Home Invasion: Did Homeowner Go Too Far?

[redblair]

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

B

[BlkHawk73]

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

[joab]

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

Different lines in different sand

[odsixer]

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

[Rifleman 173]

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

[Double Naught Spy]

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

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

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

[zeroskillz]

[hj28rules]

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

[sw_florida]

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

[gak1]

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

[riverkeeper]

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

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

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

[SpectreBlofeld]

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

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

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

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

He neutralized the threat while he had the upper hand.

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

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

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

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

[MosinM38]

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

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

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

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

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

[1911 fan]

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

[chrisandclauida2]

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

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

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

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

[drinks]

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

[parrothead2581]

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

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

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

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

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rifleman 173]

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

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

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

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

[KCabbage]

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

[xrocket]

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

There is nothing to report as of today.

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

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

[Hook686]

joab posted:

By Florida standard yes he went to far

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

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

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

[R W]

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

[TexasSeaRay]

Several things:

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

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

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

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

Jeff

[joab]

LEO's use 'In hot pursuit', why not this citizen ?

Can a LEO shoot a "fleeing felon"

How's a guy gonna make a citizen arrest, if he can't pursue ?

Hopefully he won't claim that he was merely unable to perform a citizens arrest, so he just shot them instead