PDA

View Full Version : Man Chases Intruder from House, Shoots


OldMarksman
July 2, 2009, 11:00 PM
Here's another one. Two years since the shooting, and now an indictment.

A man in Texas chased a man from his living room and killed him. The homeowner said the man, who had been discovered in his house during the night, had lunged at him, and that he was trying to hold him for the police. The intruder departed from the house and the homeowner fired, killing the intruder.

The police initially apparently thought the shooting to have been justified. However, the shooter has since been indicted for murder.

Almost two years elapsed between the time of the shooting and the indictment.

Food for thought.

A 49-year-old man who chased a young man from his living room in the middle of the night two years ago, repeatedly shooting the drunken college student in the street, was indicted this week on a murder charge.

Raymond Lemes was released Thursday from Bexar County Jail after posting $75,000 bond. Lemes was arrested a day earlier, after a Bexar County grand jury decided he should be put on trial for the Aug. 4, 2007, death of Tracy Glass.

Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing. He'd been trying to detain the intruder until police arrived, he said.

Lemes indicated at the time of the shooting that he was protecting himself, but prosecutors said Thursday they sought the indictment because he shot the unarmed man five times after Glass already had fled the house without any of the homeowner's belongings.

“Initially, I think (police) had been viewing it as a justifiable shooting,” District Attorney Susan Reed said.

Reed said police in December referred the case to her office so that prosecutors could review and consider presenting it to a grand jury for prosecution.

After that, she said, her office took time to visit the scene and conduct its own investigation.

“We wanted to give a full picture to the grand jury,” she said. “We wanted to make sure they had everything possible.”

Reed said Lemes was invited to speak before the grand jury, but never responded.

Attorneys for Lemes didn't return repeated calls Thursday seeking comment. Relatives at the house where the shooting occurred also declined to comment Thursday about the indictment.

Authorities said that after waking to his wife's screams and grabbing his .40-caliber handgun, Lemes found the Angelo State University student crouched beside his couch at about 2:45 that Saturday morning, according to a 2007 Bexar County medical examiner's investigation report.

But prosecutors Thursday said their investigation revealed Lemes and Glass didn't encounter each other until the young man already had run from the house.

“It wasn't like there was a confrontation or a struggle,” First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said. “Our investigation indicates he was high-tailing it out of the house with the homeowner in pursuit.”

After the shooting, Lemes placed his gun on the street and waited for police to arrive.

Texas law traditionally allows a homeowner to fire at an intruder if he believes it's the only way to protect his property, but prosecutors said Glass was empty-handed.

The only other way deadly force would have been justified, they say, is if Lemes reasonably believed his life was in jeopardy or he was in danger of suffering serious bodily injury.

An expanded version of the so-called Castle Doctrine wasn't in effect at the time of the shooting. This extended the rights of residents to protect their property, but Reed said it wouldn't have been relevant anyway.

“In this instance, the trespass had been terminated,” she said. “The guy's running down the street and away. There was no gun found. There was no indication of deadly force being used against the defendant.”

Glass' family members also couldn't be reached for comment Thursday. But they've maintained the shooting was a tragic mistake that resulted in the young man walking into Lemes' house that morning.

The teen had been staying with his sister at a home along Autumn Evening, a cul-de-sac that has backyards adjoining Autumn Star, the cul-de-sac on which Lemes lived. Both homes were located on the right side of the street, were painted similarly and had sliding-glass doors in similar positions.

Lemes' sliding-glass door had previously broken and was unlocked on the night of the incident, according to police reports of the incident.

Glass' parents filed a wrongful death suit against Lemes last year but dropped it in December after deciding little would be accomplished from it, Lubbock-based attorney Chad Inderman said Thursday.

“It was a difficult decision,” he said of abandoning civil proceedings. “I know (the arrest) is not going to bring their son back, but it may let them feel that that the justice system worked.”


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

Vanya
July 3, 2009, 10:34 AM
One wonders what changed, after 2 years. Seems a long time to wait before referring something like this to a grand jury.

OldMarksman
July 3, 2009, 11:45 AM
One wonders what changed, after 2 years. Seems a long time to wait before referring something like this to a grand jury.

Good question.

This case does, however, show that exposure to legal sanctions in a homicide case exists until there has been an acquittal in trial court or the death of the person who committed the act, whichever comes first.

That's an unnerving thought. I conclude from that that it may be extremely unwise to say anything at all to anyone about a shooting unless and until you have gone through the ordeal of a trial and acquittal, or you are on your deathbed.

Scary, ain't it?

OuTcAsT
July 3, 2009, 11:58 AM
But...But... This is Texas, where you can shoot to protect property, Oh wait, the suspect was fleeing !

But Wait, This is Texas, where you can pursue the suspect and make a "citizens arrest". :eek:

And even though the suspect was empty handed, he could have had a gun. :eek:

And what if he decided to come back and retaliate ? :confused:

And of course, the college kid did commit the "heinous" crime of home invasion !


According to the opinions I have seen as of late, it would seem this just cannot be happening !

:rolleyes:

Mello2u
July 3, 2009, 12:11 PM
This is another example of how you are putting yourself at greater legal jeopardy when you pursue someone leaving your home with the possibility/probability of using deadly force.

We have the benefit of a great deal of time (unlike the shooter) to consider the limited facts available at our leisure. Maybe some of us if ever presented with the option to pursue or to stay will benefit from this time deciding whether it is worth the risk of prosecution to pursue.

OldMarksman
July 3, 2009, 12:14 PM
Heh, heh, heh! :)

Wildalaska
July 3, 2009, 12:20 PM
I think the homeowner should be aquitted. Criminals like this teenager are evil and should be eradicated so they cant commit crimes in the future. Im tired of the courts and the simpering criminal lovers on this urging us to cower before the criminal element...thats not what manly, decent red blooded americans do...we destroy the predators.

WildinsertironysmileyhereAlaska TM

I hate it when Outcast beats me to it :)

Vanya
July 3, 2009, 12:51 PM
thats not what manly, decent red blooded americans do...we destroy the predators.

