'right' or 'smart'.

You guys say, "it's not our responsibility to chase the bad guy". I'm sorry, but for some of us, that is just not acceptable.

then "some of you" really need to evaluate why it's un-acceptable.

OldMarksman's post "Man Chases Intruder from House, Shoots", provides the logical extension to the positions posited in this post. Though the law has changed since the date of occurrence in that situation, many of the principles and thoughts are the same.

You should really read that thread, it's very enlightening.

RiverCity.45
July 3, 2009, 10:37 PM
Seems like there are a lot of different ideas about this. In Texas, the use of deadly force is authorized to pursue and recover property under certain conditions:

Penal Code Section 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; (Notice it says "with the property") and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; (such as calling the police?) 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.

skydiver3346
July 4, 2009, 08:15 AM
As I stated in my post (as I always do), that is MY personal opinion. You believe in what you want, as that is fine with me. I live my life the way I think it should be lived. You have different views and I understand that. But I don't think you guys appreciate or respect other people's points of views. That is all I am saying here.

For example: Your quote of "which is it": "I am a man", referring to my testosterone. In my opinion, its got nothing to do with testosterone. Being a man (my definition) is just being responsible and taking care of your family. I am not "being macho" as you suggest, but rather willing to face my responsibilities. Obviously that is a difficult concept for you to grasp, (from reading your responses to my post).

With that said gentlemen, I would like to wish you and your families a great Fourth of July holiday. What a great country we live in as compared to the rest of the world. Let's hope it stays that way............

OuTcAsT
July 4, 2009, 10:18 AM
For example: Your quote of "which is it": "I am a man", referring to my testosterone. In my opinion, its got nothing to do with testosterone. Being a man (my definition) is just being responsible and taking care of your family. I am not "being macho" as you suggest, but rather willing to face my responsibilities. Obviously that is a difficult concept for you to grasp, (from reading your responses to my post).



I completely understand most of what you are saying, I too, am a man, and responsible for the safety of my family, nothing wrong with that. Where our paths differ is that My belief is that the responsibility I have for the safety, and well-being of my family is my primary responsibility. Not only to keep my home secure, and safe, but to also do everything within my power to continue to be the; protector, breadwinner, father, and husband.

Let me put it another way, what could there be, that exists outside your home that is more valuable to you than your family ? Also, what is there outside your home, that is more valuable to your family than you ?

Anyone who knows me, knows that my home is my fortress, and should someone decide to cross that line, they are taking their life in their hands. What happens to the guy depends on his reaction. If he wishes a fight, I will oblige, If he presents enough of a threat, that threat will be neutralized. If he kicks in the door, and realizes he has come too far, and decides to flee, then that's fine. Either way, I have lived up to my responsibility, and most importantly, I have survived. Have I done nothing ? You decide.

Unless I have mis-read your posts, you seem to feel that your responsibility extends beyond mere protection of life and limb, and includes a responsibility of ;

"DOING THE RIGHT THING". Which is arresting the SOB, and/or preventing repeat offenders, (even if you have to do it yourself).

or;

you must understand, that some of us must stand up for what they believe is right.


And therein lies our only difference. Certainly justice needs to prevail, but at what personal cost to you ? Or to your family ?

There is nothing wrong with being a man of strong principle, I admire it, and have stood for it, and, for my Country. I only hope you will not let principles overcome sound judgment. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Have a safe July 4 !

Glenn E. Meyer
July 4, 2009, 10:36 AM
Just a note from a gender sensitive prof - being a man has nothing to do with defending your property or family. People of either gender have equal responsibility for appropriate actions.

If the hidden implication is that is 'manly' to do XY or Z, that is an obsolete view in today's world. However, if 'manly' means irrational or driven by ego - go ahead and use the term.

Here's the deal on the chase - if you chase and tell the person to stop, and they don't - tell me what you are going to do?

Are you ready to wrestle with them? You can't just shoot them in most circumstances.

That's different from telling someone in your house not to move. You might make the case that the person was threatening. If you chase someone and they continue to stroll away from you - then what?

So do you wrestle?

skydiver3346
July 4, 2009, 10:47 AM
Opinions vary and that is good for all of us. To answer your question, "If someone breaks down my front door, am I going to chase them or wrestle with them to stop them from getting away"?? Easy answer for me, YES... I am a person of strong principle and beliefs. That is just the way of my makeup. Most of my life it has provided me with the right direction. Now I am not dense enough to realize that it may always be perfect but for me it works.

