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

cloud8a · June 30, 2009, 06:14 PM

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...FWvlF79PQ.cspx

This is interesting. A guy breaks down the door of a abode. I guess when he saw the tennant he took off. The tennant and his brother track the guy a few blocks away. The BG pulls a gun and the tennants brother opens fire and kills him.

They took what started out as a HD situation into a SD situation. From the article it sounds like they knew the guy.

"Police are not sure if the homeowner's brother will face any charges, saying the shooting may be considered a case of self defense."

The thing that makes this different is they left the scene to look for the guy.

hogdogs · June 30, 2009, 06:22 PM

I give chase, crook brandishes so much as a finger pistol at me and I will serve up a heavy dose of 2 lead aspirins!
Brent

OuTcAsT · June 30, 2009, 06:30 PM

If I were certain folks who regularly post here, I would say something along the lines of; 'Good Job, they stopped a criminal, and made our quickly-declining society safer as a result. He got what he deserved, anyone who attempts a crime and then thinks better of it and tries to run forfeits his rights to live'

However, since I am not that person, I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.

OuTcAsT · June 30, 2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

I give chase

If you know the guy, why would you "give chase" ?
Why not call the popo and say "such and such just tried to rob me" rather than chase him down and force him to defend himself?

What is with this sudden "I'm gonna be a self appointed Marshall" syndrome ? Ain't ya'll changin' the water in the poke salet ?

Tucker 1371 · June 30, 2009, 06:41 PM

The fly in their ointment is gonna be the fact that they went and chased outside of their home (and y'all say "well duh").

Breaking it down it looks like they are legally justified in shooting, but maybe not in following (is it legal to follow a criminal after witnessing a crime?). If it goes to court they can say "hey we were just following the guy so we could tell the police where he went and then he pulled a gun on us, luckily we weren't foolish enough to follow him unarmed". That would creat reasonable doubt aplenty.

Legally are they justified? Probably.

Morally? I wouldn't have. (and let's leave the Moral v. Legal at that please)

Edit:

Quote:

If you know the guy, why would you "give chase" ?

I'm scratching my head as well. Maybe they just wanted to have a word with him... but then they were armed... idk, smells funny to me.

hogdogs · June 30, 2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Why not call the popo

I normally handle any situation with a person I already am acquainted or familiar with from "inside" and only rely on "popo" for situations out of my control. I am not chest thumpin' on this. If I know you and you "wrong" me it won't be the police knockin' on your door. Sort of a little old school "redneck mafia"... Actually if a buddy asks for my help in such issue i will gladly help them too!
Police are busy with real issues not to get involved in a good ol' squabble!
Brent

Wildalaska · June 30, 2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

However, since I am not that person, I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.

Well said!

WildiwillwaittoseehowLEhandlesthisoneAlaska ™

Gary L. Griffiths · June 30, 2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end.

Err, NO. The law doesn't require a crime victim (the homeowner) to simply allow a felon to escape. The true victim and his brother pursued a fleeing felon, essentially, to make a citizen's arrest. The felon chose to use the threat of deadly force to effect his escape. The victim's brother was not doing anything unlawful in helping the victim pursue the felon, so was entitled to use deadly force to terminate the threat against him and his brother. This being Texas, it is difficult to envision charges being filed.

Creature · June 30, 2009, 06:47 PM

Giving chase was stupid.

OuTcAsT · June 30, 2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Legally are they justified? Probably.

Morally? I wouldn't have. (and let's leave the Moral v. Legal at that please)

Unfortunately "RESPONSIBLE" firearms ownership requires that both be joined at the hip. If you have to start defending it this way, then you already know it was wrong.
Sure, your nads want to say "good Job" But your brain already knows better.

Drake Remoray · June 30, 2009, 06:49 PM

Once the guy runs away from your house it's no longer self defense. You're now taking police authority ( apprehending criminals) upon yourself. If you know who it was call the police and report it.

Coming at it from the other end, I don't see how the BG could claim self defense considering that he is 100% responsible for the conditions that caused him to have to draw his handgun.

