Man Chases Intruder from House, Shoots

[OldMarksman]

Here's another one. Two years since the shooting, and now an indictment.

A man in Texas chased a man from his living room and killed him. The homeowner said the man, who had been discovered in his house during the night, had lunged at him, and that he was trying to hold him for the police. The intruder departed from the house and the homeowner fired, killing the intruder.

The police initially apparently thought the shooting to have been justified. However, the shooter has since been indicted for murder.

Almost two years elapsed between the time of the shooting and the indictment.

Food for thought.

A 49-year-old man who chased a young man from his living room in the middle of the night two years ago, repeatedly shooting the drunken college student in the street, was indicted this week on a murder charge.

Raymond Lemes was released Thursday from Bexar County Jail after posting $75,000 bond. Lemes was arrested a day earlier, after a Bexar County grand jury decided he should be put on trial for the Aug. 4, 2007, death of Tracy Glass.

Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing. He'd been trying to detain the intruder until police arrived, he said.

Lemes indicated at the time of the shooting that he was protecting himself, but prosecutors said Thursday they sought the indictment because he shot the unarmed man five times after Glass already had fled the house without any of the homeowner's belongings.

“Initially, I think (police) had been viewing it as a justifiable shooting,” District Attorney Susan Reed said.

Reed said police in December referred the case to her office so that prosecutors could review and consider presenting it to a grand jury for prosecution.

After that, she said, her office took time to visit the scene and conduct its own investigation.

“We wanted to give a full picture to the grand jury,” she said. “We wanted to make sure they had everything possible.”

Reed said Lemes was invited to speak before the grand jury, but never responded.

Attorneys for Lemes didn't return repeated calls Thursday seeking comment. Relatives at the house where the shooting occurred also declined to comment Thursday about the indictment.

Authorities said that after waking to his wife's screams and grabbing his .40-caliber handgun, Lemes found the Angelo State University student crouched beside his couch at about 2:45 that Saturday morning, according to a 2007 Bexar County medical examiner's investigation report.

But prosecutors Thursday said their investigation revealed Lemes and Glass didn't encounter each other until the young man already had run from the house.

“It wasn't like there was a confrontation or a struggle,” First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said. “Our investigation indicates he was high-tailing it out of the house with the homeowner in pursuit.”

After the shooting, Lemes placed his gun on the street and waited for police to arrive.

Texas law traditionally allows a homeowner to fire at an intruder if he believes it's the only way to protect his property, but prosecutors said Glass was empty-handed.

The only other way deadly force would have been justified, they say, is if Lemes reasonably believed his life was in jeopardy or he was in danger of suffering serious bodily injury.

An expanded version of the so-called Castle Doctrine wasn't in effect at the time of the shooting. This extended the rights of residents to protect their property, but Reed said it wouldn't have been relevant anyway.

“In this instance, the trespass had been terminated,” she said. “The guy's running down the street and away. There was no gun found. There was no indication of deadly force being used against the defendant.”

Glass' family members also couldn't be reached for comment Thursday. But they've maintained the shooting was a tragic mistake that resulted in the young man walking into Lemes' house that morning.

The teen had been staying with his sister at a home along Autumn Evening, a cul-de-sac that has backyards adjoining Autumn Star, the cul-de-sac on which Lemes lived. Both homes were located on the right side of the street, were painted similarly and had sliding-glass doors in similar positions.

Lemes' sliding-glass door had previously broken and was unlocked on the night of the incident, according to police reports of the incident.

Glass' parents filed a wrongful death suit against Lemes last year but dropped it in December after deciding little would be accomplished from it, Lubbock-based attorney Chad Inderman said Thursday.

“It was a difficult decision,” he said of abandoning civil proceedings. “I know (the arrest) is not going to bring their son back, but it may let them feel that that the justice system worked.”

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Man..._his_home.html

[Evan Thomas]

One wonders what changed, after 2 years. Seems a long time to wait before referring something like this to a grand jury.

[OldMarksman]

One wonders what changed, after 2 years. Seems a long time to wait before referring something like this to a grand jury.

Good question.

This case does, however, show that exposure to legal sanctions in a homicide case exists until there has been an acquittal in trial court or the death of the person who committed the act, whichever comes first.

That's an unnerving thought. I conclude from that that it may be extremely unwise to say anything at all to anyone about a shooting unless and until you have gone through the ordeal of a trial and acquittal, or you are on your deathbed.

Scary, ain't it?

[OuTcAsT]

But...But... This is Texas, where you can shoot to protect property, Oh wait, the suspect was fleeing !

But Wait, This is Texas, where you can pursue the suspect and make a "citizens arrest".

And even though the suspect was empty handed, he could have had a gun.

And what if he decided to come back and retaliate ?

And of course, the college kid did commit the "heinous" crime of home invasion !