Now if the bad guy is foolish enough to pull a weapon on me for trying to stop him (which I sure hope he does not) then I will have to defend myself to the degree that ends the threat. He is NOT going to get away with home invasion and/or scarying my family half to death..... End of story.

Happy 4th of July, I am going to grab a couple hot dogs and a cold beer shortly. Enjoy the holiday!

OuTcAsT
July 4, 2009, 10:52 AM
Just a note from a gender sensitive prof - being a man has nothing to do with defending your property or family. People of either gender have equal responsibility for appropriate actions.


I agree completely Glenn, I know Women who are likely more competent "protectors" than I, no offense was intended.;)

Glenn E. Meyer
July 4, 2009, 11:03 AM
I certainly agree with strong action in the home.

My question was if the person is outside and fleeing - will you wrestle as lethal force is probably precluded.

My proactive wrestling days are over. Too old unless it is active SD.

I specifically asked about wrestling because it is dangerous, esp. if you are armed. Near where I live a SWAT officer got into a wrestling match with a burglar and was disarmed and shot with his own gun. I am not a SWAT officer in youth or training.

Thus, if you follow to aid in the pursuit of the arriving police, I can see that although I might not personally and think is dangerous. But not theoretically incorrect.

But my question deals with the fleeing person who doesn't follow directions - what do you do then? Your options are usually different from the police.

My bit of H2H and knife class suggests, I don't want to initiate close combat.

OldMarksman
July 4, 2009, 11:33 AM
Opinions vary and that is good for all of us.

Well, yeah, but while the underlying facts, and the risk identification, may vary by situation and by jurisdiction, they are not subject to personal opinion. Only the assessment of what risks might be acceptable to assume and the decision about what to do are subject to opinion. It is the former that people have been trying to explain to you.

To answer your question, "If someone breaks down my front door, am I going to chase them or wrestle with them to stop them from getting away"?? Easy answer for me, YES... I am a person of strong principle and beliefs. That is just the way of my makeup. Most of my life it has provided me with the right direction. Now I am not dense enough to realize that it may always be perfect but for me it works.

Then I think you owe it to yourself and to your family to learn what you can and cannot do and how to go about doing it. Look for and take some professional training, sit down with a qualified, experienced criminal trial attorney in your district, and if possible, find out how the best nearby law enforcement agency trains its officers.

From the legal standpoint, you will need to know:


What constitutes a citizen's arrest, and when is it permissible?
How does one effect a citizen's arrest?
What are the limitations--degree of force, time period and conditions of detention, etc.--of what one can do?
What are the liabilities (criminal and civil) assumed by the citizen who attempts to effect an arrest?
What happens when the suspect resists or refuses to comply?


From the tactical standpoint, there are several things to know, most of which can probably best be learned from police procedures and training:


How does one actually capture and restrain a perp in such a situation?
How many persons does it take to do so? What do you do if you are alone?
How does one ensure that it is done safely (weapons retention, suspect is under the influence of controlled substances and extremely powerful and violent, etc.)?
What steps must be taken to ensure that evidence exists after the fact to defend against any claims that unlawful or excessive force was used?
How should a plain-clothes officer or civilian handle things to avoid being identified as a crtiminal and shot by officers arriving on the scene?


He is NOT going to get away with home invasion and/or scarying my family half to death..... End of story.

Actually, that will be determined after the arrest by the justice system under due process, unless you are thinking that you are going to shoot him.

OuTcAsT
July 4, 2009, 12:06 PM
How should a plain-clothes officer or civilian handle things to avoid being identified as a criminal and shot by officers arriving on the scene?

This is possibly one of the biggest liabilities anyone would face in a situation like this, and this is a point that cannot be stressed enough.

Let's assume, for a moment, that one is of a mindset to chase down a BG to hold him for LE to arrive;

How is an officer gonna know who the BG is ?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and conjecture that both of you are the BG to the officer, until (hopefully) things get sorted out.

And if a firearm(s) are involved, things may go south quickly.

Another question to ponder, Let's assume that I am a BG, and walking through a neighborhood. I see a door that looks safe to kick, and I do it, but uh-oh ! somebody is home, I don't want to confront a possibly armed homeowner so, I'm haulin a$$ . But this guy is chasing me.
If I get away, it's all good, but the guy wants to stop me ! when the cops arrive, how is this homeowner going to prove that he is not an aggressor that simply attacked me for no good reason ? Maybe more than one person in the house saw me clearly, maybe not. could be my word against his. Lot's of dynamics involved here.


