The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 4, 2009, 09:25 PM   #26
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
As I noted above, there is no indication that the homeowner was shooting to protect property because he didn't know of the burglar having any property. You don't get to shoot at somebody just because you think that they might have stolen from you, not even in Texas.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 01:37 AM   #27
obxned
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: OBX, NC
Posts: 1,128
The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.
__________________
“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 July 5, 2009, 02:17 AM   #28
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
Why not? What were the criteria met, from what we know, that would allow for the homeowner to lawfully use lethal force in this situation?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 08:46 AM   #29
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Do we know if the door was locked?

Maybe the forensics types found no sign of forced entry. Maybe the police and DA think the drunk accidentally entered the wrong house, through an unlocked door. Maybe blood tests post-mortem indicated the decedent was too drunk to have been able to pose a credible threat to a reasonable man.

Could be any number of things that would take away the protections offered under self-defense and/or citizen's arrest. Need more facts, please.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 09:01 AM   #30
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
Maybe blood tests post-mortem indicated the decedent was too drunk to have been able to pose a credible threat to a reasonable man.
Blood alcohol is not a good indicator of anything. I have first hand experience with a person who's blood alcohol was so high that clinically he should have been comatose (.320). That man was walking and talking normally and was completely coherent, yet that same man was able to shake off three night club bouncers and two police officers before being arrested. All three of those bouncers were no less than 6ft tall and weighed no less than 225lbs. That guy weighed 180 lbs and had no martial arts training in his entire life...
Creature is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 09:02 AM   #31
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Creature...

... I don't disagree. However, I'm just listing factors that could influence a prosecutor's decision.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 10:39 AM   #32
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
Quote:
The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.
*sigh*

For whatever reason, there is, and continues to be, an ongoing mis-conception by some folks that ;

If I buy a gun, and if I have a "castle law" or "stand you ground" law, It automatically gives me the right to circumvent all other laws, and all common sense, the instant I get a clear shot.

These laws go a long way in helping us protect our homes, families, and businesses, and are a positive step, with an eye toward preventing crime, and preventing criminal and civil charges against a homeowner that uses them within the law. But this case might well be a perfect example of "two wrongs don't make a right". If you make less than perfect split second decisions, you can become a criminal.

The other mis-conception that seems to be almost as universal is that;

If someone commits a crime against me, they have "put me in the position" Or "forced" me to defend myself, therefore they are solely to blame for whatever happens.

The fact still remains that, once you decide to use a weapon, you are responsible for that projectile.
If you do not follow the law while defending yourself, you do not get to shift responsibility for your own criminal actions, to the "bad guy" It simply means there are now two bad guys.
Each is responsible for his own crimes. The laws cut both ways. The same law that gives you the right to defend yourself, also holds you accountable for doing so.


In this case, there are two victims, and two bad guys.

*laboriously dons flame suit for the inevitable "the criminal is always wrong but the homeowner is always right because the criminal is always wrong" argument*

BOHICA !
__________________
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 -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; July 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 03:07 PM   #33
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
What the well-dressed Outcast wears

http://www.cafepress.com/lovethetroops/986625

What you need is a version with flame retardant!
Ricky B is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 03:17 PM   #34
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Quote:
But Wait, This is Texas, where you can pursue the suspect and make a "citizens arrest".
Sorry to point out the straw man in the room, but I don't think anyone in the other thread said you could shoot a suspect simply to make a "citizens arrest." And there is no evidence in this case that the homeowner had any fear of bodily injury or death from the fleeing intruder.

Here I go again, being "technical" and all.

I'd like to coin a saying that the last refuge of someone on the losing end of a correct analysis is to denigrate the other party as being "technical." Or is sarcasm only allowed for the less technical?

Anyway, to the main point of the thread: The homeowner made a serious mistake in tactics, law, and morals.
Ricky B is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 05:08 PM   #35
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
Quote:
there is no evidence in this case that the homeowner had any fear of bodily injury or death from the fleeing intruder.

Technically speaking, that is exactly what the defendant stated;

Quote:
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.
Quote:
Sorry to point out the straw man in the room, but I don't think anyone in the other thread said you could shoot a suspect simply to make a "citizens arrest."
And I never claimed otherwise, in this thread, nor the other. I have never said, nor implied that you could shoot someone "simply to make a citizens arrest" I believe you have made a minor "technical" error.

Quote:
but I don't think
That's a poor habit to have.
__________________
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 -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; July 5, 2009 at 07:05 PM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 07:10 PM   #36
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Quote:
Technically speaking, that is exactly what the defendant stated;

Quote:
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.
Oops, my bad.
Ricky B is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 10:25 AM   #37
Evan Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by obxned
The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.
It's sad and it's tragic, yes -- but, as the indictment in this case shows, the fact that there was an intruder doesn't let the homeowner off the hook for his actions. Your comment about "a crushing level of stress" is accurate, but it points to the need for training. A very high level of stress is completely predictable in a situation like this; and that's why so many people in this forum reiterate, again and again, that it's not enough to have the gun and know how to use it: it's your responsibility to get training that's as realistic as possible, so you'll be better able to handle that stress.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 02:17 PM   #38
Eskimo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2008
Posts: 173
If you have a pistol and someone "hostile" lunges at you, you have every right to shoot him.. (maybe not FIVE TIMES....)