It's a world where Joey is a neurosurgeon

hogdogs · June 30, 2009, 06:51 PM

"Give Chase" is incorrect since I know the feller... More like "let's go see what dumb bud was thinkin..." I am not forcing them to defend themself even if they just kicked in my door 5 minutes earlier... Option one is to shut up while I talk, answer the questions about when you will fill my grubby paw with green backs for repairs to save yer sorry hide. Option two is to run yer cake grinder and get lumped up for not taking option 1. Number 3 is to draw a gun on a person not threatening your life (ME!) and get yerself shot in my selfdefense...
First guy with a gun out is aggressor, second gun is self defense... Seems logical anyway!
Brent

PT111 · June 30, 2009, 06:56 PM

This is going to be interesting especially now that the BG is dead and can't tell his side of who pulled their gun first. Good test of the law whether the act of searching for the BG would up as him being attacked, in fear of his life and trying to protect himself. Adding to all of it is they knew each other. Sounds like more to it than just a simple break-in and foot chase.

Creature · June 30, 2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

"Give Chase" is incorrect

No...I would say that gave chase is actually correct in this case. Knowing the 'feller' doesn't change that. Unless of course they "had a leisurely stroll" and just happened to meet up with the burglar.

Dragon55 · June 30, 2009, 07:00 PM

If the homeowner recognized the guy then there is a lot more to this story than is in the short article.
On the face of it it appears these 2 overstepped from a moral standpoint BUT....
the homeowner apparently had some concern about this guy coming back possibly.
I know of situations around here in years past where multiple trips were made by the same people to the same residence.
Maybe the homeowner wanted to end it.

OuTcAsT · June 30, 2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Err, NO. The law doesn't require a crime victim (the homeowner) to simply allow a felon to escape. The true victim and his brother pursued a fleeing felon, essentially, to make a citizen's arrest.

Err would be correct, as in the Error you made in this statement. First, burglary is NOT a felony, and second, you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony, sorry. It quit being a crime when the guy ran. Simple B&E .

Creature · June 30, 2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:

I know of situations around here in years past where multiple trips were made by the same people to the same residence.
Maybe the homeowner wanted to end it.

Then that would make it a case of vigilantism. Still wrong any way you slice it.

Creature · June 30, 2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Simple B&E .

Uhhh...not quite. "Armed Home Invasion" would be the correct charge...still, giving chase was stupid.

OuTcAsT · June 30, 2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

"Armed Home Invasion" would be the correct charge

You might be correct bro, but I would suspect that if the "invader" had been holding a weapon upon the attempted entry, he would have either used it, or the brothers would have started firing, IMHO, YMMV

Gary L. Griffiths · June 30, 2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Err would be correct, as in the Error you made in this statement. First, burglary is NOT a felony, and second, you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony, sorry. It quit being a crime when the guy ran. Simple B&E .

Of course you've checked the appropriate Texas statutes.

Burglary is, indeed, a Felony. Since it occurred in a dwelling house in the nighttime, it is Burglary. And where do you get the idea that you can't make a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor. As a matter of fact, I'm aware of cases where officers have requested citizens to make "citizen's arrests" for misdemeanors witnessed by the citizens, because the officers could not make warrantless arrests for non-felony crimes.

Wildalaska · June 30, 2009, 07:47 PM

Putting aside the legal and moral issues here, it makes no sense tactically to chase.

WildthatsagivenAlaska ™

mikejonestkd · June 30, 2009, 07:47 PM

Wow, the person is the victim, the LEO, the Judge, Jury and the executioner all rolled into one...

Bad shoot, bad idea and bad for guns owners everywhere.

hoytinak · June 30, 2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

it makes no sense tactically to chase.

That is correct.....they should have shot the burglar while he was still on their property.