"If someone breaks down my front door, am I going to chase them or wrestle with them to stop them from getting away"?? Easy answer for me, YES... I am a person of strong principle and beliefs. That is just the way of my makeup. Most of my life it has provided me with the right direction. Now I am not dense enough to realize that it may always be perfect but for me it works.

Now if the bad guy is foolish enough to pull a weapon on me for trying to stop him (which I sure hope he does not) then I will have to defend myself to the degree that ends the threat. He is NOT going to get away with home invasion and/or scarying my family half to death..... End of story.


I understand your motivation friend, but what concerns me is your certainty that you can, and will prevail. Not only in HTH combat, but also if a weapon is involved. Also, you don't seem to take into account the possibility of more than one guy. I do not know you, nor your physical abilities, you may be Jet Li, and Jeff Cooper rolled into one package. But answer this; when you bolt out that door after the BG, how will you assess whether you can "take him" ? And if there are two ? are you still confident that you will prevail ? If you do prevail, certainly you will sleep well knowing you did the right thing, but, if you lose, and are maimed, or killed, will your principles feed, clothe, and protect your family from the next BG ? Or do your principles and beliefs just make you unable to fathom that there might be that chance ?

MLeake
July 4, 2009, 01:00 PM
Just look up a couple of high vis incidents in NYC, last month, and Orlando, last year. Off duty officer in NYC and plainclothes UCF cop in Orlando got killed by brother officers, who saw men with guns "menacing" others; in both cases, shooting officer claimed the decedent didn't comply with orders to drop weapons.

Don't know if such orders were really given, or if orders were given and not heard, or heard but not comprehended. One of the interesting problems that ties into "fight or flight" is that the body responds physiologically by amping up vision and amping down auditory clues. Not sure how this occurs, but it was taught both in psychology classes when I was in college, and in flight physiology classes in the Navy. Personal experience has borne this out, especially when teaching students in airplanes - the more stressed they get, the less they respond to verbal commands.

So, assuming one is amped up, chasing a bad guy, with weapon displayed (let's assume one isn't intentionally menacing or pointing, but one's SD weapon is a shotgun, so it can't be concealed during pursuit), what happens when an officer happens across the chase?

Again, personally I have no moral problem with the concept of the pursuit, and would abide by legal restrictions in the area. But, tactically, pursuit could be a really bad idea, and it should be extremely justified in one's mind before one attempts it.

Brian Pfleuger
July 4, 2009, 03:17 PM
I completely understand most of what you are saying, I too, am a man, and responsible for the safety of my family, nothing wrong with that. Where our paths differ is that My belief is that the responsibility I have for the safety, and well-being of my family is my primary responsibility. Not only to keep my home secure, and safe, but to also do everything within my power to continue to be the; protector, breadwinner, father, and husband.

Let me put it another way, what could there be, that exists outside your home that is more valuable to you than your family ? Also, what is there outside your home, that is more valuable to your family than you ?

Anyone who knows me, knows that my home is my fortress, and should someone decide to cross that line, they are taking their life in their hands. What happens to the guy depends on his reaction. If he wishes a fight, I will oblige, If he presents enough of a threat, that threat will be neutralized. If he kicks in the door, and realizes he has come too far, and decides to flee, then that's fine. Either way, I have lived up to my responsibility, and most importantly, I have survived. Have I done nothing ? You decide.


Bingo. That's it right there, can't say it any better. Anything beyond that is a clear statement that esoteric things like "justice" and "doing right" are more important than surviving for your family, not just in the context of a world war, or freeing a nation under tyranny, but simply because of a burglary.

Creature
July 4, 2009, 03:35 PM
simply because of a burglary.

... except this wasn't just attempted burglary. It was a armed home invasion, which is a far more heinous crime that is looked upon far differently than burglary.

Still, OutCast's point is spot on.

skydiver3346
July 5, 2009, 09:49 AM
Actually, everyone's point is right on.

We all have our own decisions to make in a crisis situation. There probably is no perfect answer and/or exact right way handle these things. Too many varibles in each scenario. Some decisions are better than others and less risky. My response is probably more aggressive (and may not be the perfect solution for handling this scenario). But it is who I am and what I believe I should do, as a result of an armed home invasion. I just hope I never have to act out what I think I would do if this ever happened to me and my family. But if I ever have to, I know what I will do.

OldMarksman
July 5, 2009, 11:56 AM
.... if I ever have to, I know what I will do.


Then, is one to infer that you know the right answers to the following questions?

What constitutes a citizen's arrest, and when is it permissible?

How does one effect a citizen's arrest?

What are the limitations--degree of force, time period and conditions of detention, etc.--of what one can do?

