The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 1, 2007, 05:20 PM   #26
jrock18
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2007
Posts: 18
While I don't know all the facts I think this man should be given a medal. If these guys were willing to force entry into a home with high powered rifles, what aren't they willing to do? This man may have prevented numerous other deaths.
jrock18 is offline  
Old August 1, 2007, 06:19 PM   #27
Hallucinator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2007
Posts: 396
Unfortunately, he did. He shouldn't have chased them.
__________________
Sig 226, 228, 229, 232. XD45 Tactical. Smith Model 60 Chief's Special. Smith 1911. Mossberg 930 SPX.

How we behave as gun owners is important. Posturing and threatening does not serve us well in the public eye.
Hallucinator is offline  
Old August 1, 2007, 06:28 PM   #28
Walter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2004
Location: North Texas
Posts: 635
I think it was a violation of the law to chase the "home invaders" in a
vehicle after they had fled his property in their vehicle.
That's just my opinion, having sat through several CCL classes concerning
how, when, and where you can legally shoot a person.

That said, being a native Texan, and having lived in North Texas (DFW)
for 40 years, I will be shocked if a Grand Jury doesn't "no-bill" the guy.

Walter
Walter is offline  
Old August 1, 2007, 06:31 PM   #29
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
think it was a violation of the law to chase the "home invaders" in a
vehicle after they had fled his property in their vehicle.
It appears that he didn't. See post #24.
Don H is offline  
Old August 1, 2007, 06:38 PM   #30
sigfreak
Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2007
Posts: 53
after the tragedy that happened in Conn. i say this guy did GOODERS'.the cops can't protect us,the government won't protect us(allow millions of illegals to come across at will)and lawyers and judges side with the criminals.i say it's long past do we take care of ourselves,and he done just that!
sigfreak is offline  
Old August 1, 2007, 07:43 PM   #31
mattro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 225
+1 sigfreak

I have a feeling this situation does not necessarily apply to what you are saying, but in general I agree 100%. Things don't add up on this situation. I have a feeling it was druggies robbing a dealer - just speculation.

Regardlesss, there is a one less puke in the world.

Armed citizen retaliation is the only real crime deterent. Expecting a cop to STOP a crime, is like asking a firefighter to drive around and look for fires...
__________________
My Battle Rifle has no sporting purpose.
mattro is offline  
Old August 1, 2007, 10:59 PM   #32
Willie D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,116
Put a bullet in someone's back, you WILL have to answer for it.


I'm sure these perps were scum and having someone flee the scene might not bring satisfaction but legally, the decision to use lethal force must be made before every shot. If you or others aren't immediately in harms way before you pull the trigger, what happened a minute before has little bearing.
As for a jury acquitting you out of goodwill; they will be told by the judge exactly what constitutes manslaughter and will likely do what the law requires.

Also, there have been a more than a few cases where ex-army or police have said "I was taught to keep firing until the threat was neutralized." and have gone to jail because civilians can't play that way.


I don't want to see anyone on this forum doing time.
Willie D is offline  
Old August 1, 2007, 11:15 PM   #33
obxned
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: OBX, NC
Posts: 1,128
An innocent citizen is suddenly put a horribly stressful and dangerous situation by vicious thugs crashing their way into his home.

His actions in defending his life may or may not have been 100% in compliance with laws written by people who were safe, unstressed, and had nearly unlimited time to do their job.

If he were to be charged, he could not be convicted if there was but one person on that jury who could honestly imagine himself in such a desperate situation.
__________________
“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.” Ronald Reagan

I'm a proud member of a North Carolina Committee of Safety
obxned is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 06:28 AM   #34
Spade Cooley
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 296
The law as perceived by our board members and the actual law is flawed when it would punish a citizen for taking action against people who were trying to hurt him. This is the prime reason our legal system needs an overhaul. This citizen was at war and he was determined to finish it and win. They started it, he didn't. He no doubt was trying to kill all of them in order to prevent them from coming back another day to kill him. There is nothing wrong with that. Even some of our far right thinking board members think he went too far. As a country, we are in trouble when people think like this.


