Guy chases burglar outside and shoots him away from the house.

[skydiver3346]

Quote: "You cannot legally or morally use this as a defense".....

Wow, your knowledge of the legal system and you attorney skills are just amazing....

I never mentioned anything about what I was going to use as a defense for going after the bad guy. All I said was I would have my wife call the police and I would go after him myself. That is what I would do, period. Hopefully I could stop him and keep him under a citizen's arrest till the police finally arrive. If he pulled a gun on me, then I would have to shoot him, period. Nothing will change my mind about that.

As stated previously, I live far out of town and law enforcement would be a long time coming. In the meantime, the perp (who just kicked down my front door (in a home invasion attempt) is getting away scot free. Sorry bud, but that just ain't going to cut it with me.

We all are different in our makeup I guess. We aren't all wired the same and that is just the way it is. I have never been arrested before in my life. I am not looking to find any trouble. However, I am not going to let someone commit such an egregious act againist my family and just walk away without consequences. You do what you think is best, so will I.

[Zombi]

You're are not a LEO you are not protected under the law in a manner that allows you to pursue a fleeing burglar and use deadly force. It is absolutely ridicules to assume that your actions are legally justified. The perp is not going after you, you're chasing him.

The burglar can damn near be justified to shoot you. He is scared for his life and he is trying to get away from you.

If you can contain him at your residents great!!! If not its out of you hands.

[skydiver3346]

Hey Zombi, Aren't you the dude that just quoted: "They Murdered that man"....
Yeah, that is really a compassionate way to show your support for the bad guy.
Poor Perp, he kicks down the home owner's front door and then pulls a gun on him when they try to stop him from fleeing after his crime.

By the way, I don't believe I mentioned anything about being a law enforcement officer and/or being in any way "protected" for going after the bad guy who just licked in my front door. I also never said anything about being legally justified either. As you stated, "the burglar would be justified in shooting me", (for trying to stop him after he tried to break in my home).
Man, you are really something. You probably support Sotomayor for the Supreme Court too!

[Zombi]

I don't mean to defend the burglar. I would like to have seen the bastard shot dead at the house he was robing.

Unfortunately once he leaves the immediate area its a different situation. A non-LEO has no business going after him. The burglar has as much right to defend himself at this point. Its your word against his. If I was the burglar I would be in fear for my life not knowing the mental state or intentions of the person pursuing me.

[Ricky B]

The burglar has as much right to defend himself at this point.

The law is clear that burglars and robbers may not use force to prevent themselves from being captured by the police or for the police.

[Sportdog]

This thread needs to be transfered to the legal forum. All that is being discussed is the morality or legal aspect of chasing someone down after they attempt to gain forced entry to your home. Tactics would involve ways to keep yourself safe and/or shoot or beat the heck out of the BG trying to break down your door. Training would involve practice in shooting and beating BG's.

[PT111]

A little more on this story. If you read the comments I think you find that the citizen's arrest defense just will not hold up. So many holes in this story it makes like Swiss cheese look like pepper jack. However I think it will be self-defense in the end.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Pol...ng_death_.html

Police said a Northwest Side shooting death Sunday night could be justified in self-defense.


Witnesses told police that a 26-year-old man broke into a friend’s home in the 9600 block of Timber Laurel after he was kicked out of a bar for causing a disturbance.


Later in the evening, the owner of the gun confronted the alleged thief in the 5200 block of Northwest Trails.


The men struggled over the weapon before a third man, the gun owner’s brother, shot the suspect about 10:45 p.m., police said. The suspect died at the scene, while the shooter fled.


Police said the shooter likely would not face charges because he was defending his brother.


When detectives first arrived at the scene, the gun owner claimed to have shot the suspect, according to the police report.


A witness told police that the man urged everyone there to “shut up” about his brother’s role because he “would take the rap” for the incident, the document states.


The shooter eventually drove to police headquarters and confessed to shooting the other man in defense of his brother, police said. He has not been charged

[OuTcAsT]

The law is clear that burglars and robbers may not use force to prevent themselves from being captured by the police or for the police.

