A Personal Incident (TX)

[rock_jock]

I agree with ahenry. You don't stand by and let them indulge their destructive impulses on your property. We have to make a stand somewhere. I would also say that Texas case law seems to support protection of property rights.

Popeye, I agree with you. I have not faced that situation before and am not sure exeactly how I would react. But, these "what-if" questions are valuable for evaluating what your possible responses might be.

[Spackler]

Perhaps if bad things begin happening to those folks, they will move. Sometimes people have a run of bad luck, you know? Especially a criminal element, who are bound to have made enemies over the years. All sorts of things can happen to ruin a person's day. Day after day after day.

[nemesis]

Skyhawk, you were right. It's OK for everyone to say what they would have done but you were there. Texas law probably wouldn't support the use of deadly force if you could have retreated and he had a lot of people who would testify on his behalf. It would have been decidedly different if he had an acknowledged weapon.

[NMGlocker]

Original story as told:

About one hour later I was setting on my second floor balcony and witnessed several (30 ish) "gang member" types vandalize my 2000 Lariat. I called the police and went downstairs to examine the damage (about $1000 worth). There was a group of these people (six or seven) still in the area.

To which I said:

You screwed up by confronting them.

To which ahenry said, and rock_jock agreed:

I emphatically disagree. There are certainly risks that one faces by a confrontation, but this was very clearly a case of property protection. Every individual must weigh the potential property damage and or loss against the potential legal difficulties and come to their own personal choice about when it is right to confront a perpetrator. However for my money, I don’t cower to thugs. Hiding in the house while I watch them “vandalize” my property is nothing more than tacit submission to the thugs and their actions. We need more honorable citizens to actually take a stand against wrongdoing.

I'm sorry, but 6 or 7 to 1 is just plain stupid odds.
There is no better way to get killed, than go into a situation where you are outnumbered at those odds, against adversaries with unknown weapons.
The pistol gave Skyhawk a false sense of security and bravado. He obviously was not prepared for a violent encounter because he allowed multiple BG's to approach within bad-breath range. He could have easily been beaten or killed in this situation, because of $1000 worth of damage to a vehicle (which was no longer being vandalized). If you think the "honorable" thing to do is confront 6 or 7 "thugs", by yourself , then you are in for a rough time of it. It doesn't do you a bit of good if your "stand against wrongdoing" is an Alamo repeat. Skyhawks situation wasn't weighing "the potential property damage and or loss against the potential legal difficulties" because if these guys were serious, he would have had more than just legal troubles, he'd have been at least beaten maybe dead.
And if Skyhawk did shoot this BG, he'd have lost in court. If he had of caught them in the process of vandalizing the vehicle, and they approached him in a threatening manner, then he'd have been justified. But by him approaching them after the fact, armed, before the cops arrived, and the crime was no longer in progress, his case aint looking too good. Is vandalism that will be covered by insurance worth a felony and prison time, along with the civil suit that will follow?
Your right, people should stand up to thugs and criminals, but you'd be DEAD right, and that would suck. Always pick your battles, always stack the odds in your favor.
I emphatically stand by my assessment, he screwed up by confronting them, 1 on 1 maybe, 6 or 7 to 1, is STUPID.

[ahenry]

I'm sorry, but 6 or 7 to 1 is just plain stupid odds.

My philosophy on life is really fairly simple. In essence, it is that one does what is right and the consequences of those right actions are neither here nor there. I gather from your comments that you think I am seem to think that standing up to wrongdoers will make me like those that died at the Alamo, or an “Alamo repeat”. While I think doing what is right regardless of the “numbers arrayed against you” was most definitely an aspect of what the Alamo was about, the decision one makes to stand against wrong is not another Alamo, it is merely the right thing to do. What do you think Flight 93 on Sept. 11th was all about?

And if Skyhawk did shoot this BG, he'd have lost in court.