In the end it will most likely come out that the homeowner was a dope dealer and had large somes of money in the house, thus the reason for the home invasion robbery. Whenever bad guys die in a gun battle, we all win.
Spade Cooley is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 07:40 AM   #35
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,395
Quote:
Legally he went too far. It is hard to make a self defense case when you chase the criminals through the streets.
Not in Texas, he did not. We have the option of using lethal force in situations where we are not in fear for our lives or not in fear any longer. That is, based on the fact that the crime took place at night, there was a felony committed (multiple), and the owner undoubtedly believed that he had no other way to get back what the robbers stole from him and so he used lethal force to attempt to stop their flight, that is all 100% legal.

Of course, this all assumes that what was reported was accurate.
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:05 AM   #36
pdkflyguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2005
Location: South Florida
Posts: 159
Quote:
This sounds fishy... He was targetted by four attackers at 2:30 in the morning with at least one AK and who knows what else... Somehow he got the drop on all of them and then saw fit to chase them down... I would be interseted to see what else comes out of this as I would be willing to be he might have known who these guys were and that there was a reason for his being targetted.
These guys MUST have known this guy, or been following him for some time to know he had a safe with several thousand dollars in it. It sounds like even if he didn't know his attackers, they certainly knew him.

That being said, he would have been justified in shooting them dead in his home or on his property, but the second he leaves to give chase, he becomes a vigilante.

IMHO, and if it were me, I'd have shot as many as it took to make the rest flee, then worry about my family first before chasing bad guys. If 4 guys are this interested in getting your money, you should think that there may be more. Or there could be a lookout ready to shoot you as soon as you run out after them. To me, giving chase is bad both legally and tactically.

I hope that he doesn't get charged, because as it's been said, adrenaline is a crazy thing, and he did what he thought was best after being attacked. But if he is, I hope people realize that he WAS outside of the law, and that the DA in any jurisdiction has the right to narrowly interpret the law.
__________________
H&K's are the greatest guns ever made.
H&K USPc .40
Taurus PT140 .40
Walther P22 .22LR
pdkflyguy is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:10 AM   #37
JoeBlackSpade
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2007
Posts: 162
Bad move any way you look at it:

Remember the AK-47 they found at the vehicle? Anybody?

That guy could have been cut in half by the perps, and become a victim, because of his overwhelming need to get revenge.



Legality aside, leaving your home is not sound from a PURELY SURVIVAL mode of thinking.

If you repel their assault/invasion, the right thing is to take cover INSIDE THE HOUSE, reload, constantly scan, and dial 911 ASAP. The sooner you have law enforcement on the way, the better.

If you are defending from a covered and concealed position, your odds of survival -in the event they return- are much higher, even against numerically superior odds.
JoeBlackSpade is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:21 AM   #38
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 494
Another perspective is this is why it stinks to live near a drug dealer.
Mainah is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:23 AM   #39
Thumper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2000
Location: Sugar Land, Tx
Posts: 1,507
A lot of you guys talking about what you believe to be legal have a very poor understanding of Texas law.
__________________
Ronnie- Proud Veteran, Neocon, Warmongering, Baby-Pincher
Thumper is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:24 AM   #40
Spenser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 408
How so? Just curious...
Spenser is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:38 AM   #41
JoeBlackSpade
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2007
Posts: 162
I don't know about everyone else, but that's why I said "legality aside". To be very frank, in a life or death situation, I'm not thinking about the law. Law enforcement is there to protect me. If they aren't around, I have to protect myself.

The fact remains that staying INSIDE the house, allowing the attackers to flee is statistically SAFER than running out in the yard and exchanging gunfire.

Please don't take what I said the wrong way. Under almost any conceivable circumstance, I always abide by the law, and I've got a spotless record to back that up. The point I'm making is that in a dangerous encounter, your WILL to live should make your decisions for you, not some internal debate about the law. Having said that, I can't imagine a scenario where running down the street after a perpetrator is a good idea- legal or not!