While the law is clear, the issues are a bit more complicated than that.

Let's put it this way, If I kick in your door, you confront me, and I run away, you can, in some States, attempt to chase me down, and hold me for police. Just as your statement says, I may not use force to prevent my capture by the citizen, but, If I decide to, and kill you in the process, what then? As far as anyone else is concerned, I am just a guy out for a stroll, and some nut just tried to attack me, I shot him to defend myself. You won't get to tell your side.

Can you see how many ways this can, and likely will, go wrong? You continue to quote the law as if that should make it fine to attempt a citizens arrest, based only on the fact that the law says the bad guy cannot resist. Problem is, bad guys usually don't follow the law.

Just because something is legal, does not make it a good idea.

Wow, your knowledge of the legal system and you attorney skills are just amazing....

Thanks, I think they are right on par with your tactical planning, could be we both need a bit more study? It has nothing to do with legal skill, and everything to do with common sense. Sadly, a character trait that seems less common all the time.

[TailGator]

To me, the quote and article referenced in post #157 reads quite a bit differently than the OP. Maybe the most important lesson is to be skeptical of getting the whole story from the press.

[Vanya]

All good points, OuTcAsT.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

As far as anyone else is concerned, I am just a guy out for a stroll, and some nut just tried to attack me, I shot him to defend myself. You won't get to tell your side.

And since this is the Tactics Forum, I don't think it's off-topic to point out that this case -- as the quote above suggests -- is a good example of why it may be a bad idea to intervene, as a CHL-holding "good citizen," in a situation involving third parties.

Suppose you're a passer-by who sees all this happening. You see two guys, gun in the hand of one, maybe both, chasing a third. YOU DO NOT KNOW who, if anyone, is the good guy here. If you get involved, what's going to happen?

You pull your gun, tell them all to cut it out, and get shot by any of them...

You pull your gun, shoot the homeowner and his brother (assuming they are both holding guns and threatening the other guy, this might look like a "good shoot")... and then learn they were chasing a home invader...

The odds of a positive outcome aren't too good, I think. If ever there were a case for "Call 911 and and be a good witness," this is it.

[Double Naught Spy]

Just because something is legal, does not make it a good idea.

Just because it may not be a good idea does not make it wrong. In fact, depending on your personal perspective, values, etc., it may be a bad idea, but the absolutely right thing to do.

Lot's of things aren't a good idea to somebody just like the silly calls for morality when it comes to self defense or justice. The anti-gunners may acknowledge that gun ownership is legal, but certainly feel it is a bad idea. Heck, some even feel gun ownership crosses a moral line.

Is that going to stop you from being a gun owner just because somebody else thinks it is a bad idea?

Are you going to not do something because it does not agree with somebody else's morals?

The law is in place so that we might have a society standard by which behavior may be measured. Everyone has their own idea of what is a good idea or moral and that is perfectly fine at the individual level, but it doesn't work very well to supercede the law in determining what others should or should not, can or cannot do.

Can you see how many ways this can, and likely will, go wrong?

Yep, great argument against activism. Just like the notion of drawing a gun and using it in self defense against an attacker. Can you see how many ways that could go wrong? This argument has been the fuel for folks like anti-gunners against concealed carry or even against gun ownership for self defense.

So was chasing down the interloper bad tactics? We don't really know. We don't know what tactics were used in the process. We just know the result.

[OldMarksman]

To me, the quote and article referenced in post #157 reads quite a bit differently than the OP. Maybe the most important lesson is to be skeptical of getting the whole story from the press.

Good point. It's also probably not a good idea to assume that the reported comments by the police ("likely would not face charges") can necessarily be relied upon.

Same thing was apparently said initially in the Bexar County home invasion case, which resulted in the recent indictment of the homeowner for murder two years later.

Wonder how long it will take for this one to unfold?

