San Antonio Man Charged With Murder After Shooting Vehicle Burglar

[Bartholomew Roberts]

On the internet, you'll often see discussion of Texas laws that allow use of deadly force to defend property in limited circumstances. A man in San Antonio just got a taste of how limited after he was charged with murder as prosecutors say he lay in wait for a man who had repeatedly burglarized his vehicle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-robber.html

Originally Posted by "Texas Penal Code

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(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.

So what conditions do we need to meet in order to claim Defense of Property?

1. You must be in lawful possession of either land or tangible, movable property.
2. You must reasonably believe that force is immediately necessary to terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
3. You must reasonably believe that the other has no claim of right to the property or that you were dispossessed of the property by force, threat or fraud.

Once these first three conditions are met, you are allowed under Texas law to use force; but not lethal force to defend your property. In order to use lethal force, you must meet those three conditions AND the following conditions:

4. Deadly force must be IMMEDIATELY necessary in order to:
(a) prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime OR
(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;

5. You must reasonably believe one of the following:
(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

So once every single one of these conditions has been met, you have a right to use lethal force to defend property in Texas (though it is still possible you may be charged until you can provide sufficient evidence to a jury and/or law enforcement officials that you did in fact meet these conditions).

Other good reading on the interpretation of Section 9.42 by Texas courts:
Johnson v. State, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...821863426719&q
Ewing v. State, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...601322432228&q
Kinback v. State, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...244666289702&q

[shooterdownunder]

based on the details in the article, i have to agree with charging him, the thief was allegedly retreating when shot

[Bartholomew Roberts]

(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

In this case (based on the reporting being accurate, which I think we all know is iffy), all the elements of vehicular burglary except intent were met when the man entered the van at night after the restaurant was closed. While we can't state intent with certainty, most juries will infer intent based on the circumstances. So you have a solid case for all the elements of vehicular burglary under Texas law. The man is fleeing immediately after committing the crime; but he is not escaping with the property.

That point has gotten more than a few people sent to prison in Texas. While this person never took any property in this particular incident, many thieves suddenly lose interest in maintaining possession of stolen property once the rightful owner shows up with a gun. If they drop the stolen property while fleeing in the dark of the night, you no longer have any justification under Texas law to use deadly force to prevent them from escaping with the property.

[g.willikers]

A lot of horse thieves and cattle rustlers have been dealt with in a direct manner in Texas down through the years.
The result of this fellow's trial might not be what the prosecuter quite has in mind.
Wonder that the law is if the defendant was waiting or sleeping in the van.
Anything like if the thief had broken into the man's house?
Should be interesting.

[OldMarksman]

A lot of horse thieves and cattle rustlers have been dealt with in a direct manner in Texas down through the years.

So the legends tell us, but when Texas became a state, they adopted the English Common Law.

[TXAZ]

There is a fair amount of variability across Texas in prosecution of home / property shootings.
In Austin and San Antonio in particular, the DA's there have taken a general attitude that most everyone that uses a gun is going to the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury's composition in these two "blueberries in a sea of red" per the previous Governor, are pretty anti-gun.
Had the same incident happen west of I35, the outcome may be different.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Wonder that the law is if the defendant was waiting or sleeping in the van.

Anything like if the thief had broken into the man's house?
Should be interesting.

Texas "castle doctrine" does extend to vehicles, so there is a rebuttable presumption that somebody who forcibly enters your vehicle means to do you immediate serious bodily injury. The problem here isn't the forcible entry but the hasty exit. The alleged thief had run away from the vehicle and was inside another vehicle fleeing when he was shot. He had no property belonging to the shooter.

No matter what part of Texas you try that case in, you will have a hard time selling defense of property or defense of self/third party if those reported facts are correct.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Does the arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft literally have to happen at night for deadly force to be justified, or is that some weird term of law?

[5whiskey]

Police said Ricondo pulled into the restaurant's parking lot at around 10pm, after the restaurant was closed, reported News 4 San Antonio.

Then another car, with Rangel and an unidentified woman in the vehicle, pulled up next to Ricondo's white van.

Rangel then exited his vehicle and opened up Ricondo's rear van door, according to police.

Rangel quickly shut the door when he realized Ricondo was in the car's back seat, and ran back to his vehicle, the police report continued.

If these facts are accurate (I am skeptical of a media source getting something right), then it sound like much more than "he tried to steal my car so I shot him to protect my property."

You pull into the parking lot of a business that is closed, and shortly after someone pulls up next to you and starts to get in the vehicle. Sounds to me like they arranged that meeting, and the deceased decided upon arrival that it wasn't a meeting he wanted to attend. He was shot anyway as he ran away. That's the initial appearance based on these details. If the investigation is thorough the truth will come out. At best, I guess this warrants a discussion of Texas' force to protect property law, but methinks the only property being protected by the guy charged in this case was some form of illicit activity that we don't yet know about.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Does the arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft literally have to happen at night for deadly force to be justified, or is that some weird term of law?

Only theft and criminal mischief are specifically limited to nighttime. The remaining crimes are not time specific. Supposedly, it goes back to the 19th century and raiding by Comanches; but I've never done the research to see if that is actually true. There have been a few cases that tirned on when "nighttime" was though IIRC.

[g.willikers]

The alleged thief had run away from the vehicle and was inside another vehicle fleeing when he was shot.

Now that makes things interesting.
So if the defendant was quicker on the draw, and engaged the alleged thief while he was still inside the van, maybe he wouldn't be facing charges?

[Onward Allusion]

Austin and San Antonio

It's pretty blue and somewhat anti-gun in those areas.