What are the liabilities (criminal and civil) assumed by the citizen who attempts to effect an arrest?

What happens when the suspect resists or refuses to comply?


How does one actually capture and restrain a perp in such a situation?

How many persons does it take to do so? What do you do if you are alone?

How does one ensure that it is done safely (weapons retention, suspect is under the influence of controlled substances and extremely powerful and violent, etc.)?

What steps must be taken to ensure that evidence exists after the fact to defend against any claims that unlawful or excessive force was used?

How should a plain-clothes officer or civilian handle things to avoid being identified as a criminal and shot by officers arriving on the scene?

Personally, I do not, except for the one about civil liability (I could stand to lose everything).

I also know that police officers around here do not attempt to arrest a suspect alone.

For the reasons that I do not know the answers, that I do not have backup, and that taking the risks seem foolhardy to me, I also know what I will do, and that is to let sworn officers do their duty.

I have not yet figured out any conceivable reason why the community would be any better off if I were to attempt and safely, successfully, and lawfully conduct an arrest myself. The guy will go to the same booking room anyway.

But--if that's your decision, proceed, in ignorance or with the necessary knowledge, whichever it is. Perhaps you will be very lucky indeed.

BikerRN, who is one person who has the training, practical knowledge, and professional experience to credibly weigh in on a subject of this kind, said the following in regard to another case of home invasion:

"While I understand the desire to detain and hold for arrest someone that breaks in to your domicile, I cannot condone it.

"Only a fool would leave the safety of their home to chase an intruder."


http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3575345&postcount=21

OuTcAsT
July 5, 2009, 09:57 PM
Then, is one to infer that you know the right answers to the following questions?...

For his sake, I sure as Hell hope so OldMarksman,

As for me, I will have to rely on old age and treachery :D

Zilmo
July 5, 2009, 10:06 PM
No way in hell that I chase some douchebag OUT of my house and try to catch him. He's gone, doors are re-locked, 911 is called, and I wait, armed, until the cops come and the 911 operator says it's time to dis-arm.

skydiver3346
July 6, 2009, 09:43 PM
Quote: "Then is one to infer that your know all the the right answers to following questions"? (your questions of course)...

NO. I DON'T KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS... Never said I did, just what I would do in this particular scenario.

Seems like only YOU have all the right answers. I will leave the answer dept. to your exertise, (the resident genius).

MLeake
July 6, 2009, 09:49 PM
... but you know what you intend to do,

it's kind of a "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" mindset.

Frankly, if you are so determined to give pursuit should the situation arise, you have no excuse for not looking up the answers to those questions pertinent to your locale. You already know you plan to chase. You already know there could be legal issues. Many of those issues have been identified for you.

Other than pure stubbornness, why would you not look up the answers for your state and county?

skydiver3346
July 6, 2009, 10:07 PM
:rolleyes: You just answered your own question....

Note: Someone just kicked down the front door of your home, (its called a home invasion last time I checked). I guess you are going to look up all the regs and laws of your state before doing anything at that exact instant?

Sure, we can all sit back and reflect on what we should or would do, if it happened to us. Reading this off our website affords you the luxury of making the perfect decision. However, when this situation did occur, (in real time) there was no warning or time to look up the regs or laws. The guy was getting away. All I said, is that is not going to happen on my watch. I really don't care what you would do, (that is your business) and you live in another state. I was just stating what I would do. End of story..........

MLeake
July 6, 2009, 10:15 PM
and not the original guy. Unlike him, you are thinking about this in advance. You DO have the time to research legal ramifications.

Put it another way. By profession, I'm a pilot. Pilots frequently do something called "hangar flying." This is where we sit around with other pilots, and talk about bad situations that we have personally encountered, or we read up on accident reports submitted by or about other pilots. The idea isn't to Monday morning quarterback everybody, the idea is to avoid having to learn everything for the first time when it happens to you.

You'd be amazed at the things you can recall under pressure, when you've drilled them enough times. You'd also be amazed by how many problems in the air are eerily similar to problems others have already encountered. Having discussed fires, engine failures, weather encounters ad nauseam, I have been much better prepared when I've subsequently experienced my own fires, engine failures, and weather encounters. (And yes, I've had several... the joys of military aviation... it's nice to have multiple engines, and a well trained crew)

My point is that you take the time to read the forums, and to get involved in debates. Why not take some time to review your own statutes? It could make a world of difference to you someday.

OuTcAsT
July 6, 2009, 10:23 PM
Someone just kicked down the front door of your home, (its called a home invasion last time I checked). I guess you are going to look up all the regs and laws of your state before doing anything at that exact instant?


