Despite pleadings of 911 operator Texas man kills burglars exiting neighbor's house

[pchams]

I once witnessed a beating downtown outside my door.
There were at least 10 people beating on a guy, who eventually fell to the ground. They kept kicking him. It was sickening.
I screamed at them, and said the police would be here immediately.
They did disperse once they found someone was watching, and I tried to administer any aid I could waiting for help.
For all I know, the guy asked for it, but no one deserves to be attacked to the point of death. We are supposed to be more civilised, but as time passes, I only see more evidence that we really aren't.
The law may be what it is in Texas, but we, as an enlightened society have to rue the kind of vigilanty justice that perpetuates violence IMO.
It seems obvious that the accused life was not in jeopardy, and for that reason alone, I would oppose the kind of action he took.

 

[casebro]

I remember one news article here in California about a similar use of force. That one hinged on the fact that the shooter had said "Stop! You are under a citizen's arrest." Apparently, resisting arrest is grounds to escalate the use of force. Maybe that is appropriate in this Texas case?

 

[rjh01]

<snip> Of course with the 10-20 minute hold times on 9/11 calls, I doubt I did much good.

<snip>
TWENTY MINUTES after I called a dispatcher answered the phone and asked what the emergency was. I was quite rude (although it probably wasn't the dispatcher's fault) and told her that a woman had been screaming for help twenty minutes ago near the liquor store parking lot, but now it was over.

That was when I realised exactly how useless the police are for individual protection. I may disagree with the gun-nuts on a lot of things, but they are completely right when they say the people are not capable of providing protection on a per citizen basis.

I have called the police several times in Australia. Each time I was speaking with a human being within a few seconds of calling. Mind you the only time I wanted a police presence (my house had been broken into) it took them several hours to get there.

 

[Project86]

I am a communications dispatcher in a decent sized city in the Bay Area, CA. I can certainly identify with the dispatcher from this story.... I frequently have to talk people out of doing stupid things because they want to play hero (or maybe they just haven't thought it through). The most frequent is when people call in a reckless/presumably drunk driver. I don't mind if they happen to be headed in the same direction, or even if they keep a safe distance and give me updates. But when I can hear them gunning their car to keep up, thus putting themselves in danger, that's where I draw the line and order them to stop. Sometimes they still don't though.

Strictly speaking for my city only, we would probably classify the original call as a priority 1 (459 aka burglary in progress) or priority 2 (suspicious circumstances, or maybe 602 aka trespass) depending on the way the caller described things. Priority 1 calls generally have several cops on scene within a few minutes. Priority 2 calls can range from nearly immediately to 45 minutes or longer. If I had taken this 911 call, I would almost certainly classify it a priority 1, and my agency would very likely be able to respond within a few minutes. Odds are good that the suspects would have been caught, especially if the caller had delayed them a bit rather than shot them.

I also know that many of the nearby agencies I deal with would not have the resources to respond within that time frame. Unfortunately that's just the way things go: budget cuts, shortage of willing applicants, rapid population growth, and other factors can easily make a nice town a lot less safe. And no matter how well prepared you are, one stabbing/bank robbery/shooting/etc can tie up your resources such that everything else gets delayed.

I appreciate all the well thought out replies here. This is one of the only forums where I would expect such a debate.

 

[BPSCG]

You know that look people give you when they see you in trouble? They're walking and talking but drop everything they are doing and stare. Only when you try to make eye contact with them or signal them, they exchange glances with each other and look determinedly straight ahead of them and start walking faster.

I had a rather different experience here in DC some years ago.

I was in a Metro subway station when I heard a commotion. Some guy was screaming at a woman. I don't know what set this off, but evidently he wanted her to come with him, and she was resisting. He finally grabbed her hand and started tugging.

There were maybe ten or twelve people, myself included, in the area, and several of us got into a group more or less surrounding the couple. A few of us - myself included - tried to defuse the situation, try to calm him down, try to embarrass him into stopping making a public spectacle of himself, etc. The thought occurred to me that, "I could die here, today, right now," and I made sure to keep a couple of arm's lengths away from him when I said to him, "Look, she doesn't want to go with you." I don't know if anyone called 911 (I didn't own a cell phone at the time), but no cops ever got there, and ultimately, she ended up going off with him without being dragged, but clearly not happy about it. As she walked past me, I said to her, "You don't have to go with him, you know," but I could tell she wasn't hearing any of it.

So sometimes people do try. I sometimes wonder what ever became of that poor woman. Somehow the idea that they lived happily ever after isn't persuasive.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And you know this because you've read the applicable law that went into effect on September 1?

Note this from the story: Let's look at that:

"...people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft..."

Why are the last seven words necessary? Why is additional language needed to allow you to use deadly force if someone is trying to burn your house down (arson), when the opening phrase says you "may use deadly force to protect your own property"? Isn't arson an attack against your property?

Well naming the crimes that must be in evidence to use force could be useful, or has Texas declared open season on graffiti artists and taggers?

 

[BPSCG]

Well naming the crimes that must be in evidence to use force could be useful,

I looked for the word "arson" in the links to the statute and didn't find it. So I think it was something whoever wrote the story stuck in there. Which (temporarily) muddied up the issue.

or has Texas declared open season on graffiti artists and taggers?

I wish Texas - or somebody - would declare open season on people who use the term "graffitti artists." Edward Hopper was an artist. People who spray-paint public property are vandals.

I hate that @#$%ing term.

 

[madurobob]

Before I make up my mind, there is one piece of information that I want. Were they shot in the back or while they were facing him?