Composer_1777 · June 30, 2009, 07:55 PM

As soon as he chased the guy off the property he became a vigilante...

hogdogs · June 30, 2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

First, burglary is NOT a felony

Kicking in the front door of an occupied dwelling in florida is the heinous violent homeinvasion that brought about our castle doctrine. I can use any force needed to stop the crime and criminal up to and including lethal force.
Brent

June 30, 2009, 06:14 PM	#1
cloud8a Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 399	Guy chases burglar outside and shoots him away from the house. http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...FWvlF79PQ.cspx This is interesting. A guy breaks down the door of a abode. I guess when he saw the tennant he took off. The tennant and his brother track the guy a few blocks away. The BG pulls a gun and the tennants brother opens fire and kills him. They took what started out as a HD situation into a SD situation. From the article it sounds like they knew the guy. "Police are not sure if the homeowner's brother will face any charges, saying the shooting may be considered a case of self defense." The thing that makes this different is they left the scene to look for the guy.

June 30, 2009, 06:30 PM	#3
OuTcAsT Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2006 Location: Eastern, TN Posts: 1,236	If I were certain folks who regularly post here, I would say something along the lines of; 'Good Job, they stopped a criminal, and made our quickly-declining society safer as a result. He got what he deserved, anyone who attempts a crime and then thinks better of it and tries to run forfeits his rights to live' However, since I am not that person, I would say that this is no longer a self-defense situation, as the brothers pursued the victim and thereby escalated the event, the shooter should be charged IMO. He brought it on himself for forcing the fleeing man to defend himself. The means does not justify the end. __________________ WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood *Does not morality imply the last clear chance?* - WildAlaska -

June 30, 2009, 06:49 PM	#11
Drake Remoray Junior Member Join Date: June 28, 2009 Posts: 10	Once the guy runs away from your house it's no longer self defense. You're now taking police authority ( apprehending criminals) upon yourself. If you know who it was call the police and report it. Coming at it from the other end, I don't see how the BG could claim self defense considering that he is 100% responsible for the conditions that caused him to have to draw his handgun. It's a world where Joey is a neurosurgeon __________________ Ya know, I just don't speak Chinese http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-RJrTNLAbw

June 30, 2009, 07:00 PM	#15
Dragon55 Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2009 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 811	If the homeowner recognized the guy then there is a lot more to this story than is in the short article. On the face of it it appears these 2 overstepped from a moral standpoint BUT.... the homeowner apparently had some concern about this guy coming back possibly. I know of situations around here in years past where multiple trips were made by the same people to the same residence. Maybe the homeowner wanted to end it. __________________ sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W

June 30, 2009, 07:47 PM	#22
mikejonestkd Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2006 Location: Brockport, NY Posts: 3,716	Wow, the person is the victim, the LEO, the Judge, Jury and the executioner all rolled into one... Bad shoot, bad idea and bad for guns owners everywhere. __________________ You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

June 30, 2009, 06:22 PM	#2
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	I give chase, crook brandishes so much as a finger pistol at me and I will serve up a heavy dose of 2 lead aspirins! Brent

June 30, 2009, 06:47 PM	#9
Creature Junior member Join Date: April 8, 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,769	Giving chase was stupid.

June 30, 2009, 06:51 PM	#12
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	"Give Chase" is incorrect since I know the feller... More like "let's go see what dumb bud was thinkin..." I am not forcing them to defend themself even if they just kicked in my door 5 minutes earlier... Option one is to shut up while I talk, answer the questions about when you will fill my grubby paw with green backs for repairs to save yer sorry hide. Option two is to run yer cake grinder and get lumped up for not taking option 1. Number 3 is to draw a gun on a person not threatening your life (ME!) and get yerself shot in my selfdefense... First guy with a gun out is aggressor, second gun is self defense... Seems logical anyway! Brent

June 30, 2009, 06:56 PM	#13
PT111 Senior Member Join Date: July 30, 2007 Posts: 1,041	This is going to be interesting especially now that the BG is dead and can't tell his side of who pulled their gun first. Good test of the law whether the act of searching for the BG would up as him being attacked, in fear of his life and trying to protect himself. Adding to all of it is they knew each other. Sounds like more to it than just a simple break-in and foot chase.

June 30, 2009, 07:47 PM	#21
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Putting aside the legal and moral issues here, it makes no sense tactically to chase. WildthatsagivenAlaska ™

June 30, 2009, 07:55 PM	#24
Composer_1777 Junior member Join Date: June 30, 2009 Location: New Orleans, La Posts: 242	As soon as he chased the guy off the property he became a vigilante...