If you have a pistol and you let that person get within range to take your weapon.. you're in trouble.

RIGHTS have nothing to do with laws.. I really think that any reasonable person would agree.
Eskimo is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 02:54 PM   #39
KCabbage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2007
Posts: 707
Who actually beleives the teen lunged at the shooter? That's just screaming shoot me!
KCabbage is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 03:06 PM   #40
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Who actually beleives the teen lunged at the shooter? That's just screaming shoot me!
"Lunged at him while he was fleeing"! Which is it?

While I very much doubt it, this just might turn out to be a case in which the distance at which the shot was fired makes some difference to the outcome. Maybe GSR will come into play.

But probably not....

"Lunged at him while he was fleeing...." Outside, unarmed.... fleeing.

But it usually isn't very wise to conclude anything from news reports.

Quote:
If you have a pistol and someone "hostile" lunges at you, you have every right to shoot him
Really? Ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion all lined up here?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 03:32 PM   #41
Eskimo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2008
Posts: 173
Quote:
Really? Ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion all lined up here?
There are obviously many other factors that can come into play. There is really no need to delve that deep into this, some of you are being WAY too critical.

The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better.
Eskimo is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 04:47 PM   #42
Evan Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo
The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better.
From the article cited in the OP:
Quote:
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.
Um... he shot and killed an unarmed, drunken, fleeing teenager. To say "he could have handled it a little better" is a bit of an understatement, IMHO.

It's not nitpicking, on OldMarksman's part, to point out that in order for the homeowner's actions to have been justified, the legal criteria he mentioned -- ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion -- all need to be met.

Contrary to what some here choose to believe, someone who breaks into a house doesn't magically lose all his rights, nor does the fact of a break-in automatically mean that a homeowner can do whatever he wants and whatever happens is all somehow the fault of the intruder. This argument is a classic example of blaming the victim -- who is the NOT the homeowner in this case, but the teenager who was shot. It's an argument frequently used by people who know themselves to be on shaky moral ground: "But he MADE me do it..."

And it won't wash in this case, or in any other. If you shoot someone, you are responsible for your actions, and they'd better be legally justifiable.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 05:33 PM   #43
KCabbage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2007
Posts: 707
Well said Marksman and Vanya. I say give em' a manslaughter charge and 2 years of prison to think about it.
KCabbage is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 07:55 PM   #44
mjoy64
Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 64
Quote:
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 !
If you can't see the difference between the two situations you are referring to... well no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

You paint with an awful wide brush. Bagging on Texas and other people lends a *whole* lot of credence to your viewpoint I might add. :barf:
mjoy64 is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 08:06 PM   #45
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
There is really no need to delve that deep into this, some of you are being WAY too critical.
Eskimo, the question is one of whether there was reason to believe that imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm existed and whether deadly force was necessary. A, O, J, and P are usually the determinants. That's not being critical at all.

Quote:
The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better.
???
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 08:08 PM   #46
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
If you can't see the difference between the two situations you are referring to... well no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

You paint with an awful wide brush. Bagging on Texas and other people lends a *whole* lot of credence to your viewpoint I might add.
Mjoy, Outcast was using sarcasm here, and in no way was he criticizing Texas.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 08:20 PM   #47
mjoy64
Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 64
Quote:
Mjoy, Outcast was using sarcasm here, and in no way was he criticizing Texas.
The sarcasm and flame of other opinions was duly noticed. It is really a detriment to making a cogent point.
mjoy64 is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 08:41 PM   #48
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
The sarcasm and flame of other opinions was duly noticed. It is really a detriment to making a cogent point.
I took it differently. A lot of people have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity. Texas Rifleman, for one, has expressed dismay at the ignorance and bravado of some of the posters and particularly of some from Texas, if I recall correctly.

The Joe Horn case has been oft mischaracterized, and the case of the Muhs really takes the cake.

The indictment in the case at hand gives the lie to the apparently widespread misconception that Texas has no law, and I took Outcast's words to mean just that...

...and to point out the issues inherent with the attitudes of many posters from all over these United States that if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will, whomever Will may be, using Texas as the place that so many characterize as the place to be if you want to shoot someone and get by with it.

Just my take.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 08:45 PM   #49
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Quote:
preclusion


What do you mean by preclusion?
Ricky B is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 09:04 PM   #50
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
Quote:
I took it differently. A lot of people have seemed to imply from time to time that in Texas, one can shoot anyone with impunity. Texas Rifleman, for one, has expressed dismay at the ignorance and bravado of some of the posters and particularly of some from Texas, if I recall correctly.

The Joe Horn case has been oft mischaracterized, and the case of the Muhs really takes the cake.

The indictment in the case at hand gives the lie to the apparently widespread misconception that Texas has no law, and I took Outcast's words to mean just that...

...and to point out the issues inherent with the attitudes of many posters from all over these United States that if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will, whomever Will may be, using Texas as the place that so many characterize as the place to be if you want to shoot someone and get by with it.

Just my take.
You hit the nail on the head, spot on.

mjoy64, it was more of a commentary on several of the "GG shoots BG" threads of late.
__________________
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 -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 09:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09451 seconds with 8 queries