According to the opinions I have seen as of late, it would seem this just cannot be happening !

[Mello2u]

This is another example of how you are putting yourself at greater legal jeopardy when you pursue someone leaving your home with the possibility/probability of using deadly force.

We have the benefit of a great deal of time (unlike the shooter) to consider the limited facts available at our leisure. Maybe some of us if ever presented with the option to pursue or to stay will benefit from this time deciding whether it is worth the risk of prosecution to pursue.

[OldMarksman]

Heh, heh, heh!

[Wildalaska]

I think the homeowner should be aquitted. Criminals like this teenager are evil and should be eradicated so they cant commit crimes in the future. Im tired of the courts and the simpering criminal lovers on this urging us to cower before the criminal element...thats not what manly, decent red blooded americans do...we destroy the predators.

WildinsertironysmileyhereAlaska TM

I hate it when Outcast beats me to it

[Evan Thomas]

thats not what manly, decent red blooded americans do...we destroy the predators.

After all, they're predators... it's not like they're human.

(yah, we really, really need that irony smiley, don't we?)

[Brian Pfleuger]

Eerily similar to that more recent incident, no?

[KCabbage]

Yes the teen made a bad move, but I don't think that warranted death.

Think about this...When I was 15 or so me and some buds were hanging out latenight and decided to go to his house. I've never been to his apartment before, but I had lived in the complex years before. When we got there we went inside his apartment and stood in his living room and chatted deciding to invite some girls. While they were on the way I decided to go get my bottle of liquer from his car. At this point I was already under the influence. So I walked out his sliding glass door that was off his livingroom and proceded up the hill to the parking lot to fetch my bottle. Got my bottle and headed back down the hill passing several sliding glass doors. Since it was late night most of the peoples house lights were off. I finally arrived at a lit up apartment which I thought was the right sliding glass door and went inside to a empty living room. I walked in and wondered where everyone went. I did seem a little different, but nothing to out of the ordinary. Well...there was a huge iguana cage I didn't notice before I called out "What the hell, where you guys at?" No response. I started walking down the dark hall thinking they were hiding from me or something and was asking where they were in the process. I arrived at a closed bedroom door. I opened it up and asked "Are you guys in here?" and turned on the lightswitch right by the door. As soon as I could see I saw a beast of a man soundly asleep. I can't beleive he didn't wake up, I was being so loud . As soon as I realized I was in the wrong house I turned his bedroom light back off and quickly proceded back down the hallway to the glass door passing by the shotgun and hunting equipment against the wall and the massive iguana cage. I exited through the same door and hurried down passing a couple more glass doors to finally find my friends where I left them. With my adrenaline rushing I told them what happened and that was the laugh for the night

Now what if that guy woke up and blasted me right there? Or chased me out of his apartment to pop some shots into my back? Definately not fair, it was a honest mistake.

If he would have killed me it probably would have looked as if I was a home intuder with evil things on my mind.

Bottom line, I think the homeowner took it too far and needs at least a manslaughter conviction. You can't shoot him expecting "thats how i'll catch and hold him for police." Remember the saying "only point your weapon at something your willing to destroy?"
I doubt the teen even lounged at him.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by KCabbage

I doubt the teen even lounged at him.

Now, that would be scary. Posture just ain't what it used to be.

Sorry, K. Couldn't resist. But you're right on about this, and I think almost everyone who's posted in this thread would agree with you...

And thanks for telling your story. It's useful to put more human faces on these incidents, I think.

[Lost Sheep]

A homeowner (R.L.) kills an intruder (T.G.).

Initially, police thought the shooting was justified. R.L.'s testimony was such that it appeared to be a burglary or home invasion of some kind. Subsequent facts revealed it might credibly be a case of a kid new in the neighborhood (and possibly drunk) entering a home that looked like where he was staying through an unlocked door by mistake and running away when chased by a man with a gun. Unlikely to have appeared to have been a threat.

It took two years (according to the prosecutor) to sort out the facts and come to the conclusion that a jury should find the truth.

The Grand Jury deliberated over the facts and concluded that a trial jury should determine culpability.

So, what's the issue? The shooting? The (probable) lying? The two year time frame? The motive of the prosecutor (possible political reasons)? The dropping of the civil suit by T.G.'s family?

Lost Sheep

I don't know what it has been like for R.L. to have this "Sword of Damocles" haging over him, but it looks like he will have the chance to speak freely after his trial.

[KCabbage]

Golly darnit, I had a feeling I spelled that wrong Thanks Vanya, i'd hate to be shot for lounging
Longed at him?

Edit - Wait a minute that's not right either....skimmed the first post to get to the bottom of this. LUNGED at him, there we go

[OuTcAsT]

Longed at him?

Lunged.

