Home Invasion: Did Homeowner Go Too Far?

[joab]

Actually it does matter if he is a criminal and a member of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Why?
If he was not engaged in criminal activity at the time of the crime why should he not be allowed to defend himself just as any other law abiding person

First of all - I do not think any criminals are allowed to posses firearms.

Source?
Was he a convicted felon was he engaged in criminal activity at the time?
If not what is the prohibition on alleged criminals owning guns

Second of all - how would you like it - if a criminal "defending" himself from other criminals shooting indiscriminately shoots up your house and injures your SO, dogs and kid?

I missed that in the articles.
But what if the preacher next door defends his home by shooting indiscriminately and hits something he didn't want to
That gonna make you feel any better?
But regardless being a criminal does not take away your right to life and self defense, until the state says it does
How I, or you, feel about it has nothing to do with nothing

[Perldog007]

I can't condone giving chase after a threat has ended unless you are empowered and duty bound to make an arrest, i.e. LEO. Even in armed security, generally once they are off the property it's time to let the taxpayer funded types deal with it.

Having said that don't think I will ever sit on a jury for a case like this. It would be very hard for me to condemn somebody who was minding their own business and was beset by armed home invaders.

Personally from the information given I think the brother went too far. The prosecutor would have to have a really good day to convince me to vote guilty though.

[Stevie-Ray]

Where am I missing that he chased them down the street? According to post #24, an update, it sounds like he shot maybe from his property at the vehicle. Did I miss another update? It sounds like he actually tried to shoot out the tires to stop them. That obviously didn't keep them from leaving, so he fired into the vehicle, hitting a few. You can't do that in Michigan, but it sounds like you can in Texas. Tell you something, though. If that had happened in Michigan, he WOULD go to trial. And, if I was on that jury, he would be acquitted or I'd hang the jury.

[thallub]

"*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?"

+1

Same here. Sometimes I am required to travel out of the country on very short notice. Some of these places are not credit card friendly.

[tegemu]

Pursuit = Bad shoot.

[Thumper]

I can't condone giving chase after a threat

Legally or morally? Threat to what? The individual's health or the threat of escaping with the individual's property?

In Texas, both are defenses.

[thallub]

In Texas self-defense stuff and protection of property stuff are a lot different than most other states. There was a case where an auto re-possession guy hooked up to a car at night. The car owner shot and killed the guy. The shooter was found not guilty because of a law that applies to protection of property at night.

Think of OK of being just like Texas with one possible exception. In OK the prosecutor does not have to take the case to a grand jury. In OK the family of the deceased perp is not allowed to sure in civil court.

[Yellowfin]

Does the possibility of the criminal returning later constitute sufficient threat? Repeat visits do happen.

[Thumper]

Doesn't matter if the criminals were escaping with property, though that's not clear in this case.

As noted a number of times before, a lot of folks in this thread are (mistakenly) applying their own state defense laws to Texas.

[P95GI180]

If he had not killed them, they would have likely come back, and seek revenge, rob, kill rape, or mame someone else. He did the right thing. By pursuing and taking out atleast three of the attackers, he saved many more lives, property, and tax money by preventing future crimes the thugs would have commited. He should get a medal.

But it may have been illegal for him to pursue, then he should suffer the consequence for breaking the law.

[Catchabullet]

whose to say they wouldn't have come back????

[thallub]

"As noted a number of times before, a lot of folks in this thread are (mistakenly) applying their own state defense laws to Texas."

Same thing happens on all the sites. Folks just do not understand that Texas (and OK) law is much different from what they are used to.

[BloodyBucket03]

If I was in his situation I would have defended my home and once the armed men retreated I would have stopped. In my state of Pennsylvania he would be going to prison. It would be nice to get rid of scum like that of the face of this earth but chasing down criminals and having a shoot out in the street is not safe and its not the OK corral.

[joab]

whose to say they wouldn't have come back????