Priorities are:

1.) escape if possible
2.) if escape is NOT possible, draw down and shoot to stop the threat to your life
3.) move instantly to the nearest covered and concealed position
4.) assess the threat; once the threat is completely neutralized, contact law enforcement immediately.
JoeBlackSpade is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:46 AM   #42
Thumper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2000
Location: Sugar Land, Tx
Posts: 1,507
Not you, Spenser...
__________________
Ronnie- Proud Veteran, Neocon, Warmongering, Baby-Pincher
Thumper is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:53 AM   #43
Spenser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 408
Thanks, but I'm up for schoolin' if I need it.....
Spenser is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:58 AM   #44
45Marlin carbine
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2007
Location: South-Western North Carolina
Posts: 1,124
still interested in what firerarm(s) he used to repel them, anyone know?
45Marlin carbine is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:10 PM   #45
Spade Cooley
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 296
It's all in how you explain why you did what you did so get yourself together before you start telling what happened. You chased the vehicle in an attempt to get the license number. When one of the occupants pointed a firearm at you, you shot back, merely defending yourself.

Just remember when you are on a jury to give the honest citizen defending himself and his property an even break because the rest of America will be dazzled by the rights of the criminal. What I have been hearing on this board scares me.
Spade Cooley is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 09:53 PM   #46
jrothWA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2006
Posts: 1,941
Sounds like...

the best call.
Present all evidence to a jury of peers and have them define the law.


3 out four ain't bad
jrothWA is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 10:38 PM   #47
SatanzBountyHunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 128
Good for the homeowner. He obviously did the right thing. He is alright and 4 bad guys are either dead or in jail. Doesn't get much better than that.

If more people did this, home invasion/robbery would really decline.

The potential drug aspect of this may change my mind slightly about the homeowner, but it is still good that the other 4 criminals are out of commission.
__________________
Because you can't starve us out and you can't make us run, cause we're them 'ol boys raised on shotguns. We say "grace" and we say "ma'am" if you ain't into that we don't give a damn -Bocephus
SatanzBountyHunter is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 11:19 PM   #48
redblair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 313
I've thought about this for a while. I think that the homeowner did the right thing until he left his property and gave chase. Legally it's not a safe action and much more importantly, to me at least, I think it's a poor tactical decision.

He has forced the attackers to flee and then he leaves the relative safety of his property to chase armed men into what? Possible to encounter more armed men, say a lookout or two, in an open unknown area. By unknown I mean compared to his property. Has he left his family behind? He has no idea what's out there and to give chase increases his, and perhaps his families, risk.


I understand that giving chase is a natural desire. Just think it's an overly dangerous one.

B
__________________
There are people with experience and people with opinions. Listen to one, smile at the other.

Dec. 15, 1791
redblair is offline  
Old August 2, 2007, 11:46 PM   #49
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,299
Quote:
In Texas, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent someone from fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping the property, and the actor believes (reasonably) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or not using deadly force would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Tex. Pen. Code §9.42.
Not to prevent them from fleeing, but to prevent them from escaping with property. There are other restrictions, the law isn't quite as simple as stated above.

Legalities aside, he may be charged, but it will be hard to get an indictment. If they manage, all he has to do is ask for a jury trial. IMHO it would be pretty hard to seat a jury that would convict him.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old August 3, 2007, 04:48 AM   #50
edcrosbys
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2007
Posts: 1
Bad idea to take pursuit, IMHO.

BUT, we do not know what was said or done to make him take pursuit (it could have JUST been trying to get property back). What if they started talking about coming back later, sometime this guys daughter and/or wife were home (i don't know if he had any). Would that still be considered "Fear for Life"?

Again, I don't believe it is an intelligent move to pursue, but it's easy enough to understand where he was coming from.

On another note, I'd love to know what kind of collateral damage was done from stray shots. 30 rounds fired... Tires blown out... All that steel had to end up somewhere. Thankfully not in an innocent.
edcrosbys is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13802 seconds with 7 queries