The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Guy chases burglar outside and shoots him away from the house.

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).

July 2, 2009, 12:47 PM	#147
RevJim Senior Member Join Date: September 2, 2005 Location: Greenville, TX Posts: 104	Another possibility 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).