Did we read the same story?! You do realize where this took place don’t you? You do also realize that he was lawfully engaged in checking out his property while waiting for the cops to arrive. You must surely realize that the bad guy charged him twice, right? I think Skyhawk is to be commended for making as much of an effort as he did to not shoot the guy. I think plenty of other people in his place would have.

But by him approaching them after the fact, armed, before the cops arrived, and the crime was no longer in progress, his case aint looking too good.

I really have to disagree with you here. The law states that you can use deadly force to protect your property from criminal mischief at night. The vehicle is his property, vandalism is criminal mischief, and am I assuming this was more or less at night (or at least “dark”). Skyhawk is more than justified to sit in the bed of his pickup all night if he chooses to. It could be argued that saying anything (like he did) was less than wise, but as far as the legalities are concerned he is well within the letter and the spirit of the law (at least from the information we have). By the way, Texas does not have a duty to retreat law, for which I am infinitely grateful. Some states still respect the good guys.

I emphatically stand by my assessment, he screwed up by confronting them, 1 on 1 maybe, 6 or 7 to 1, is STUPID.

Again I disagree. 6 or 7 on 1, or 10 or 15 on 1, when in the right is not stupid, its brave. Since you brought up the Alamo I will quote one of it its hero’s, Davy Crockett. He said, “Be sure your right, then go ahead.”

[New_comer]

"Do unto others what they do unto you".

(whispering) Off the record, give 'em $1000 repair work on their car, too. Spray paint or paint remover works fine.

Good ol' "eye for an eye" trick would work wonders for your ego. Prevents you from the sufferings of a homicide case leveled against you, too...

Just don't get caught.

This will be how I'll handle it. Car for a car...

[Jato]

Skyhawk did nothing morally or legally wrong (maybe tactically). Skyhawk, fearing for his safety, could have pulled out his weapon and pointed it at the advancing gang member. If the gang member pressed the attack, Skyhawk could have shot him (assuming Skyhawk was in fear of suffering great bodily injury or death).

Now the messy part… The surviving gang members would all LIE and give statements indicating that Skyhawk started the confrontation and shot the pedestrian out of anger and rage. While the case probably would get kicked out of criminal court, Skyhawk would probably lose in civil court.

From his own post, I assume Skyhawk could not identify the exact gang member who vandalized his car.

In my experience, the DA does not issue on many cases. That is why there are so many multiple-felon criminals that continue to rape society! Are judicial system is so overwhelmed!

In the real world that we now live in, Skyhawk should have stayed in his house. That, unfortunately, is the sad truth!

[hoeftjl]

One can use deadly force in Texas to stop "criminal mischief" at night. I think you would have "technically" been alright in using deadly force because of the vandalization. A grand jury probably wouldn't agree though.

[popeye]

One thing you can try: If you live in complex that has a common area (rentable room for parties) have a "tenant's meeting". The problem effects more than you. Getting more people involved will give you some comrades with a common goal, and will distribute the b.s. these punks hand out accross a broader front, report every inappropriate incident to apt. mgmt.. If mgt. does nothing insist on tenants association meeting with complex owners, not mgmt.

Approaching problem on your own will result in punks harrassing you only. You need a broader front. My understanding is apt. complexes have to make 20% of avail apts. open to section 8 (subsidised ) housing.

[UK2TX]

Hello Skyhawk,


My advice:

1) Set up the camera and VCR

2) Research gang tags:

http://www.tgia.net/Links/Informatio..._graffiti.html
http://158.135.23.14/Spotlight/gangindex.htm
http://www.ci.corpus-christi.tx.us/s...lice/gangp.htm
http://austingangbusters.org/
http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/sapd/YouthGangs.htm

3 ) Consider what would happen if your car was tagged with rival gang tag ( do it discretely at another location ).

4) Tape them "dissing" the rival gang tag

5) Call the police.

6) Repeat 3 through 5 until something positive happens

One added bonus, they may take the tagging issue "off site".