After all, they're predators... it's not like they're human.

(yah, we really, really need that irony smiley, don't we?)

Brian Pfleuger
July 3, 2009, 03:00 PM
Eerily similar to that more recent incident, no?

KCabbage
July 3, 2009, 04:03 PM
Yes the teen made a bad move, but I don't think that warranted death.

Think about this...When I was 15 or so me and some buds were hanging out latenight and decided to go to his house. I've never been to his apartment before, but I had lived in the complex years before. When we got there we went inside his apartment and stood in his living room and chatted deciding to invite some girls. While they were on the way I decided to go get my bottle of liquer from his car. At this point I was already under the influence. So I walked out his sliding glass door that was off his livingroom and proceded up the hill to the parking lot to fetch my bottle. Got my bottle and headed back down the hill passing several sliding glass doors. Since it was late night most of the peoples house lights were off. I finally arrived at a lit up apartment which I thought was the right sliding glass door and went inside to a empty living room. I walked in and wondered where everyone went. I did seem a little different, but nothing to out of the ordinary. Well...there was a huge iguana cage I didn't notice before :confused: I called out "What the hell, where you guys at?" No response. I started walking down the dark hall thinking they were hiding from me or something and was asking where they were in the process. I arrived at a closed bedroom door. I opened it up and asked "Are you guys in here?" and turned on the lightswitch right by the door. As soon as I could see I saw a beast of a man soundly asleep. I can't beleive he didn't wake up, I was being so loud :eek:. As soon as I realized I was in the wrong house I turned his bedroom light back off and quickly proceded back down the hallway to the glass door passing by the shotgun and hunting equipment against the wall and the massive iguana cage. I exited through the same door and hurried down passing a couple more glass doors to finally find my friends where I left them. With my adrenaline rushing I told them what happened and that was the laugh for the night :D

Now what if that guy woke up and blasted me right there? Or chased me out of his apartment to pop some shots into my back? Definately not fair, it was a honest mistake.

If he would have killed me it probably would have looked as if I was a home intuder with evil things on my mind.

Bottom line, I think the homeowner took it too far and needs at least a manslaughter conviction. You can't shoot him expecting "thats how i'll catch and hold him for police." Remember the saying "only point your weapon at something your willing to destroy?"
I doubt the teen even lounged at him.

Vanya
July 3, 2009, 04:10 PM
I doubt the teen even lounged at him.
Now, that would be scary. Posture just ain't what it used to be. :D :D

Sorry, K. Couldn't resist. But you're right on about this, and I think almost everyone who's posted in this thread would agree with you...

And thanks for telling your story. It's useful to put more human faces on these incidents, I think.

Lost Sheep
July 3, 2009, 04:12 PM
A homeowner (R.L.) kills an intruder (T.G.).

Initially, police thought the shooting was justified. R.L.'s testimony was such that it appeared to be a burglary or home invasion of some kind. Subsequent facts revealed it might credibly be a case of a kid new in the neighborhood (and possibly drunk) entering a home that looked like where he was staying through an unlocked door by mistake and running away when chased by a man with a gun. Unlikely to have appeared to have been a threat.

It took two years (according to the prosecutor) to sort out the facts and come to the conclusion that a jury should find the truth.

The Grand Jury deliberated over the facts and concluded that a trial jury should determine culpability.

So, what's the issue? The shooting? The (probable) lying? The two year time frame? The motive of the prosecutor (possible political reasons)? The dropping of the civil suit by T.G.'s family?

Lost Sheep

I don't know what it has been like for R.L. to have this "Sword of Damocles" haging over him, but it looks like he will have the chance to speak freely after his trial.

KCabbage
July 3, 2009, 04:14 PM
Golly darnit, I had a feeling I spelled that wrong :D Thanks Vanya, i'd hate to be shot for lounging :( :D
Longed at him?

Edit - Wait a minute that's not right either....skimmed the first post to get to the bottom of this. LUNGED at him, there we go :cool:

OuTcAsT
July 3, 2009, 04:59 PM
Longed at him?

Lunged.

So, what's the issue? The shooting? The (probable) lying? The two year time frame? The motive of the prosecutor (possible political reasons)? The dropping of the civil suit by T.G.'s family?

I think the "issue" is how this particular incident gives food for thought about similar incidents that are being discussed on several other threads. If you go back and read my sarcastic first post in this thread, you will find questions about specific "rights" or "legal" actions that others have all but claimed were, pardon the pun, bulletproof, and this story is a shining example of how following your gonads, versus common sense, can come back and make your shorts fit a bit more loosely. ;)

Things that are "legal" and acceptable, are not always so unambiguous when viewed by our criminal justice system. What "at the moment" appears to follow the letter of the law, does not always pass the scrutiny of the spirit of the law.

Let us speak plainly;

Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing.

Keep those highlighted words in mind.

they sought the indictment because he shot the unarmed man five times after Glass already had fled the house

Sound similar to a couple of incidents? He shot an unarmed man, five times, You would think that would be acceptable given the circumstances Eh?

“It wasn't like there was a confrontation or a struggle,” First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said. “Our investigation indicates he was high-tailing it out of the house with the homeowner in pursuit.”

You would think that his actions would be justifiable, he just witnessed a crime, and legally has the means to pursue the criminal to "hold him for police" . If so, then why would that be a factor ? My guess is the pursuit may be the first problem.

Texas law traditionally allows a homeowner to fire at an intruder if he believes it's the only way to protect his property, but prosecutors said Glass was empty-handed. Now why would he not be justified in "defending his property" ? perhaps because the threat disappeared out the door. and why should it matter that he was "empty handed" ? Is it possible that the law does not see this as a "heinous" home invasion ? or a lesser "trespass"

The only other way deadly force would have been justified, they say, is if Lemes reasonably believed his life was in jeopardy or he was in danger of suffering serious bodily injury. Like when the BG Lunged at the GG, that surely should have been threat enough, after all, the guy "could" have posed a threat ? Or maybe it is having a hard time passing the "reasonable man" test ? perhaps forensics?