[zincwarrior]

Its San Antonio. Of course he was charged. The city government there is hostile to the legal use or carry of firearms.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

....The city government there is hostile to the legal use .... of firearms.

There appears to be a disagreement about whether Ricondo used his gun legally. So whether or not his use was legal is a question for the courts.

And if the article is accurate about the incident, it's pretty likely that Ricondo did not use his gun legally.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Years ago in San Antonio, a police officer's son was having gang trouble. He fear that the gang would come and vandalize his car. So the officer and his son waited on the reverse slope of the garage and when the gang members showed up - shot them down. Now, their defense was two fold - defending property at night AND they said they thought the breaking glass of the car windows was gun shoots. Supposedly, the latter swayed the jury but one never knows if that was just polite justication. Laying in wait was not seen as a good thing but ...

[Double Naught Spy]

On the internet, you'll often see discussion of Texas laws that allow use of deadly force to defend property in limited circumstances. A man in San Antonio just got a taste of how limited after he was charged with murder as prosecutors say he lay in wait for a man who had repeatedly burglarized his vehicle.

Yes, one of the limiting circumstances is that you are not breaking some other law in the process, such as the felony described. The problem here isn't shooting in defense of property, but the lying in wait aspect. He was allegedly already engaged in breaking the law before the shooting occurred.

based on the details in the article, i have to agree with charging him, the thief was allegedly retreating when shot

Yet another San Antonio case. "Retreating" does not nullify the right to protect one's property.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...ght=fight+cock

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The problem here isn't shooting in defense of property, but the lying in wait aspect. He was allegedly already engaged in breaking the law before the shooting occurred.

What law is he breaking? I've seen "lying in wait" used to argue premeditation/mens rea but I am not aware of where that is prohibited in statutory law or common law in Texas.

"Retreating" does not nullify the right to protect one's property.

No; but the thief not having any of your property as he is doing it will sure complicate your legal case.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So if the defendant was quicker on the draw, and engaged the alleged thief while he was still inside the van, maybe he wouldn't be facing charges?

He'd certainly have some better facts for his legal defense.

[5whiskey]

I've seen "lying in wait" used to argue premeditation/mens rea but I am not aware of where that is prohibited in statutory law or common law in Texas.

I think that's exactly how its being used in the decision to charge this man. Its not very believable that he just happened to pull into the parking lot of a closed business, stays in his vehicle, and a few minutes later someone pulls up next to his vehicle and "breaks in" the back. The defense of the "breaking in" is likely believed to be a lie and a cover story. At least that's my perception.

Of course even if that really is what happened, the defendant still would likely face criminal charges based off of the brief facts in the article (if they are accurate). Likely not 1st degree murder though.

[Double Naught Spy]

What law is he breaking? I've seen "lying in wait" used to argue premeditation/mens rea but I am not aware of where that is prohibited in statutory law or common law in Texas.

Certainly it was established in case law by 1884 with Campbell vs. The State.

No; but the thief not having any of your property as he is doing it will sure complicate your legal case.

True enough. And even without the lying in wait aspect, I think it would be hard to justify the shooting for a person that simply opened and closed the van door and then posed no other threat.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Certainly it was established in case law by 1884 with Campbell vs. The State.

I am not familiar with that case nor am I able to locate any Texas case in 1884 involving those parties with a quick search. Do you have a reporter reference or link?

Having said all that, statutory law overrides case law and "lying in wait" goes to intent/mens rea. Since 1884 predates the Model Penal Code by quite a bit and "lying in wait" isn't mentioned in the Penal Code, and Texas statutory law basically reflects the model penal code as to mens rea, I would hazard a guess without further research that all the "lying in wait" allegation does is allow the prosecution to argue that rather than second degree murder or manslaughter, this was first degree murder - that he planned to kill the burglar as revenge.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

I am not familiar with that case nor am I able to locate any Texas case in 1884 involving those parties with a quick search. Do you have a reporter reference or link?

"This question presents the only debatable issue in the case. This conviction being for murder of the first degree, the evidence must show that the killing was upon express malice; in other words, that the defendant, with a sedate and deliberate mind, and formed design, shot and killed Richard Snow. What evidence is required to show such a mind, and such a design? This formed design is evidenced--shown--by external circumstances, discovering (showing) this inward intention; such circumstances as lying in wait, antecedent menaces, former grudges, and concocted schemes to do deceased some bodily harm. Now, while it is *514 true that the circumstances, to-wit, lying in wait, antecedent menaces, former grudges and concocted schemes to do the deceased some bodily harm, are facts from which this formed design may be inferred, they nor either of these facts are absolutely necessary to prove such a state of mind and such formed design."

Campbell v. State, 1884 WL 8493, at *6 (Tex. App. 1884)

[doofus47]

Does anyone else wonder why we keep reading these stories first in a UK newspaper?
Do they keep personnel over here JUST to find these types of stories?

[Armed_Chicagoan]

The Daily Mail and other UK tabloids are obsessed with US gun laws and the Kardashians.

[drunder40]

Originally Posted by g.willikers

Now that makes things interesting.
So if the defendant was quicker on the draw, and engaged the alleged thief while he was still inside the van, maybe he wouldn't be facing charges?

It's pretty simple really.. If you believe your life is in imminent danger or in imminent danger of serious bodily injury, deadly force is justified.

If the thief drew a weapon and got shot first then this story may have a different ending.. but the fact that the shooter appeared to be lying in wait for the thief (who apparently repeadily broke into the shooters van), may still be a deciding factor as that gives the appearance of pre- meditation.