Regards,

UK2TX

[Futo Inu]

You done good, big 'un. Exactly the right thing. The moment you spot a weapon them though, pull and fire. Depending on the nature of your disability, you might already have been justified with a large, very threatening individual directly in your face - but hopefully you'll have at least one witness as to the threatening, aggressive gestures and proximity, in that event. Also, if it was me, I'd find a way to wear the sidearm in a holster rather than fanny pack, for quicker draw. I too hope someone helps them take extended nap. What a lowlife. Grrr.

[Ragin Cajun]

Here is a URL for a digital, built-in infrared, motion sensing camera.

http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/h.../cyber_eye.htm

and another site:

http://www.jlspy.com/

[NMGlocker]

My philosophy on life is really fairly simple. In essence, it is that one does what is right and the consequences of those right actions are neither here nor there.
---snip---
Again I disagree. 6 or 7 on 1, or 10 or 15 on 1, when in the right is not stupid, its brave.

Dead right, is still dead.
I'm all for taking care of business, but its going to happen on the ground of MY choosing. I'll choose the time and place where all the advantages are mine. The hell with bravery, i'm going to "always cheat, always win".

What do you think Flight 93 on Sept. 11th was all about

This has nothing to do with the odds that Skyhawk faced, the passengers on flight 93 had the hi-jackers outnumbered from the start. In fact this helps prove my point, the hi-jackers assumed that the weapons they had would allow them to overcome any opposition from superior numbers of passengers, but a determined group of passengers took them out. Skyhawk had a pistol, and thought he was protected from a group of BG type people, if those people had been determined to take him out, they would have done it easily.
What good does it do to attack in vain? You seem to think i'm not for protecting whats mine, or doing whats right. I am, i'm just going to do it my way, rather than let my opponents advantages dictate my actions.
Standing your ground, damn the consequences has been proven thru history to be a mistake. Hitler lost WW2 in part because he refused to back down from Russia, when it was a losing proposition.

Sun Tzu, from "The Art of War":
"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical."
---
"No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique. Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life."
---
"It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two.
If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.
Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force."
---
"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. "

[NMGlocker]

Did we read the same story?! You do realize where this took place don’t you? You do also realize that he was lawfully engaged in checking out his property while waiting for the cops to arrive. You must surely realize that the bad guy charged him twice, right?

Yup I read it. Yup it happened in Texas (a whole nuther country).
Yes, he was checking on his property, NOT preventing a crime in progress, BIG difference as far as the law is concerned. The BG did charge him, after Skyhawk verbally provoked him. And from the post, it not clear whether Skyhawk was absolutely positive that these were the vandals.
And its not legal to shoot someone who is charging you, unless there is a disparity of force, or weapons involved.
I can just see the fellow gang-bangers in court.... "That dude came down and called Hector a POS vandal, when Hector walked over to discuss what happened, that dude up and shot him for no reason!"
And Corpus Christi is chock FULL of civil suit lawyers, and civil rights lawyers, that would jump all over this case.

[TaxPhd]

Skyhawk,

I won't try to second guess you - I wasn't there, and I think that overall you did OK.

However, you said:

"This individual came very, very close to being shot. If he had struck me or knocked me down, or his buddies would have ganged up I would have been forced to defend myself."

If you had waited to be struck, knocked down, or ganged up on by his buddies before defending yourself, you would have likely been maimed or killed. If you decide that deadly force is warrented, you need the gun in your hand, drawn, before you end up on the ground.

[spacemanspiff]

i dont believe that at the time skyhawk confronted the thugs, it was an act of 'property protection'. they had already done the damage, and as i read the story (maybe i read it incorrectly, please correct me if i did) the thugs had left the damaged vehicle and were doing other things when they were confronted. obviously it wasnt a good idea to go 6-1 and only be prepared to draw your weapon AFTER you had been verbally threatened with assault. you cant assume that you'll be able to react to the attack once its begun. you already demonstrated the desire to enact a preemptive strike by confronting them, you should have followed through and not let the thug within 20 feet. thats my humble inexperienced opinion, anyways.