Can't speak for him or any of the other of us "resident geniuses" but If I had already made up my mind that if some guy kicks down my door, And I plan to ignore all common sense because of some form of "personal honor" machismo, and having admitted that I do not have a clue how I am gonna handle it because I am much too "manly" for that. I think I would spend some time looking into life insurance quotes, so that my wife, and kids, will have the financial aid to help their "New Daddy" keep them safe after my Funeral.

End of story..........

Most likely.

skydiver3346
July 6, 2009, 10:33 PM
:p You just have to get in the last words don't you. Okay, you win!

But alas, as I stated earlier: END OF STORY.........

Re4mer
July 6, 2009, 10:35 PM
It was probably not the right idea chasing the guy down since they already knew who he was. It also seems odd because he didn't even have any of their property with him so what was the motivation nothing could have been gained? I speculate that there is some kind of back story to all this, perhaps its drug/gang related or even a long time feud. People generally don't try to kick down the door of someones house they know while armed. Too bad we don't have more info.

OldMarksman
July 6, 2009, 10:41 PM
NO. I DON'T KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS... Never said I did, just what I would do in this particular scenario.

And you believe that it is somehow not completely foolhardy to enter into irreversible, serious action that can alter your life forever without knowing those answers?

You said you will give chase. Do you have any idea at all what you would do upon intercepting the suspect?

Seems like only YOU have all the right answers. I will leave the answer dept. to your exertise, (the resident genius).

Nope. Not at all. I said I know only the answer to one of the questions. The one about civil liability, which could ruin me and mine. There are ten others that I do not know the answers to.

And that's one reason why I wouldn't head out into the dark after someone....

I guess you are going to look up all the regs and laws of your state before doing anything at that exact instant?

Come again? Who in his right mind would do that? The time to learn, the time to train, is before the eventuality.

I was about to describe an analogy about getting into an airplane with the idea of going somewhere and landing without first learning how the particular airplane performs, without developing a flight plan, etc., when I noticed MLeake's post. Upon reflection, a better analogy would be getting in and trying to take off without having any knowledge at all of the principles of flight.

However, when this situation did occur, (in real time) there was no warning or time to look up the regs or laws. The guy was getting away.

Referring to the OP? We know that someone was shot, and we've heard what the shooter and his brother said. Do we know that someone was "getting away"?

Do what you want. With luck--quite a bit of luck, probably--your family just might come out OK. Hopefully, your actions, taken in the admitted ignorance of the answers to the critical pertinent questions, will not result in adverse action against the rights and ability of others to defend themselves lawfully, whatever happens to you.

PT111
July 7, 2009, 05:55 AM
It was probably not the right idea chasing the guy down since they already knew who he was. It also seems odd because he didn't even have any of their property with him so what was the motivation nothing could have been gained? I speculate that there is some kind of back story to all this, perhaps its drug/gang related or even a long time feud. People generally don't try to kick down the door of someones house they know while armed. Too bad we don't have more info

There are rumors from the comments on the story that he took a gun from their house. This adds even more confusion as supposedly he kicked down the door and found them home and took off. If so how did he get the gun with them in there? The reason he broke in was to get the gun and go back to the jbar that he had been kicked out of to show them who was tougher. He knew they had a gun and where it was. As I say lots of holes in this story.

Donn_N
July 7, 2009, 03:26 PM
There are so many facts missing in this story that to debate what happened seems a bit silly. Almost all arguments are assuming, as they say, facts not in evidence. As long as it is okay to do so, I've come up with the real truth of what happened by assuming my own facts not in evidence...

The dead guy (Subject A) was strolling along the street when he saw the homeowner's brother (Subject B) committing a violent felony against a little old lady. Subject A yelled and Subject B ran. Subject A, being full of honor and principle, pursued and watched Subject B enter a dwelling. Feeling that he had to make the citizen's arrest, Subject A kicked in the door whereupon he was met by Subject B and his brother, the home's owner (Subject C).

Realizing he was outmatched, Subject A fled whereupon Subjects B and C pursued, Subject B grabbing a gun as they left the house. As Subjects B and C caught up with Subject A, Subject B pointed the gun at him. Although Subject A attempted to draw his own legally carried concealed weapon, he was unsuccessful and Subject B shot him to death.

While waiting for the police, Subjects B and C concocted the story that is now being accepted as fact despite any independent proof.

PT111
July 7, 2009, 03:48 PM
Subject B, being full of honor and principle

I think you meant Subject A but your story makes about as much sense as some that have been posted. :)