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

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by A_McDougal

Since the police aren't obligated to protect me or get my property back after I'm robbed, why does society think that justice should only be available when the police and courts choose to dispense it?

I bet we could have almost as much fun with a thread on "What is the nature of justice?" as we did with the "Legal vs. Moral" thread... (Yah, mods, not in T&T, though...)

But the short answer is that civilized societies have found that a "justice system" (police and courts) is a preferable alternative to a free-for-all, in which "justice" tends to be confounded with revenge and the like, and in which weaker citizens have very little chance of getting any.

Originally Posted by MLeake

Potential risk to others needs to be considered.

I'm a bit surprised no one else has elaborated on this. If you can identify the person who tried to break in to your home and report him to the cops so they can arrest him, doing that is a way better choice than chasing him, armed, at the risk of the situation's escalating into a gunfight in the street, where other, innocent people will be put in jeopardy...

Query: if this situation had involved three "gangbangers" (all with clean records, hitherto) and a stolen bicycle, would so many people here be defending the shooters? I think one problem with these discussions, in general, is that a lot of us assume we always know who's a "law-abiding citizen" and who's a BG. The difference is a matter of who has or hasn't committed a crime, not of whom we identify with.

[Evan Thomas]

Interesting. Do you have a link to that? Don't recall that being in the story linked in the OP.

[PT111]

Vanya - It was in the reader comments portion of the story in the OP. Click on the comments link and it about the 7th comment down from Spurs Fan 1985. As I said pure rumor and gossip but makes you wonder.

[PT111]

$1.99 911 use fee???????? Never heard of that, can you explain. Originally all calls to 911 or police were not timed at all. I know that there is a 911 fee on phones whether or not you call 911 or can even call 911. I used to have to pay it on my data lines that I couldn't even call out on.

[hogdogs]

It may be no longer... But there once was a time, at least with my cingular service in florida, if you dialed 911 in that month once or multiple times there was a fee on the bill... IIRC, it was there to cover the other folks who were able to use 911 even if service was off due to no payment. this was back in about 2002. But I do not have a cell now... just the wifey-poo.
Brent

[PT111]

I remember now, new federal laws on cell phones and 911. All cell phones must be capable of dialing 911 for free. This includes deactivated phones. If your wife gets a new cell phone and deactivates her old one you can carry it with you to dial 911. Someone can give you an old phone to use in fact there are some groups that collect old cell phones to give to abused women for emergency use.

Like my CWP instruction said, "If you carry a gun then carry a cell phone. If you don't carry a cell phone then don't carry a gun. If you are involved in a shooting the first one to tell their side of the story will be believed the most". I know this contradicts the ones that say don't talk to the police but getting in the first word usually helps.

[Evan Thomas]

Thanks, PT111, for the source of that rumor... sounds like these were fine, upstanding citizens all around... Possibly a bit closer to my hypothetical gangbangers than terms like "homeowner" lead us to imagine... and that wouldn't surprise me, given the part about shooting the guy and leaving him by the side of the road, not calling police, etc. (I'm not up enough on Texas Culture to know the subtle distinctions between gangbangers, Bubbas, white trash, etc. -- although I do, of course, know that there are no TFL members to whom any of those terms would apply... )

And good info about being able to use deactivated cell phones to call 911... I hadn't known that. If I can just keep the old one in the bedroom for emergencies, that would be a heck of a lot more convenient than what I'm doing now.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just in case anyone wants to see the relevant Texas code on the issue, here it is.

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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.

I think we are lacking all the information we need to make a call on this one. If, as alleged, the dead guy stole a gun and was heading back to the bar he just got kicked out of, then the owner chasing him down and shooting him might have saved all of us (gun owners in particular) a lot of grief. If the dead guy was running down the street with a stereo, it gets a lot muddier.

Either way, we are missing a lot of information that we need to answer whether it complies with the statutes above.

[Brian Pfleuger]

It sounds to me like the entire issue may rest on the definition of "immediately" in Section 9.42 Para 2B.


If the law determines that the thief was in "immediate flight therefrom", and there was actually a gun stolen, then it would be reasonable to believe that "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." from the same section, para 3B.

Chasing the guy would still have been a stupid thing to do, not calling the police first (or EVER!) was even "stupider" but they may very well get away with it.

[rampage841512]

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'

Since I am that person, I'll say good job.

[MLeake]

PK, you are so focused on SD and defense of property that you are completely disregarding the arguments about citizen's arrest in Texas. There is no "immediate" requirement that I can find.

The question is whether the shooters were attempting to effect a citizen's arrest.

If, as some posters have alleged, the guys never called the police, before or after the shooting, then I think they will have a hard time arguing that they were attempting a citizen's arrest.

However, I haven't seen any official accounts so far that make that claim.

[Brian Pfleuger]

you are completely disregarding the arguments about citizen's arrest in Texas.

Disregarding because no one has posted the appropriate statute and I have enough trouble finding the laws of my own state to bother looking for the laws of some other.