[ahenry]

I want to re-stress what I said before. I believe you should do what is right and let the consequences take care of themselves. Of course when possible, stack the odds in your favor. But when or if the time ever arrives that you have to decide whether or not you will do what is right even if you might not make it, in my mind you decide to do what is right. There is a very real difference between doing what is right regardless of the consequences and doing what you want regardless of the consequences.

I don’t mean to imply that you think a person should never stand up against evil-doers or do what is right. I don’t know you and I have no reason to believe that you think that way. I do however see this particular situation differently than you. Likening my comment to do what is right regardless of the consequences, to Hitler’s poor military strategy regarding Russia is pretty ridiculous BTW. Besides for every one example like that (which was a poor, poor example of what I was describing) I could show you five where the results were the exact opposite. Sometimes the good guys lived and sometimes they didn’t, but death does not mean you made the wrong choice. I don’t want to list the myriad of examples from our own history (much lest the whole world) and I assume you get my point. In the end this boils down to something very basic. Myself (and I assume Skyhawk) don’t plan on kowtowing to criminals, nor do I (or we?) plan on having somebody else do our dirty work when the criminals have to be stood up to. In the end, the responsibility to keep thugs like that off the street rest with each individual. Because some people that are hired to do this for us might mean we can go through life and never face this type of situation, but it does not absolve us of our own responsibilities if we find ourselves involved like Skyhawk did.

[Drjones]

I completely understand and sympathize with your situation. A mans home is his castle, and it is sad indeed to see it surrounded by such lowlifes.

However, I do believe you acted improperly. If you haven't already, read "Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob. With all your training, I'm sure you've at least heard of it.

Here is what I think you did incorrectly:

1) Knowing they were still in the area, you should NOT have gone downstairs, ESPECIALLY since you know full well that there were several of them. That could have very easily turned into a gang rape, beating and killing.

2) You should have called the cops and waited in your place with your gun. Its just not worth it to risk your life, or risk ruining your life in a legal battle had you shot someone.

In the same situation, I would have LOVED as much as the next guy to go down there and teach them a "lesson" but in the big picture, its really not worth it.

Your life and or limbs were not in danger, therefore you were NOT justified in using deadly force. YOU put yourself in a situation where you may have had to use deadly force by leaving your apartment.

I know various states, esp. TX have nicer laws when it comes to defending ones property, but in any case, you were severly outnumbered.

Just my opinions.

Drjones

[GSB]

Hiding in the house while I watch them “vandalize” my property is nothing more than tacit submission to the thugs and their actions.

Scenario: You "confront" the thugs you believe, without direct proof, vandalized your property. Words are exchanged and you accuse one of the them of the act. The man takes this as an insult and closes on you, gets in your face. He's a lot larger than you are, but you aren't going to be cowed by thugs, nosiree, you don't do that. You stand up to him, tell him you are armed and he needs to back off.

The guy says you can't shoot him, he hasn't done anything, he isn't armed. He stays in your face. His friends, hearing you threaten their companion, begin to come towards you because they want to aid their friend. You feel your life is in danger (a valid feeling at this point), but instead of retreating, you hold your ground because you don't give in to thugs. You draw your weapon. One of the seven "thugs" looks like he is going for a weapon, so you double tap him, and then shoot a second and a third who try to grab for you during the ruckus.

Someone in one of the apartments is filming this, and the tape makes it to the evening news, and the anchor reports that the police are detaining a man who fired on several Hispanic men he accused of vandalizing his vehicle. The men later turned out to have a verifiable alibi, and were unarmed.

For the next several days, in the local and national media, the story is how community leaders are outraged over the racist shooting of unarmed Hispanic men by a gun owner. Over and over again, the three seconds of you shooting three Hispanic men is played on every network news broadcast. People you barely know are interviewed, and one of them makes some money by getting on the a talk show and saying that he once heard you lamenting the number of illegal Mexican immigrants coming into Texas, noting that you seemed "angry" about it.

The State Attorney General caves to pressure and brings you up on manslaughter charges, and the Federal Government prepares a Civil Rights case in case the State case fails to get a conviction.