“In this instance, the trespass had been terminated,” she said. “The guy's running down the street and away. There was no gun found. There was no indication of deadly force being used against the defendant.” So, a stranger boldly enters your house, you confront him, he runs, you "give chase" he lunges, as if to attack, you "fear for your life" and fire. and yet even though there are so many laws that seem to favor your position, somehow you could be wrong ? Think about that carefully. Apply that thought to some other incidents under discussion, you may see some things in a slightly different perspective.

Some might conjecture; "Hell OuTcAsT, this is an isolated incident, what are the chances all these factors could come into play anywhere else" ?

Good question !

OldMarksman
July 3, 2009, 06:26 PM
So, what's the issue? The shooting? The (probable) lying? The two year time frame? The motive of the prosecutor (possible political reasons)? The dropping of the civil suit by T.G.'s family?


All of the above.

In particular, the indictment after two years, and the initial position of the police that the shooting had been justified, indicate that what may initially appear to be a "good shoot", as some like to put it, can still turn south a long time later.

But perhaps more importantly, as Outcast points out, this report casts light on a lot of similar incidents and questions that have been discussed in this forum.

For example, the question whether one who has entered someone's abode for any reason has "forfeited his life" or "given up his rights" has been debated.

In response to the question "do you hold 'em or let them go", some have said (discussing the hypothetical) that if someone is in their house "they will be dead". Others have floated the idea of blocking the intruders' exit and claiming self defense.

Posters have spoken of a citizen's duty to stop, kill, or sequester a perp, chasing him down if necessary, so he will not later come back to harm them or commit a crime against someone else at a later time.

Others have spoken in the abstract in favor of the idea of shooting a fleeing felon, which is unlawful in almost all circumstances almost everywhere.

Posters have spoken about whether a person can "choose to end an intruder's life."

Posters have boasted that any intruder in their homes will leave only in police custody or dead.

Some have suggested that it wouldn't matter to them whether the person entered forcibly or in error and that they would not take the time to find out


Mostly bluster, one would hope.

This indictment reminds us that the citizen may use deadly force in self defense outdoors or in, and it alludes to Section 9.42 in the Texas Code that addresses the right to use force to defend property, which did not apply in the case at hand.

If refocuses those points clearly, and it pointedly gives the lie to the apparent belief that a person may have the right to use deadly force on a "BG" in circumstances that do not involve imminent danger, and in particular, to shoot someone who has entered his domicile unlawfully and then elected to leave.

And it underscores the fact that these laws do not only apply in New York and New Jersey and Illinois and California. This happened in Texas.

What's the issue? I think the real "issue" is that this provides an opportunity for readers too learn something very important from this report before they learn it the hard way. There is excellent training available, and there are good books written by experts, but many people have not yet taken advantage of those resources. Good discussions on this forum may help fill in the gap.

Double Naught Spy
July 3, 2009, 07:01 PM
But...But... This is Texas, where you can shoot to protect property, Oh wait, the suspect was fleeing !
No property was involved and it does not matter that he was fleeing if he was carrying property.

But Wait, This is Texas, where you can pursue the suspect and make a "citizens arrest". Yep.

And even though the suspect was empty handed, he could have had a gun.
Homeowner didn't ever state he believed this.

And what if he decided to come back and retaliate ?
Never stated.

And of course, the college kid did commit the "heinous" crime of home invasion !
It certainly could have been, but that event was passed.

According to the opinions I have seen as of late, it would seem this just cannot be happening !

Sure it can. It can because the shooting apparently did not take place within the parameters of the law.

-------
What's the issue? I think the real "issue" is that this provides an opportunity for readers too learn something very important from this report before they learn it the hard way.
Right. Force and lethal force should only be used within the parameters of the law hence one needs to know the law.

wickedrider
July 3, 2009, 07:28 PM
This reeks of political "persecu...I mean prosecution"!!!

Owens187
July 3, 2009, 10:32 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems pretty cut and dry to me. I see no reason whatsoever for the homeowner to have chased him out on the street and shoot him down, when unarmed, retreating, and making no threats. Here in Killifornia, I would be in big, big trouble for doing such a thing. Seems to me the homeowner was just out for "revenge" of some sort, just very angry about finding the kid in his house in the first place. I mean, I could see myself in the same position, and WANTING to chase him down, but at least where I live, thats just not allowed. I don't think the homeowner stands a chance in court, a conviction will come swift...

OuTcAsT
July 3, 2009, 10:46 PM
Sure it can. It can because the shooting apparently did not take place within the parameters of the law.


OK I'll bite, ;) Would you be so kind as to point out where this man fell outside the parameters of the law ?

Perhaps I've missed something ?

jgcoastie
July 4, 2009, 03:06 AM
I wasn't there, but the whole situation seems a bit sketchy... From both sides...

Bet home invasions in that area are non-existant though...

BikerRN
July 4, 2009, 04:01 AM
While I understand the desire to detain and hold for arrest someone that breaks in to your domocile, I cannot condone it.

This reeks of political "persecu...I mean prosecution"!!!

No, this smells like a D.A. that knows what he or she is doing and knows the law.

Only a fool would leave the safety of their home to chase an intruder. There's already been one post of someone walking in to the wrong house at night, with no evil intentions I might add. Many here have stated that "any intruder will be shot." Getting shot seems to be too high of a price in my mind for walking in to the wrong house with no intention of committing a felony there-in.

Biker

Double Naught Spy
July 4, 2009, 06:58 AM
OK I'll bite, Would you be so kind as to point out where this man fell outside the parameters of the law ?

Perhaps I've missed something ?

In this case, it would appear that the operative word of all importance is what George Carlin referred to as stuff. Your home is where you keep your stuff. You may live there too, but it is really just a place to keep your stuff. So...

At night, you can shoot a fleeing burglar who has your stuff if you feel you have no other way to recover said stuff. You can't shoot a fleeing burglar out on the street who doesn't have any of your stuff.