Legality (and morality) aside, I agree with Outcast's assessment that the actions taken by the shooter and his brother may not have been a good idea from the risk standpoint. One or both of them could easily have been killed or maimed. And for what potential gain? It's not at all like a self defense incident in which the confrontation that led to the shooting could not be avoided.

How does the saying go? Something about the best way to approach a gunfight being to avoid one? If you know that someone has kicked in the door to your house, you have reason to assume that he is not a law abiding citizen and that he is likely very dangerous.

It would be very interesting to hear from a current or former police officer about how they would have approached the task of apprehending the intruder, what they would not have done, and how that might differ from what was reportedly done in this case.

[OuTcAsT]

Just because it may not be a good idea does not make it wrong.

I agree completely, Just like some would argue that OC is a bad idea, that does not make it wrong.

The law is in place so that we might have a society standard by which behavior may be measured. Everyone has their own idea of what is a good idea or moral and that is perfectly fine at the individual level, but it doesn't work very well to supercede the law in determining what others should or should not, can or cannot do.

So, your argument is that, as long as it's "legal", then you, (collectively) are the only person who can decide whether it is "unwise"? OK fair enough. If I see someone dousing himself with gasoline, and about to light a match, does my pointing out that his actions may be unwise diminish his ultimate freedom to decide that for himself ?

Yep, great argument against activism. Just like the notion of drawing a gun and using it in self defense against an attacker. Can you see how many ways that could go wrong? This argument has been the fuel for folks like anti-gunners against concealed carry or even against gun ownership for self defense.

Not an argument at all, merely pointing to the gas can, and the match. And any statement taken out of context can be twisted in such a manner, but you already know that. Again, pointing out the gas can, and match makes me neither anti-gasoline, nor, anti-match.

We just know the result.

Respectfully, I don't think the final result has been determined just yet.

[OuTcAsT]

It's not at all like a self defense incident in which the confrontation that led to the shooting could not be avoided.

This is the key ! ^^

[Ricky B]

Can you see how many ways this can, and likely will, go wrong? You continue to quote the law as if that should make it fine to attempt a citizens arrest, based only on the fact that the law says the bad guy cannot resist.

Of course, I see how it could go wrong. I think you misunderstand me. I am in no way urging victims to pursue intruders and make citizen's arrests. I am rejecting arguments that others have made that a victim can't properly pursue an intruder, that only the cops can do it. Whether a victim is looking to turn the BG over to the cops or simply to beat the tar out of the intruder is a factual question that I don't address.

But it's wrong for posters here to say or suggest that a victim who pursues an intruder to catch the BG and turn him over to the cops is committing some kind of crime or is somehow morally culpable. And it's also wrong for posters here to say that a victim who kills the BG in the process is guilty of murder. It ain't necessarily so.

In some cases, the victim may not be legally responsible for the death of the BG. If I have gone beyond that, let me know.

[OldMarksman]

I am in no way urging victims to pursue intruders and make citizen's arrests.

Understood, and I am not aware of any knowledgeable person who would responsibly make such a recommendation.

I am rejecting arguments that others have made that a victim can't properly pursue an intruder, that only the cops can do it.

You are of course right regarding "can't and "can." The question comes down to "should", and to me it isn't a moral question at all.

But it's wrong for posters here to say or suggest that a victim who pursues an intruder to catch the BG and turn him over to the cops is committing some kind of crime or is somehow morally culpable.

Agree. To me, the issue is whether it is at all wise to attempt to do so. Very high risks, I think, for little if any potential upside.

And it's also wrong for posters here to say that a victim who kills the BG in the process is guilty of murder. It ain't necessarily so.

True. Of course, a jury could conclude, based on their evaluation of the evidence presented and their impressions of the testimony, that it is murder in one degree or another. And of course, there's the not so insignificant issue of civil liability....

If I have gone beyond that, let me know.

No, you are fine.

[OuTcAsT]

But it's wrong for posters here to say or suggest that a victim who pursues an intruder to catch the BG and turn him over to the cops is committing some kind of crime or is somehow morally culpable. And it's also wrong for posters here to say that a victim who kills the BG in the process is guilty of murder.