Meanwhile, you are fired from your job because your employer doesn't want the negative publicity (several of your coworkers were interviewed by the press). You have to unplug your phone because of frequent threatening calls at 2:30 in the morning, and you have to make sure your daughter is accompanied to school and back every day because of threats that have been received against you and your family by persons unknown.

You ask the police for protection, but all they can do is drive a car by your apartment once or twice a night. Your guns have been confiscated, so you can't use a gun to protect your family, even assuming you came up with the bail money by convincing your elderly parents to take another mortgage on their retirement home. Finally , fearing for their lives, your wife and daughter leave the state and move in with her parents in California, where she has to put up with people branding her the wife of "that racist redneck Texas murderer".

A year later, broke and deeply in debt, you are cleared of the manslaughter charge, and then you begin the Civil Rights trial in federal court. Your wife has left you for good by then, and getting visitation rights for your now out-of-state daughter given your legal position has been impossible.

All this because you didn't back down from thugs. Maybe you feel that doing the "right" thing was worth what it cost you. In my estimation, it would not be worth it for me, but anyone is free to choose otherwise.

[kahr Carrier]

A lot of Good advice on the prior posts .I like the video camera idea . As for your situation .I think I would have retreated to a safe area to wait for LEO ,because if you had capped him and you could have retreated from situation without using lethal force youn might be spending some time in jail and wasting money on a lawyer. Im glad you were not hurt,as for the scumbag remember WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND good or bad . I would let thes clowns hang themselves

[ahenry]

If you re-read my initial post you will find that I clearly stated that each and every individual will have to make their own personal decision about when to stand up and when to sit down. Unlike several others however, I do my best not to belittle those that made a choice that differs from my own (and apparently Skyhawks). If you really fear the scenario you described then by all means wait for the cops. You will never hear me suggest you are a lesser man for doing so. You will however hear me defend and commend those that resolve situations on their own, and handle punks without the use of hired guns, a.k.a. cops (please don’t take that as a derogatory comment towards police officers, it is not meant as such). As I have said time and again, for my money, I will never kowtow to punks, and I will never ask another to handle something that I am not willing to handle myself. Luckily I was able to find a phenomenal lady who feels as I do, and low and behold she’s a Texas gal. Man I love this state.

[NMGlocker]

ahenry, we can argue the larger picture or we can argue this particular situation.
As to this particular situation, i'll sum it up as I understand it.
Skyhawk observed vandals working his truck over.
He called the Police, then went down to investigate.
He saw some gang-banger type people hanging around. He did not say that these were the perpetrators. I read into the story that they could or could not have been the perpetrators, he was not positive.
He assumed they were the perps, due to their dress and mannerisms.
He called them out on the vandalism charges.
One of them was irate at being called a vandal (or getting caught) and approached him to voice his displeasure.
Skyhawk stood his ground.
Words were exchanged, the situation was difused when the other guys friends intervened.
Cops show up, didn't think there was enough evidence to charge anyone.
End of story.
Now ahenry, explain to me how calling someone a vandal (when your not 100% positive it was them). Is doing the right thing.
Your little ditty about protecting property after dark in TEXAS, aint gonna cut it in this situation, Skyhawk did not "catch them in the act", he only called out some likely suspects.
Tell me, how you would be justified in shooting this guy.
We can rule out the protecting property after dark, since this guy was NOT in the process of vandalizing when Skyhawk came onto the scene.
Skyhawk initiated the confrontation, by accusing this guy of a crime. Who knows, the guy could have been angry that he was being "dissed" or it COULD have been righteous indignation at being called a criminal.
Unless there is a disparity of force, a weapon, or trespass you are NOT justified in using deadly force. Two adult males of similar stature and age, having a heated argument at bad-breath range does not give you the right to use deadly force.
In many states, you are not required to retreat from danger, but if you are an active participant in the escalation of a situation, then it is FAR more difficult to plead self-defense, it is looked upon as mutual aggression.
I'll say it one more time, based on the information given.
Skyhawk would have been deemed the initial aggressor in this situation. He initiated contact with the guy, based on his assumption that this guy was the vandal.
To the "reasonable man" in the courtroom, it would have been mutual aggression.
When people rush in to do the "right thing" sometimes mistakes happen, the wrong guy gets shot.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[NMGlocker]