Put another way, the homeowner wasn't knowing shooting to protect property. To the best of my knowledge, the law does not allow for you to shoot a fleeing burglar because you think or believe he may have your property.

Say the burglar broke into the homeowner's car at night and was attempting to drive away. The homeowner could have shot him, even in the street, as a means to recover his property. He would be able to actually see his property being taken away by the burglar.

KCabbage
July 4, 2009, 08:34 AM
I see no reason whatsoever for the homeowner to have chased him out on the street and shoot him down, when unarmed, retreating, and making no threats.
From what I understand, even if the intruder just murdered your kids and took off out the door as soon as he saw you armed you still couldn't shoot him as he's running away. A life has to be imminent danger to use deadly force.

Brian Pfleuger
July 4, 2009, 09:38 AM
From what I understand, even if the intruder just murdered your kids and took off out the door as soon as he saw you armed you still couldn't shoot him as he's running away. A life has to be imminent danger to use deadly force.

Legally, that depends on the law in your state and, probably, on the disposition of the DA. In many places, it is technically legal to shoot a fleeing perpetrator of a violent felony, if you believe it to be necessary to affect an arrest or prevent escape.

That said, legal and "wise" or not always the same.

Southern Rebel
July 4, 2009, 10:18 AM
There is ONE small detail that could change the total picture, since this is Texas. The intruder might have left empty-handed, but there is the possibility of him not having left empty-pocketed. If he had indeed pocketed money, some small treasured item belonging to the homeowner, or any other item considered as "property" - all of a sudden, the homeowner is within his rights to shoot to defend his "property".

I'm not saying that the empty-handed, but full pocket theory is what happened. I'm just saying that is why we have a trial system - to decide the ultimate guilt or innocence based on all of the evidence and testimony. Jumping to conclusions of guilt based on the latest information is no more intelligent than assuming innocence based on the original few known facts.

If the homeowner had reasonable cause to believe that cash was stolen (ie his wallet lying on the floor, or his hidden cookie jar broken) then the trail could get really interesting!

Double Naught Spy
July 4, 2009, 09:25 PM
As I noted above, there is no indication that the homeowner was shooting to protect property because he didn't know of the burglar having any property. You don't get to shoot at somebody just because you think that they might have stolen from you, not even in Texas.

obxned
July 5, 2009, 01:37 AM
The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.

Double Naught Spy
July 5, 2009, 02:17 AM
Why not? What were the criteria met, from what we know, that would allow for the homeowner to lawfully use lethal force in this situation?

MLeake
July 5, 2009, 08:46 AM
Maybe the forensics types found no sign of forced entry. Maybe the police and DA think the drunk accidentally entered the wrong house, through an unlocked door. Maybe blood tests post-mortem indicated the decedent was too drunk to have been able to pose a credible threat to a reasonable man.

Could be any number of things that would take away the protections offered under self-defense and/or citizen's arrest. Need more facts, please.

Creature
July 5, 2009, 09:01 AM
Maybe blood tests post-mortem indicated the decedent was too drunk to have been able to pose a credible threat to a reasonable man.

Blood alcohol is not a good indicator of anything. I have first hand experience with a person who's blood alcohol was so high that clinically he should have been comatose (.320). That man was walking and talking normally and was completely coherent, yet that same man was able to shake off three night club bouncers and two police officers before being arrested. All three of those bouncers were no less than 6ft tall and weighed no less than 225lbs. That guy weighed 180 lbs and had no martial arts training in his entire life...

MLeake
July 5, 2009, 09:02 AM
... I don't disagree. However, I'm just listing factors that could influence a prosecutor's decision.

OuTcAsT
July 5, 2009, 10:39 AM
The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.

*sigh*

For whatever reason, there is, and continues to be, an ongoing mis-conception by some folks that ;

If I buy a gun, and if I have a "castle law" or "stand you ground" law, It automatically gives me the right to circumvent all other laws, and all common sense, the instant I get a clear shot.

These laws go a long way in helping us protect our homes, families, and businesses, and are a positive step, with an eye toward preventing crime, and preventing criminal and civil charges against a homeowner that uses them within the law. But this case might well be a perfect example of "two wrongs don't make a right". If you make less than perfect split second decisions, you can become a criminal.

The other mis-conception that seems to be almost as universal is that;

If someone commits a crime against me, they have "put me in the position" Or "forced" me to defend myself, therefore they are solely to blame for whatever happens.

The fact still remains that, once you decide to use a weapon, you are responsible for that projectile.
If you do not follow the law while defending yourself, you do not get to shift responsibility for your own criminal actions, to the "bad guy" It simply means there are now two bad guys.
Each is responsible for his own crimes. The laws cut both ways. The same law that gives you the right to defend yourself, also holds you accountable for doing so.


In this case, there are two victims, and two bad guys.

*laboriously dons flame suit for the inevitable "the criminal is always wrong but the homeowner is always right because the criminal is always wrong" argument*

BOHICA !

Ricky B
July 5, 2009, 03:07 PM
http://www.cafepress.com/lovethetroops/986625

What you need is a version with flame retardant!

Ricky B
July 5, 2009, 03:17 PM
But Wait, This is Texas, where you can pursue the suspect and make a "citizens arrest".

Sorry to point out the straw man in the room, but I don't think anyone in the other thread said you could shoot a suspect simply to make a "citizens arrest." And there is no evidence in this case that the homeowner had any fear of bodily injury or death from the fleeing intruder.

Here I go again, being "technical" and all.

I'd like to coin a saying that the last refuge of someone on the losing end of a correct analysis is to denigrate the other party as being "technical." :cool: Or is sarcasm only allowed for the less technical? :D

Anyway, to the main point of the thread: The homeowner made a serious mistake in tactics, law, and morals.

OuTcAsT
July 5, 2009, 05:08 PM
there is no evidence in this case that the homeowner had any fear of bodily injury or death from the fleeing intruder.


Technically speaking, that is exactly what the defendant stated;

Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing. He'd been trying to detain the intruder until police arrived, he said.