From a purely technical perspective you may, in some instances be correct. You might want to read this for an example of how the technical can turn against you...

http://="http://www.thefiringline.co....php?t=365683"

[Wildalaska]

Let me reiterate: Chasing a criminal fleeing the scene, is presumptively the stupidest thing someone can do from a tactical and legal perspective. There are situations where it MAY be appropriate, but, as in every aspect of life, the testosterone switch should always be in the off position from the get go

WildoooorahAlaska ™

[Sixer]

I agree with WA that the testosterone should be in check here. Still, there may be other reasons to follow or detain a BG. There have been cases where the BG has returned to finish the job. One could argue that by attempting to "catch" the intruder you have a better likelihood of keeping him away for good...

There is no textbook answer for this because there are just too many variables to consider. When it comes to using deadly force you should only be reacting to what the BG is doing... not what he has done.

[Brian Pfleuger]

using deadly force you should only be reacting to what the BG is doing... not what he has done.

and not what he MIGHT do in the future.

[PT111]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that unless there are some witnesses which I don't know if there are we only have the brothers side of the story. They say he broke into their house,stole a gun (?), they caught up with him, he struggled and tried to shoot the homeowner, the brother shot the bad guy, they left him there.

How much of this is actually true? Maybe they shot him in the house or yard and dumped his body a few blocks away. Maybe he never was at the house at all and they just happened to meet up with the dead guy. Maybe they shot him on sight and there was no struggle at all. We only have one side of the story and not a very complete one at that.

[zonamo]

Originally Posted by Sixer

When it comes to using deadly force you should only be reacting to what the BG is doing

Which, according to the brothers, was taking the gun he had stolen and threatening them with it. According to their story they didn't kill him for breaking into their house. They killed him to prevent the imminent use of deadly force.

Now one can argue until the cows come home about the wisdom or morality of attempting to catch this guy, but it doesn't matter that they would be charged with murder somewhere like Massachussetts because chasing him down and attempting to hold him is apparently legal in Texas and standing your ground when threatened is apparently legal in Texas, which all makes their reaction to getting the stolen gun turned on them apparently legal in Texas. It's no wonder given the way things work in Texas that the Texas cops said it was probably self-defense. Just don't try this in Chicago.

Or course, as PT111 noted, we have and only will have the brother's version of the story. "Lucky" for them.

[skydiver3346]

I gotta tell you, you guys just kill me. It has nothing to do with our testosterone! It's got to do with being responsible for your family. Guess it's different up where you live.

Man, I am getting really tired of of all the. "let's be nice and don't do anything" response to the bad guys (for for committing crimes to us). Just call the police and everything will be taken care of............ Yeah, right.

This guy just kicked down your front door of your home! He decides to just walk away and you do nothing? He also was armed at the time (which was later found out). Of course upon reflection, you probably gotta know that anyone who kicks down your front door is probably armed to some degree.

In my opinion, it has a lot to do with, "DOING THE RIGHT THING". Which is arresting the SOB, and/or preventing repeat offenders, (even if you have to do it yourself). That is my personal opinion. You and your buddies counter every post (that refers to taking action) with a counter response of doing nothing (but making a phone call). "Call the police, don't do anything", and the bad guys just get away.... Another post said, "The perp has the right to shoot you if you chase him"......... What a crock!

You guys say, "it's not our responsibility to chase the bad guy". I'm sorry, but for some of us, that is just not acceptable. We will take action.

What's really at stake here, is not letting these dirt bags get away with their crimes. Something you say, (should be handled by the authorities). I agree, that the police should take care of problems like this. However, (depending on where you live), that is not always possible. You say, "Call the cops, its not worth the hassle of trying to stop the perp". No way can I allow that to happen.

You can come back and bitch at me if you want, ( I have thick skin, I can take it). But when it gets right down to it, (sooner or later) you have to look in the mirror.