ahenry: You and I are a lot more alike than you know.
I agree with you completely as far as standing up for whats right.
Where we disagree is in the execution of our "stand".
You seem to be a meet all situations head on kind of guy, its either black or white. Any tresspass against you is equal to any other tresspass. Whether its $1000 vandalized vehicle, or a punk with a gun trying to kill you, to taking on a plane full of hi-jackers.
Myself, I value my wife and family too much to risk all over petty tresspasses. $1000 worth of vandalism, and me vs. 5 or 6, i'll hang back and either catch them one at a time and take care of it myself, or just let the Police do their job. Punk with a gun, my wife and family come first, if they are safe, and retreat is possible, i'm out of there, if it comes time to fight, its balls to the wall time, nothing gets held back. Plane full of hi-jackers, if your thinking about standing up, your too late, i'm already kicking butt and taking names.
I stand up for what right, but whats right for my family comes before whats right for society as a whole.

[ahenry]

I was sorta hoping we could resolve this with a “we just think differently” sort of thing, but since you asked me some specific questions I guess I better respond.

Now ahenry, explain to me how calling someone a vandal (when your not 100% positive it was them). Is doing the right thing.
Your little ditty about protecting property after dark in TEXAS, aint gonna cut it in this situation, Skyhawk did not "catch them in the act", he only called out some likely suspects.

Please call me Aaron. First of all living in Texas has no bearing one the situation other than to indicate the most probable legal outcome. As I stated prior calling somebody a vandal [b]when you don’t know for a fact that he is/b] is probably not the smartest move, but it is a far cry from “you screwed up” which is what you said in the outset. Perhaps it is my upbringing or perhaps it is just where I live, but were somebody to call me a vandal I would deny the accusation (probably in an emphatic manner), but I would not charge them and verbally abuse them, especially after being told to stop. Perhaps it is a carry over from another age, but the way I see things I think it is a good extrapolation to the old saw that “an armed society is a polite society”. I’ll be honest here, when I was a kid I’m not sure if it as just fear of my parents or fear of a gun but I can tell you for a fact that knowing that property owners could use whatever force they deemed necessary greatly influenced my actions. Perhaps more states need such a control/disincentive.

Tell me, how you would be justified in shooting this guy.

Despite the lack of making the absolute smartest decision (as decided by armchair quarterbacks like you and I) Skyhawk was engaged in 100% lawful activity (protecting and inspecting ones own property) and was then charged and threatened by another. The words that passed while perhaps less than the smartest call, were well within the domain of allowed speech. Like it or not I can accuse you (or anyone else) or anything I want. Whether a specific individual decides that this charging and threatening person is a threat or not is not my call, I will however defend the law-abiding when they decide that such a person is indeed a threat.

Skyhawk initiated the confrontation, by accusing this guy of a crime. Who knows, the guy could have been angry that he was being "dissed" or it COULD have been righteous indignation at being called a criminal.

You know, I was once accused of improper actions that I most assuredly did not commit. Amazingly I was able to resolve the accusations in a less than lethal manner. Had I accused the individual of being a liar and been threatening in my actions I would not have been surprised had he used some form of lethal force to defend himself. Knowing this I made the “extra” effort to handle the situation without undue accusations and improper actions and in the end I was exonerated and he was made the fool. Those in the right need not fear from others that are in the right. I don’t believe that anybody is suggesting people go about shooting one another.

When people rush in to do the "right thing" sometimes mistakes happen, the wrong guy gets shot. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I agree and my comments should not me taken otherwise.

[MeekAndMild]

My 2 cents worth is that one should choose their battles and their battleground carefully.