Sorry to point out the straw man in the room, but I don't think anyone in the other thread said you could shoot a suspect simply to make a "citizens arrest."

And I never claimed otherwise, in this thread, nor the other. I have never said, nor implied that you could shoot someone "simply to make a citizens arrest" I believe you have made a minor "technical" error. :)

but I don't think

That's a poor habit to have. ;)

Ricky B
July 5, 2009, 07:10 PM
Technically speaking, that is exactly what the defendant stated;

Quote:
Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing. He'd been trying to detain the intruder until police arrived, he said.

Oops, my bad. :o

Vanya
July 7, 2009, 10:25 AM
The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.

It's sad and it's tragic, yes -- but, as the indictment in this case shows, the fact that there was an intruder doesn't let the homeowner off the hook for his actions. Your comment about "a crushing level of stress" is accurate, but it points to the need for training. A very high level of stress is completely predictable in a situation like this; and that's why so many people in this forum reiterate, again and again, that it's not enough to have the gun and know how to use it: it's your responsibility to get training that's as realistic as possible, so you'll be better able to handle that stress.

Eskimo
July 9, 2009, 02:17 PM
If you have a pistol and someone "hostile" lunges at you, you have every right to shoot him.. (maybe not FIVE TIMES....)

If you have a pistol and you let that person get within range to take your weapon.. you're in trouble.

RIGHTS have nothing to do with laws.. I really think that any reasonable person would agree.

KCabbage
July 9, 2009, 02:54 PM
Who actually beleives the teen lunged at the shooter? That's just screaming shoot me!

OldMarksman
July 9, 2009, 03:06 PM
Who actually beleives the teen lunged at the shooter? That's just screaming shoot me!

"Lunged at him while he was fleeing"! Which is it?

While I very much doubt it, this just might turn out to be a case in which the distance at which the shot was fired makes some difference to the outcome. Maybe GSR will come into play.

But probably not....

"Lunged at him while he was fleeing...." Outside, unarmed.... fleeing.

But it usually isn't very wise to conclude anything from news reports.

If you have a pistol and someone "hostile" lunges at you, you have every right to shoot him

Really? Ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion all lined up here?

Eskimo
July 9, 2009, 03:32 PM
Really? Ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion all lined up here?

There are obviously many other factors that can come into play. There is really no need to delve that deep into this, some of you are being WAY too critical.

The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better.

Vanya
July 9, 2009, 04:47 PM
The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better.

From the article cited in the OP:
A 49-year-old man who chased a young man from his living room in the middle of the night two years ago, repeatedly shooting the drunken college student in the street, was indicted this week on a murder charge.

Um... he shot and killed an unarmed, drunken, fleeing teenager. To say "he could have handled it a little better" is a bit of an understatement, IMHO.

It's not nitpicking, on OldMarksman's part, to point out that in order for the homeowner's actions to have been justified, the legal criteria he mentioned -- ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion -- all need to be met.

Contrary to what some here choose to believe, someone who breaks into a house doesn't magically lose all his rights, nor does the fact of a break-in automatically mean that a homeowner can do whatever he wants and whatever happens is all somehow the fault of the intruder. This argument is a classic example of blaming the victim -- who is the NOT the homeowner in this case, but the teenager who was shot. It's an argument frequently used by people who know themselves to be on shaky moral ground: "But he MADE me do it..."

And it won't wash in this case, or in any other. If you shoot someone, you are responsible for your actions, and they'd better be legally justifiable.

KCabbage
July 9, 2009, 05:33 PM
Well said Marksman and Vanya. I say give em' a manslaughter charge and 2 years of prison to think about it.

mjoy64
July 9, 2009, 07:55 PM
But...But... This is Texas, where you can shoot to protect property, Oh wait, the suspect was fleeing !

But Wait, This is Texas, where you can pursue the suspect and make a "citizens arrest".

And even though the suspect was empty handed, he could have had a gun.

And what if he decided to come back and retaliate ?

And of course, the college kid did commit the "heinous" crime of home invasion !

According to the opinions I have seen as of late, it would seem this just cannot be happening !



If you can't see the difference between the two situations you are referring to... well no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

You paint with an awful wide brush. Bagging on Texas and other people lends a *whole* lot of credence to your viewpoint I might add. :barf:

OldMarksman
July 9, 2009, 08:06 PM
There is really no need to delve that deep into this, some of you are being WAY too critical.

Eskimo, the question is one of whether there was reason to believe that imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm existed and whether deadly force was necessary. A, O, J, and P are usually the determinants. That's not being critical at all.

The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better.

???

OldMarksman
July 9, 2009, 08:08 PM
If you can't see the difference between the two situations you are referring to... well no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

You paint with an awful wide brush. Bagging on Texas and other people lends a *whole* lot of credence to your viewpoint I might add.

Mjoy, Outcast was using sarcasm here, and in no way was he criticizing Texas.

mjoy64
July 9, 2009, 08:20 PM
Mjoy, Outcast was using sarcasm here, and in no way was he criticizing Texas.

The sarcasm and flame of other opinions was duly noticed. It is really a detriment to making a cogent point.

OldMarksman
July 9, 2009, 08:41 PM
The sarcasm and flame of other opinions was duly noticed. It is really a detriment to making a cogent point.

I took it differently. A lot of people have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity. Texas Rifleman, for one, has expressed dismay at the ignorance and bravado of some of the posters and particularly of some from Texas, if I recall correctly.

The Joe Horn case has been oft mischaracterized, and the case of the Muhs really takes the cake.

The indictment in the case at hand gives the lie to the apparently widespread misconception that Texas has no law, and I took Outcast's words to mean just that...

...and to point out the issues inherent with the attitudes of many posters from all over these United States that if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will, whomever Will may be, using Texas as the place that so many characterize as the place to be if you want to shoot someone and get by with it.

Just my take.

Ricky B
July 9, 2009, 08:45 PM
preclusion

:confused:

What do you mean by preclusion?