Does even Texas law permit shooting someone for what they might do later?
If that's the case then the antis are right
Guns should all be confiscated because
Whose to say that we all wont go a a shooting spree next week?

[trooper3385]

I commend him for protecting his property, but what would you say if he killed one of your family members with a stray bullet he fired while chasing them down the road shooting at them.?

[boss400]

do ya'll think that if 4 heavy armed men break in your home their intensions are to kill you and your family steal everythng you have. i might run them down and kill everyone to so they can't come back and get revenage

[joab]

I might go out and hunt down the ones that get away, but that don't make it legal

[Thumper]

Does even Texas law permit shooting someone for what they might do later?

No. Texas law allows for deadly force to recover escaping property. I don't know if the bad guys were getting away with any of his goods, though.

[joab]

No. Texas law allows for deadly force to recover escaping property. I don't know if the bad guys were getting away with any of his goods, though.
__________________

Besides the fact that the article mentions only an attempt to break in and makes no mention of stolen property, which you yourself claim no knowledge of
Your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the comment of mine that you quoted
It is easy to find the motivation for my comment because I quoted it in my post

Further can you link me to the statute that allows for pursuing burglers off your property and shooting them to recover your stolen goods

[Thumper]

Please see Section 9.42.of the Texas Penal Code, specifically DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Emphasis mine.

[joab]

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property

From the same penal code

§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.

From section 38.01
(2) "Escape" means unauthorized departure from
custody or failure to return to custody following temporary leave
for a specific purpose or limited period or leave that is part of an
intermittent sentence, but does not include a violation of
conditions of community supervision or parole other than conditions
that impose a period of confinement in a secure correctional
facility.

Not that that means anything

But again I ask you to provide the statute that allows a person to leave his property to pursue the thief, especially to get involved in a vehicular pursuit

I would also like to know what if anything any of this has to do with the comment of mine that you chose to address

[Thumper]

It's self explanatory there, joab. I quoted a question you asked, then answered it with the word 'no.' I understand you have an argumentative nature, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

Not sure why you also made note of portions of the code you admit are irrelevent.

The further question you pose:

But again I ask you to provide the statute that allows a person to leave his property to pursue the thief, especially to get involved in a vehicular pursuit

As far as I can read, the defense doesn't disallow you from leaving your property to attempt to recover your stolen goods.

In fact, in the case law cited in my CHL class, a Texas homeowner followed a thief several blocks with his deer rifle, then used a handy mailbox as an expedient rest to center punch the guy as he ran under a streetlight.

Wish I could cite you the case, but I don't have it. Perhaps someone else can.

[mountainclmbr]

I think the police would have done the same thing by persuing. This person, I am assuming is a tax payer, therefore the police are his civil servants. When a citizen can't do what their paid servants can do there is a serious problem.

[BigO01]

As far as I'm concerned they started a war with the homeowner and he finished it .

Just that simple .

Give the guy a medal and a free thousand rounds of ammo for his gun .

[joab]

I understand you have an argumentative nature, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

If I am the one with the argumentative natire why was it you that started this by quoting me and then making a totally irrelevant comment regarding the comment I made

I never said that the info I gave was irrelevant, you however present a set of statutes that may or may not support shooting a thief when there is absolutely no indication that the BGs stole anything or that they even managed to actually gain entrance to the home in the first place
I have asked several times why you picked me out to do that

The penal code you posted clearly states that for the purpose of the section you posted the definition for word "escape" would coincide with the definition given in section 38.01

§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.

I then gave you that definition, which makes no mention of pursuing off property in a vehicle

Nowhere in that 901 does it give permission for an ordinary citizen to get into a vehicular pursuit to hunt down and kill people who may or may not have committed a burglary on their property
The statute you provided is not one of disallowance it is a specific set of allowances

As far as I'm concerned they started a war with the homeowner and he finished it .

I agree, but that doesn't mean that his actions are condoned by law