You say "it's just not right to chase down the bad guy, as we can get in trouble with the legal system"? Yes, that may be a possibility and/or result of your actions. But you must understand, that some of us must stand up for what they believe is right.

I am a man and the defender of my home and family. It has nothing to do with being macho, but rather RESPONSIBLE. I don't go looking for trouble and really, try to avoid it (if at all possible). However, I will not allow these personal attacks on my home and property to go unchallenged. These are weird times we live in nowadays. Its just not the same as it used to be. For the criminals, there is no respect for authority and/or life and property.

I just wonder, what will you do one night when the bad guy comes calling on your family and kicks down the door? Call the Mounties?

[wickedrider]

OldMarksman's post "Man Chases Intruder from House, Shoots", provides the logical extension to the positions posited in this post. Though the law has changed since the date of occurrence in that situation, many of the principles and thoughts are the same. Texas law may have changed. However, there are many states that still subscribe to the old Texas law.

[OldMarksman]

This guy just kicked down your front door of your home! He decides to just walk away and you do nothing?

The guy in Bexar County did not "do nothing" and he has been indicted for murder.

You can use deadly force to protect yourself from imminent danger, but when the man decides to just "walk away," you cannot--it would be murder.

You can go after him to try to hold him for the police. Not wise. All downside, no upside.

He also was armed at the time (which was later found out).

So the shooter and his brother have said. Might be true. Might not be.

And either way, it is completely irrelevant to what you can do, and if he is armed, does that make it wiser to go after him?

In my opinion, it has a lot to do with, "DOING THE RIGHT THING". Which is arresting the SOB, and/or preventing repeat offenders, (even if you have to do it yourself). ... You guys say, "it's not our responsibility to chase the bad guy". I'm sorry, but for some of us, that is just not acceptable. We will take action.

So---you apparently think you have the skills and training. You do not have the indemnification or the back-up.

What's really at stake here, is not letting these dirt bags get away with their crimes.

Agree. They get caught by whomever, and they will probably be prosecuted. Maybe they'll get what they deserve, maybe not. Maybe they'll be back in your neighborhood before you are. You don't control that.

You say "it's just not right to chase down the bad guy, as we can get in trouble with the legal system"?

Not "right"? No, it's not that. It's just not smart. Not smart at all.

"Trouble with the legal system?" We'll, you can be charged, maybe tried, and lose most or all of your money even if you win. If you lose, you lose your clean record, your fortune, your livelihood, and your personal freedom, and your right to own guns--forever. Not to mention civil liability.

And not to mention the possibility of getting maimed or killed.

You say, "Call the cops, its not worth the hassle of trying to stop the perp"

You call the above "hassle?"

I am a man and the defender of my home and family. It has nothing to do with being macho, but rather RESPONSIBLE.

Wouldn't it be wise then to not put your ability to stay in your home, and your ability to provide for your family, at extreme risk?

But let's go along with your idea. A guy has just kicked in your door and taken off. You go after him. You catch up with him. What are you going to do? Say "stop"? If he doesn't, what then? You can't shoot him (but of course, you know that already). Think you can tie him up without being disarmed and shot? What if he is injured or becomes ill, or dies? That's your responsibility then. But of course you already know that.

Even if you should successfully effect a citizen's arrest successfully without being prosecuted, sued, or killed or injured--and that's by far the best case scenario-- how would your family possibly be any safer than if the perp had been brought to justice by the authorities?

If you want to be the man arresting people, attend the police academy. You'll end up with the training; equipment including cuffs, radio, dash-mounted camera, etc.; back-up, approved departmental procedures; legal authority; and indemnification to do the job.

Yes, you would still be exposed to legal risk or at least discipline for wrongful actions, but you wouldn't face the possibility of losing everything you own in civil court--your jurisdiction will take care of that. Yes, you would still face the possibility of getting maimed or killed, but you would at least have better training.

And you would have a much, much lower chance of being shot by the police or by an armed citizen who comes upon the scene.

Having a gun does not begin to confer police powers upon you. If you desire to have them, you have to take some steps to get them.