So, what's the issue? The shooting? The (probable) lying? The two year time frame? The motive of the prosecutor (possible political reasons)? The dropping of the civil suit by T.G.'s family?

I think the "issue" is how this particular incident gives food for thought about similar incidents that are being discussed on several other threads. If you go back and read my sarcastic first post in this thread, you will find questions about specific "rights" or "legal" actions that others have all but claimed were, pardon the pun, bulletproof, and this story is a shining example of how following your gonads, versus common sense, can come back and make your shorts fit a bit more loosely.

Things that are "legal" and acceptable, are not always so unambiguous when viewed by our criminal justice system. What "at the moment" appears to follow the letter of the law, does not always pass the scrutiny of the spirit of the law.

Let us speak plainly;

Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing.

Keep those highlighted words in mind.

they sought the indictment because he shot the unarmed man five times after Glass already had fled the house

Sound similar to a couple of incidents? He shot an unarmed man, five times, You would think that would be acceptable given the circumstances Eh?

“It wasn't like there was a confrontation or a struggle,” First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said. “Our investigation indicates he was high-tailing it out of the house with the homeowner in pursuit.”

You would think that his actions would be justifiable, he just witnessed a crime, and legally has the means to pursue the criminal to "hold him for police" . If so, then why would that be a factor ? My guess is the pursuit may be the first problem.

Texas law traditionally allows a homeowner to fire at an intruder if he believes it's the only way to protect his property, but prosecutors said Glass was empty-handed.

Now why would he not be justified in "defending his property" ? perhaps because the threat disappeared out the door. and why should it matter that he was "empty handed" ? Is it possible that the law does not see this as a "heinous" home invasion ? or a lesser "trespass"

The only other way deadly force would have been justified, they say, is if Lemes reasonably believed his life was in jeopardy or he was in danger of suffering serious bodily injury.

Like when the BG Lunged at the GG, that surely should have been threat enough, after all, the guy "could" have posed a threat ? Or maybe it is having a hard time passing the "reasonable man" test ? perhaps forensics?

“In this instance, the trespass had been terminated,” she said. “The guy's running down the street and away. There was no gun found. There was no indication of deadly force being used against the defendant.”

So, a stranger boldly enters your house, you confront him, he runs, you "give chase" he lunges, as if to attack, you "fear for your life" and fire. and yet even though there are so many laws that seem to favor your position, somehow you could be wrong ? Think about that carefully. Apply that thought to some other incidents under discussion, you may see some things in a slightly different perspective.

Some might conjecture; "Hell OuTcAsT, this is an isolated incident, what are the chances all these factors could come into play anywhere else" ?

Good question !

[OldMarksman]

So, what's the issue? The shooting? The (probable) lying? The two year time frame? The motive of the prosecutor (possible political reasons)? The dropping of the civil suit by T.G.'s family?

All of the above.

In particular, the indictment after two years, and the initial position of the police that the shooting had been justified, indicate that what may initially appear to be a "good shoot", as some like to put it, can still turn south a long time later.

But perhaps more importantly, as Outcast points out, this report casts light on a lot of similar incidents and questions that have been discussed in this forum.

For example, the question whether one who has entered someone's abode for any reason has "forfeited his life" or "given up his rights" has been debated.

In response to the question "do you hold 'em or let them go", some have said (discussing the hypothetical) that if someone is in their house "they will be dead". Others have floated the idea of blocking the intruders' exit and claiming self defense.

Posters have spoken of a citizen's duty to stop, kill, or sequester a perp, chasing him down if necessary, so he will not later come back to harm them or commit a crime against someone else at a later time.

Others have spoken in the abstract in favor of the idea of shooting a fleeing felon, which is unlawful in almost all circumstances almost everywhere.

Posters have spoken about whether a person can "choose to end an intruder's life."

Posters have boasted that any intruder in their homes will leave only in police custody or dead.

Some have suggested that it wouldn't matter to them whether the person entered forcibly or in error and that they would not take the time to find out

Mostly bluster, one would hope.

This indictment reminds us that the citizen may use deadly force in self defense outdoors or in, and it alludes to Section 9.42 in the Texas Code that addresses the right to use force to defend property, which did not apply in the case at hand.

If refocuses those points clearly, and it pointedly gives the lie to the apparent belief that a person may have the right to use deadly force on a "BG" in circumstances that do not involve imminent danger, and in particular, to shoot someone who has entered his domicile unlawfully and then elected to leave.

And it underscores the fact that these laws do not only apply in New York and New Jersey and Illinois and California. This happened in Texas.

What's the issue? I think the real "issue" is that this provides an opportunity for readers too learn something very important from this report before they learn it the hard way. There is excellent training available, and there are good books written by experts, but many people have not yet taken advantage of those resources. Good discussions on this forum may help fill in the gap.