[Thursday]

I don't see how anyone can jump to conclusions and know the answer to the case given the information provided. There is way too much left out of the news report to really make a decision.

On one hand the man entered with intent to burglarize the home where the two men where. On the other hand you must look at the fact that the police were notified only when the body was found. Another thing to look at is that the knew the man and "tracked him down a few blocks away" granted the news usually uses words that don't exactly describe the situation but the way that is worded is no good IMO.

I can see how people can come to a conclusion either way, but the only thing you can judge on is what you read from that little news report and the rest is assumption. We are all entitled to our own opinions but the truth is no one can even begin to rule on this until they release more details.

[Nnobby45]

If the homeowners truly "tracked the man down" as is stated in the story then it is probably straight up murder. THEY became the aggressor

Ah, jeez. Let's try it again.

If they weren't in violation of the law with re: to apprehending the criminal who committed armed home invasion, then why would said Bros have committed "straight up murder" when the bad man drew a gun and attempted to murder the two bro's who were , at that point, acting within the law?

It's not like Bubba was shot down after he surrendered.

Once again, the aggressive act of the violent criminal seems to be of little concern to those who condemn the bros and refer to them as vigilantes, murderers, etc.

[Brian Pfleuger]

If they weren't in violation of the law with re: to apprehending the criminal who committed armed home invasion, then why would said Bros have committed "straight up murder" when the bad man drew a gun and attempted to murder the two bro's who were , at that point, acting within the law?

There are a lot of variables influencing "acting within the law". If you check my most recent assessment (post #109), I pretty well break down the likely outcomes.

So many mentions of this "apprehending" and "citizens arrest" and so few posts, like zero, with the actual statute.... hard to make a claim or judgement without the law...

[MLeake]

Emphasis by me; from the caselaw website. (Note: Forcible entry of a habitation by any part of the offender is a felony in Texas; this applies to even a toe of the foot that kicked in the door; see previous post with Texas law regarding burglary.)

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any
other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the
offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the
offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the
public peace.
(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant
for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.

[MLeake]

Still awaiting official claim that brothers were attempting to use citizen's arrest powers. It may not apply.

However, it is a possibility that many seem to refuse to acknowledge.

[Brian Pfleuger]

It is somewhat impressive that there are no other qualifications or restrictions to that statute. Is there no other mention of such a thing in TX law?

How is a person supposed to go about this arrest for example? Is there any approved method? Required verbalization(s)? What is the penalty for resisting a citizens arrest?

Still awaiting official claim that brothers were attempting to use citizen's arrest powers. It may not apply.

However, it is a possibility that many seem to refuse to acknowledge.

I would GUESS, yes, it's only a guess, that the fact that they did not report the incident may well disqualify the idea. If not in a technical legal sense, very likely in the minds of any jury.

[MLeake]

both referred to the failure to notify police.

However, when pressed, PT111 said that info came from reader comments under the article, not from the article, the police, or the DA.

The article actually said the police were looking at it as a possible case of self defense.

It would be interesting to have some actual facts.

It would be nice to avoid accusing the shooter of something based on reader's comment number 7 under an article online.

[KAOS]

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.

so would you also agree that someone running from the police could legally turn and shoot a cop since the police were chasing him/her, forcing that person to defend theirself?

we as citizens have the the right to chase and detain a suspect until law enforcement arrives. ( i just heard this on a old episode of cops)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's be realistic. The police are in their legal rights to chase you.

But citizens and police can't chase and use deadly force to terminate the pursuit except in very specific circumstances.

You even legally can use deadly force against the law under certain specific circumstances if they violate their mandate and are threatening you with grievous bodily harm. But you'd better check out the statutes for that and it would hard to prove.

Straw man arguments here don't add much.

[Hawg]

FWIW I'd chase him down too.

[mjoy64]

Let's be realistic. The police are in their legal rights to chase you.

I'm willing to be realistic. Are you contending that it was not within the pursuers rights to chase after the guy that forcibly entered their domicile? Did the initiation of that pursuit negate any and all rights to self-defense?

Which strawman do you speak of?

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'm willing to be realistic. Are you contending that it was not within the pursuers rights to chase after the guy that forcibly entered their domicile? Did the initiation of that pursuit negate any and all rights to self-defense?

It might. In TX, it may not, depending I suppose on the time frame of the "pursuit".

In at least some states, NY included, you'd up crap creek with a sponge paddle, except under EXTREMELY specific circumstances and, even then, it would almost certainly depend on the DA.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No, geez - I was referring to the post that you could turn and shoot the cops for chasing you.

so would you also agree that someone running from the police could legally turn and shoot a cop since the police were chasing him/her, forcing that person to defend theirself?

Not what you said. If you carry a gun and don't know when you can use deadly force, one needs to study up. The right to use deadly force to terminate a chase has been discussed in detail. Google it.

Nowhere did I say you didn't have a right to pursue. That's your misinterpretation.