OuTcAsT
July 9, 2009, 09:04 PM
I took it differently. A lot of people have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity. Texas Rifleman, for one, has expressed dismay at the ignorance and bravado of some of the posters and particularly of some from Texas, if I recall correctly.

The Joe Horn case has been oft mischaracterized, and the case of the Muhs really takes the cake.

The indictment in the case at hand gives the lie to the apparently widespread misconception that Texas has no law, and I took Outcast's words to mean just that...

...and to point out the issues inherent with the attitudes of many posters from all over these United States that if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will, whomever Will may be, using Texas as the place that so many characterize as the place to be if you want to shoot someone and get by with it.

Just my take.

You hit the nail on the head, spot on.

mjoy64, it was more of a commentary on several of the "GG shoots BG" threads of late.

OldMarksman
July 9, 2009, 09:16 PM
What do you mean by preclusion?

See this:

....even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

http://www.useofforce.us/

Some laws contain the term "necessary" or "immediately necessary", and in some places retreat may be required. The latter is not true in Texas.

Where I live, the training addresses the need for avoidance, disengagement, escape, and evasion as well as A, O, and J.

....avoidance, disengagement escape and evade....this model is useful as a tactical strategy and as a framework through which to describe the objective circumstance that lead to the subjective conclusion that the use of force was necessary.

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

In Missouri, if one is in attacked while his domicile or automobile he need not retreat. Outside...well, there's no explicit statutory requirement to retreat, but we're told that the case law calls for "ADEE." ...which I take as demonstrating that the lawful use of deadly force is necessary--that it is not precluded.

mjoy64
July 9, 2009, 09:27 PM
I took it differently. A lot of people have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity. Texas Rifleman, for one, has expressed dismay at the ignorance and bravado of some of the posters and particularly of some from Texas, if I recall correctly.

The Joe Horn case has been oft mischaracterized, and the case of the Muhs really takes the cake.

The indictment in the case at hand gives the lie to the apparently widespread misconception that Texas has no law, and I took Outcast's words to mean just that...

...and to point out the issues inherent with the attitudes of many posters from all over these United States that if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will, whomever Will may be, using Texas as the place that so many characterize as the place to be if you want to shoot someone and get by with it.

Just my take.
You hit the nail on the head, spot on.

mjoy64, it was more of a commentary on several of the "GG shoots BG" threads of late.

Any people that really "have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity" aren't worthy of responding too. Frankly I have seen the tiniest fraction that could even remotely be construed as having this attitude. To address it in sarcastic generalities as reflecting most people's opinion is just ignorant.

"widespread misconception that Texas has no law". What a crock. Please tell me you don't really believe this!

"if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will". Again, you really can't believe this is what most people (or even Texans on this board) think.

"commentary on several of the "GG shoots BG"". When you compare an incident of chasing down an unarmed person vs. an armed person you invite criticism of your see-I-told-you-so kind of post.

I'm a Texan. I'm a responsible gun owner. I find the implications that Texas is somehow a lawless place that is friendly to killing people (or even than most people believe this) outlandish. Just because you can lay out some straw man arguments to support the original na-na-na-na-na-na see-how-right-I-am post doesn't prove squat.

Just my take.

OldMarksman
July 9, 2009, 10:19 PM
Any people that really "have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity" aren't worthy of responding too. Frankly I have seen the tiniest fraction that could even remotely be construed as having this attitude.

I've seen more than "the tiniest fraction" myself, and the number has been sufficient to put it in as an example among the FAQ in corneredcat.com. It also often comes from someone from somewhere else saying something like 'God bless Texas" in response to such posts

To address it in sarcastic generalities as reflecting most people's opinion is just ignorant.

And no one has.

"widespread misconception that Texas has no law". What a crock. Please tell me you don't really believe this!

Not at all, but it's far, far more widespread on this board than is healthy. And it doesn't just apply to Texas.

"if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will". Again, you really can't believe this is what most people (or even Texans on this board) think.

Most people? No. "even Texans"? Not at all. Bt there is a very pervasive attitude that if someone is reported to have shot someone and contends that his property was threatened or that someone was trespassing, he was in the right. Spend some time reading the posts.

Are there as many people who state otherwise? Yes.

I'm a Texan. I'm a responsible gun owner. I find the implications that Texas is somehow a lawless place that is friendly to killing people (or even than most people believe this) outlandish.

Great! That's good for all of us.

Just my take.

Actually, I think that Outcast's post has proved helpful in bringing your thoughts into play here. Texas Rifleman has expressed chagrin at some of the posts, but it's high time for some reinforcements to give the lie to the nonsense that we see so often.

Why the mention of Texas? For your information, there has just been a discussion on this board about a case in San Antonio in which one of two brothers had killed a man. After the body was found, one of the men claimed that the man had kicked in their door and fled, they claimed that they had pursued him, they claimed that the man had been armed, and they claimed that they had later had to kill him in self defense. The number of people on this board who have stated that they believe the story of a break in, that they believe that the men should legitimately have pursued the man (a man whom the brothers claim to have known) for whatever reason, that they believe the man to have been armed, and that they believe the killing to have been justified, staggers the mind. Some posters ridiculed everyone who suggested that the wiser approach just might have been to call the police.

The case in this string is entirely different, and I think the contrast is Outcast's point.

By the way, had Texas remained independent, there are a couple of other states that could have filled the vacuum in this regard here...

Again, however, your forceful contribution as a responsible Texas gun owner is valuable for all citizens and gun owners. I'm glad to read it.

MLeake
July 9, 2009, 10:24 PM
Hopefully you are bearing in mind that there are also many of us who have pointed out that IF the brothers' claims are accurate, then Texas law could provide affirmative defenses for their actions.

This does not mean we are taking the claims at face value, just that some of us have pointed out that Texas law allows for citizens' arrest when a felony is witnessed, and also for defense of property under certain circumstances.

Many of us who have made these points have also noted that we don't particularly recommend such pursuits, even when legally justifiable, due to tactical considerations and the possible risks to third parties.