[Double Naught Spy]

But...But... This is Texas, where you can shoot to protect property, Oh wait, the suspect was fleeing !

No property was involved and it does not matter that he was fleeing if he was carrying property.

But Wait, This is Texas, where you can pursue the suspect and make a "citizens arrest".

Yep.

And even though the suspect was empty handed, he could have had a gun.

Homeowner didn't ever state he believed this.

And what if he decided to come back and retaliate ?

Never stated.

And of course, the college kid did commit the "heinous" crime of home invasion !

It certainly could have been, but that event was passed.

According to the opinions I have seen as of late, it would seem this just cannot be happening !

Sure it can. It can because the shooting apparently did not take place within the parameters of the law.

-------

What's the issue? I think the real "issue" is that this provides an opportunity for readers too learn something very important from this report before they learn it the hard way.

Right. Force and lethal force should only be used within the parameters of the law hence one needs to know the law.

[wickedrider]

This reeks of political "persecu...I mean prosecution"!!!

[Owens187]

Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems pretty cut and dry to me. I see no reason whatsoever for the homeowner to have chased him out on the street and shoot him down, when unarmed, retreating, and making no threats. Here in Killifornia, I would be in big, big trouble for doing such a thing. Seems to me the homeowner was just out for "revenge" of some sort, just very angry about finding the kid in his house in the first place. I mean, I could see myself in the same position, and WANTING to chase him down, but at least where I live, thats just not allowed. I don't think the homeowner stands a chance in court, a conviction will come swift...

[OuTcAsT]

Sure it can. It can because the shooting apparently did not take place within the parameters of the law.

OK I'll bite, Would you be so kind as to point out where this man fell outside the parameters of the law ?

Perhaps I've missed something ?

[jgcoastie]

I wasn't there, but the whole situation seems a bit sketchy... From both sides...

Bet home invasions in that area are non-existant though...

[BikerRN]

While I understand the desire to detain and hold for arrest someone that breaks in to your domocile, I cannot condone it.

This reeks of political "persecu...I mean prosecution"!!!

No, this smells like a D.A. that knows what he or she is doing and knows the law.

Only a fool would leave the safety of their home to chase an intruder. There's already been one post of someone walking in to the wrong house at night, with no evil intentions I might add. Many here have stated that "any intruder will be shot." Getting shot seems to be too high of a price in my mind for walking in to the wrong house with no intention of committing a felony there-in.

Biker

[Double Naught Spy]

OK I'll bite, Would you be so kind as to point out where this man fell outside the parameters of the law ?

Perhaps I've missed something ?

In this case, it would appear that the operative word of all importance is what George Carlin referred to as stuff. Your home is where you keep your stuff. You may live there too, but it is really just a place to keep your stuff. So...

At night, you can shoot a fleeing burglar who has your stuff if you feel you have no other way to recover said stuff. You can't shoot a fleeing burglar out on the street who doesn't have any of your stuff.

Put another way, the homeowner wasn't knowing shooting to protect property. To the best of my knowledge, the law does not allow for you to shoot a fleeing burglar because you think or believe he may have your property.

Say the burglar broke into the homeowner's car at night and was attempting to drive away. The homeowner could have shot him, even in the street, as a means to recover his property. He would be able to actually see his property being taken away by the burglar.

[KCabbage]

I see no reason whatsoever for the homeowner to have chased him out on the street and shoot him down, when unarmed, retreating, and making no threats.

From what I understand, even if the intruder just murdered your kids and took off out the door as soon as he saw you armed you still couldn't shoot him as he's running away. A life has to be imminent danger to use deadly force.

[Brian Pfleuger]

From what I understand, even if the intruder just murdered your kids and took off out the door as soon as he saw you armed you still couldn't shoot him as he's running away. A life has to be imminent danger to use deadly force.

Legally, that depends on the law in your state and, probably, on the disposition of the DA. In many places, it is technically legal to shoot a fleeing perpetrator of a violent felony, if you believe it to be necessary to affect an arrest or prevent escape.

That said, legal and "wise" or not always the same.

[Southern Rebel]

There is ONE small detail that could change the total picture, since this is Texas. The intruder might have left empty-handed, but there is the possibility of him not having left empty-pocketed. If he had indeed pocketed money, some small treasured item belonging to the homeowner, or any other item considered as "property" - all of a sudden, the homeowner is within his rights to shoot to defend his "property".

I'm not saying that the empty-handed, but full pocket theory is what happened. I'm just saying that is why we have a trial system - to decide the ultimate guilt or innocence based on all of the evidence and testimony. Jumping to conclusions of guilt based on the latest information is no more intelligent than assuming innocence based on the original few known facts.

If the homeowner had reasonable cause to believe that cash was stolen (ie his wallet lying on the floor, or his hidden cookie jar broken) then the trail could get really interesting!