If you discount posts along those lines, I think you'll find the percentage of testosterone killers is smaller than you allude. It's still higher than it should be, but it's not a large percentage.

OldMarksman
July 9, 2009, 10:41 PM
Hopefully you are bearing in mind that there are also many of us who have pointed out that IF the brothers' claims are accurate, then Texas law could provide affirmative defenses for their actions.

Well, yeah, their actions might well have been legal, not only in Texas but in most places, I think...just that their story is not all that convincing.

This does not mean we are taking the claims at face value, just that some of us have pointed out that Texas law allows for citizens' arrest when a felony is witnessed, and also for defense of property under certain circumstances.

Many of us who have made these points have also noted that we don't particularly recommend such pursuits, even when legally justifiable, due to tactical considerations and the possible risks to third parties.

Noted. All states but one have the provision for citizen's arrest, and while the subject came up in the discussion, the brothers have not been reported to have stated citizen's arrest as their intent. Property has not been reported to have been in question.

If you discount posts along those lines, I think you'll find the percentage of testosterone killers is smaller than you allude. It's still higher than it should be, but it's not a large percentage.


Agree. And your posts were not painted over by my brush---and never have been.

Fact is, there have been recent cases in Virginia and Florida, and one in California, about which similar discussions have transpired.

My concern about the posts of the would-be testosterone killers is two fold: they can mislead the neophyte into doing something extremely unwise, and they can damage our continued rights as citizens.

MLeake
July 9, 2009, 10:49 PM
I agree with you on both counts.

I'd add a third: They are really setting themselves up for serious unpleasantness if they ever become involved in a SD shooting.

DA: So, Mr X, on July 10th, 2009 you posted an article in an online forum for gun owners that you felt it was your duty as a man to kill people to prevent future crimes? You also indicated that anybody who carried a weapon should also carry a throwaway weapon to leave on the body? Is it true you recommended ensuring the victim died, so he couldn't testify against you or sue you?

Ricky B
July 9, 2009, 10:58 PM
I agree with the concept of "preclusion" as a tactic, but I don't think that the site gives correct information as to the law of self-defense.

Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.

Maybe there are some states which hold that you become the BG when the robber demands your money and you resist, but I am skeptical. I doubt very much whether this would apply at all to stand-your-ground states.

But as a tactic, looking to see if there is any safe alternative to shooting is a good one. One never knows when what he thinks is absolutely justified may turn out to be a misperception on his part.

Discretion really is the better part of valor.

MLeake
July 9, 2009, 11:01 PM
you really cannot respond to unarmed robbery with a fist. Anything more than an openhanded slap can theoretically result in prosecution. Navy buddy learned this in Naples after he and his wife got in a tug of war with three local national thugs* over her purse. When he notified authorities on base, he was advised that it was a good thing he hadn't thrown punches....

I'm pretty sure there is no state in the US where you can't punch a strongarm robber, at least until he ceases his threat behavior.

But there are some places out there with truly crazy laws.

* these particular local nationals were thugs; Italians in general are not; my family bloodline is largely Sicilian, and most of my relatives aren't thugs...

BikerRN
July 10, 2009, 02:34 AM
Since Texas and Joe Horn keep getting brought up a lot in the various forums I feel it is necessary to add one important, but often overlooked fact.

Things would've turned out very differently for Mr. Horn had not a plainclothes Detective witnessed his altercation/shooting. I seriously doubt that Mr. Horn would repeat the actions he took that night if the same situation happened again.

Biker

OldMarksman
July 10, 2009, 06:04 AM
Maybe there are some states which hold that you become the BG when the robber demands your money and you resist, but I am skeptical.


So am I. Every state I have researched allows physical force or reasonable force to defend property, but only two allow deadly force in any circumstance, unless one refers to defense of the home or other occupied place.

I doubt very much whether this would apply at all to stand-your-ground states.

The "stand your ground" concept has to do with whether a person w must retreat. if he can do so safely, before using deadly force to defend himself against imminent danger of death or serious harm. No connection with strongarm robbery that I can see.

Stand your ground laws are relatively new and largely untested. They do not explicitly eliminate the requirement for immediate necessity. I wish we had a law of that kind here, but too many people believe it would legalize "murder."

OldMarksman
July 10, 2009, 06:05 AM
most of my relatives aren't thugs

:):)

Ricky B
July 10, 2009, 10:46 AM
The "stand your ground" concept has to do with whether a person w must retreat. if he can do so safely, before using deadly force to defend himself against imminent danger of death or serious harm. No connection with strongarm robbery that I can see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

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

Here are some other instructions that might apply:

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

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

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

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

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

To avoid igniting a debate on the issue of pursuit, everyone please note that the right to "pursue an assailant" ceases in this circumstance once the danger has passed.

OldMarksman
July 10, 2009, 06:43 PM
Agree

PT111
July 10, 2009, 07:08 PM
There are a few posters on this and many other boards that whether turthfully or not appear to search the laws every day looking for a legal reason to use their gun on someone. I don't know that Texas has any more than any other state in relation to the population but there are a lot of people that do love to use Texas as an example of the way they want it to be. I really think that if I ever have to use my gun for protection the last thing on my mind will be whether or not it is legal.

You have to remember that if you consider the legalities of an action it will not matter what your opinion of it is, the actual legality of it will be decided by 12 people that you do not know. The prosecutor, your attorney, the judge and all the TFL Internet lawyers can quote all the laws they want to but those 12 people will still make the decision on whether or not it was legal.

defcon5
July 14, 2009, 03:21 PM
should have shot him inside the house!!!

Vanya
July 14, 2009, 03:36 PM
should have shot him inside the house!!!
Defcon5, you need to work on your reading comprehension. From the article in the original post:
...prosecutors Thursday said their investigation revealed Lemes and Glass didn't encounter each other until the young man already had run from the house.

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

OuTcAsT
July 14, 2009, 09:40 PM
should have shot him inside the house!!!


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


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

Vanya
July 15, 2009, 10:49 AM
Ya know Vanya, This is likely a response of someone who thinks that "castle laws" mean that you get to shoot anyone that comes into your home without any repercussions. It's a license to kill. No questions asked. And that is sad.

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

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

Seconded.

OldMarksman
July 15, 2009, 11:22 AM
This [("should have shot him inside the house!!!")] is likely a response of someone who thinks that "castle laws" mean that you get to shoot anyone that comes into your home without any repercussions. It's a license to kill. No questions asked. And that is sad.

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

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

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

Ignorance seems to abound. There are even still those who also believe that if they shoot someone, the thing to do is to "drag them back into the house." Ever notice how many of the people who say that say that they were told that by a sheriff, policeman, etc.?

Bartholomew Roberts
August 2, 2011, 04:36 PM
Update: After 4 years and two murder trials, Ray Lemes was acquitted in the shooting of Tracy Glass. More here: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jurors-acquit-homeowner-of-college-student-s-1685756.php

Kodyo
August 2, 2011, 05:20 PM
Thanks for the update, I was wondering what happened as soon as i read the first post.

FireForged
August 2, 2011, 08:58 PM
No matter how law abiding, intelligent, kind or well intentioned... There will still be a % of good people who lawfully own a firearm but are lacking in emotional control.

Double Naught Spy
August 2, 2011, 09:47 PM
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jurors-acquit-homeowner-of-college-student-s-1685756.php

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

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

sliponby
August 2, 2011, 09:52 PM
What ever happened to action of last resort?

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

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

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

This case is a sad event for the homeowner and family as well as the dead intruder's family. Was there not a better choice than to chase, put yourself in further danger, and be forced to shoot because of a perceived threat?

JerryM
August 3, 2011, 09:42 AM
Every time someone is charged for a shooting the Texas guys pipe up with "It couldn't happen in Texas." This should dispel that myth.

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

Jerry

hartlock
August 3, 2011, 11:03 AM
Well, well, well! :) Looks like all the armchair experts, of whom
only probably a few have ever been in this man's shoes have found
out that sometimes justice does prevail! I have no pity for the idiot
drunken college student that found his self in that man's house! I
call that "thinning" the gene pool! So, now, what are you guys that
think Texas is some kinda back-woods murder factory gonna say now?
The man was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and I would consider
this case closed! hmmmm?

Bartholomew Roberts
August 3, 2011, 12:25 PM
I don't think Ray Lemes is going to be doing much celebrating. Having to go to a murder trial, challenge and disqualify a juror and then another murder trial (not counting the civil suit that was dropped) is likely to leave him with a six-figure legal bill that he will be paying off until he dies.

At the end of the day, I guess only Ray Lemes knows whether the threat that drunken teen presented required the action he took. Either way, it has got to be rough on him... either he chased a drunken, confused teen out into the street and executed him or he was in a fight for his life and got dragged through a legal grinder that will burden him for the rest of his life for defending his own home. Whichever one of those is true, it tends to be the kind of thing that weighs heavily on a person.

Mello2u
August 3, 2011, 12:47 PM
As usual, we only have bits and pieces of the story. The mysanantonio.com link reveals an article By Craig Kapitan which seems (to me) to present the prosecutor's point of view. That detail about the laser sight, come on.

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

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

Regardless another fact remains, that the defendant has paid a high price to maintain his freedom both in dollars and emotion.

chadstrickland
August 3, 2011, 01:03 PM
This is a sad story, if it is true the teen lunged at him and he was aggressive then he got what he deserved if he was innocent he should have stayed calm and waited for the cops.

I also agree that this man now has alot on his mind, legal bills, killing someone, ect. I only hope he is able to make it through this ok

OldMarksman
August 3, 2011, 01:17 PM
Posted by hartlock: ...sometimes justice does prevail! F. Lee Bailey was asked whether he was troubled by the fact that guilty defendants whom he defended sometimes got off without justice having been served. He replied that none of them ever got off without punishment because his fees bankrupted most of them. Lemes was reportedly out of money after the first trial.

So yes, there has been some justice.

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

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

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

hartlock
August 3, 2011, 01:43 PM
:) whatever! He is free, thats all that counts!

JerryM
August 3, 2011, 03:22 PM
I know this post will seem inconsistent with some other posts I have made.
While I value human life, there are some who cannot live in a civilized society.
There is also an element of living that says I have the right to own property, and the right to resist as necessary to retain my property. I once had a neighbor who was a district judge. I told him that under the law if my auto was parked at the curb in front of my house, and a thug or two decided to take the tires or a battery I would be unable to stop it unless I were larger and stronger than the perps. I could not use deadly force.

He stated that one could not take a human life to save the tires from being taken away. My reply was that the law zeroed in on the wrong thing. I agreed that a life is more valuable than tires, but is a life more valuable than the right to own and keep property? Do we not fight wars and millions of people die to be able to have that and other freedoms?
He had no answer to that except that the law does not permit deadly force to defend or save property.

So in a way I am in sympathy with the home owner regardless of the law. Can a thug commit a crime and run, and if you cannot catch him he gets away clean? Evidently that is the way the law sees it.

I understand that there are those who would over react and shoot when unnecessary. I do not have a good answer to that, but continue to believe that I have a right to own property, and with judgment do what is necessary to keep it. The line is a difficult one.

Jerry

kimbershot
August 3, 2011, 03:42 PM
you can't shoot someone for being stupid. i think many of the gunhoes who frequent this site suffer from bloodlust. you better know the law before you blow someone away, cus you certainly will know it after the fact.:eek:

hartlock
August 3, 2011, 03:56 PM
Well, it appears that is exactly what happened! He got shot
for being drunk and stupid!

Capt Charlie
August 3, 2011, 04:18 PM
He got shot
for being drunk and stupid!

And that gets this one closed :mad:.

The whole mission of TFL is to promote responsible firearms ownership. We shoot only to preserve our lives, definitely NOT because someone's "drunk and stupid".

Hartlock, see my sig. line. You're not helping our cause.

Closed.