I was curious about that as well. There was some claim that they entered his property... he was brandishing a shotgun and they walked towards him? I kinda doubt it.

Doesn't Texas have a law on the books that shooting someone in the back is illegal even if they're on your property (the implication being that deadly force is otherwise OK)? That may have changed with this new law or may simply be rumor, but its certainly believable for Texas. Still, should death really be the penalty for petty burglary?

The more I think about it, the more I think this guy was just plain trigger happy and relished the chance to shoot some bad guys. He may have even intentionally aimed to kill to avoid possible law suits from the bad guys for medical bills, pain & suffering, etc... I'm sure he feels he's making the world a safer place. That scares me.

 

[Ladewig]

The more I think about it, the more I think this guy was just plain trigger happy and relished the chance to shoot some bad guys. He may have even intentionally aimed to kill to avoid possible law suits from the bad guys for medical bills, pain & suffering, etc... I'm sure he feels he's making the world a safer place. That scares me.

More recent reports state that the man is very emotionally distraught. I feel a little sorry for the man, but any sympathy I do have is tempered by the knowledge that he brought this on himself. He made a series of decisions that led to this result.

 

[shuize]

I thought more about this case while I was on my way to work today. I came to the conclusion if I were the D.A., I'd have no trouble prosecuting the guy. He pretty well told the dispatcher exactly what he was going to do before he did it. At the same time, if I were on his jury, I decided, I'd probably vote to acquit. I just can't get too excited about throwing away the key for someone who basically did the world a favor by dropping two burglars in the course of their crime.

 

[madurobob]

More recent reports state that the man is very emotionally distraught. I feel a little sorry for the man, but any sympathy I do have is tempered by the knowledge that he brought this on himself. He made a series of decisions that led to this result.

Well, its good that he is - he should be. But, based on the 911 call I heard he made the decision to shoot rather coolly, so I have to wonder how sincere his remorse is now. I'm sure his lawyer reminded him how being publicly distraught would help his case.

 

[madurobob]

... if I were on his jury, I decided, I'd probably vote to acquit. I just can't get too excited about throwing away the key for someone who basically did the world a favor by dropping two burglars in the course of their crime.

For me it would depend on what he was charged with and what the expected sentence would be. I doubt he'll get a life sentence for this and he'll probably bargain away any premeditated murder charge. I would readily vote guilty for a manslaughter charge that had him out on parole quickly... and forbidden from owning guns.

I suspect he'll have a harder time with civil suits from the burglar's families.

 

[Trakar]

Mere entry on to the other property does not constitute trespassing. (Unless the property is clearly signed against such activity)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, not only in criminal but civil court. As I recall Idaho (that bastion of right-wing thinking) was the first to enact legislation allowing deadly force against the perpetrators of property crime.
Detractors called it the "shoot your neighbors" bill.

Back when I started in law enforcement, in 1968, it was quite legal in most states for police to shoot at "fleeing felons". No presumption of violence or danger was required; just fleeing the scene of a felonious crime like burglary.
This was tossed out by the Supreme court shortly thereafter, essentially on the grounds that the use of deadly force far exceeded any criminal penalty that might conceivably be applied to the perpetrator should he have been apprehended.

Currently, police may only use deadly force against fleeing individuals if there is a strong probable cause to believe that they will commit continued violence. An example might be a bank robber fleeing with gun in hand.

On the civil front, I would expect a "wrongful death" suit in a case like this regardless of prosecution.
Generally, to use deadly force, there must be some indication of danger. In the case of the law (as written) in Texas, the homeowner, finding someone breaking into his occupied residence, has a presumption that the individuals mean him harm. (provided the criminals know the place is occupied! A local man was indicted for noticing a burglar trying to gain entry to his house, then hiding inside. Once the fellow got in, the homeowner shot him. The court found that the homeowner could have easily warned the criminal)
Individuals fleeing a residence burglary would have presented little danger to the neighbor.

He would have been within his rights to attempt to capture them...."Stop or I'll shoot!", but if they simply continued to flee he would not be entitled to fire.

I can see this being a messy court case.

You can't file a wrongful death suit if the man is criminally convicted.

 

[JoeEllison]

I was curious about that as well. There was some claim that they entered his property... he was brandishing a shotgun and they walked towards him? I kinda doubt it.

Doesn't Texas have a law on the books that shooting someone in the back is illegal even if they're on your property (the implication being that deadly force is otherwise OK)? That may have changed with this new law or may simply be rumor, but its certainly believable for Texas. Still, should death really be the penalty for petty burglary?

The more I think about it, the more I think this guy was just plain trigger happy and relished the chance to shoot some bad guys. He may have even intentionally aimed to kill to avoid possible law suits from the bad guys for medical bills, pain & suffering, etc... I'm sure he feels he's making the world a safer place. That scares me.

Well, the law says you can't provoke the criminal before you shoot them. Running outside of your locked house and yelling at them sounds like provocation to me.

I mean, if one of them had come up to his window and tried to break into his house, I could see him shooting them. The whole thing seems very much like he was looking to kill them from the moment he saw them, and called the cops as a cover for his crime.

 

[JoeEllison]

For me it would depend on what he was charged with and what the expected sentence would be. I doubt he'll get a life sentence for this and he'll probably bargain away any premeditated murder charge. I would readily vote guilty for a manslaughter charge that had him out on parole quickly... and forbidden from owning guns.

I suspect he'll have a harder time with civil suits from the burglar's families.

I'd agree, to the extent that manslaughter is probably a given, while murder would be harder to prove. As far as the sentence, I think I'd like to see him serve longer than you would, although I agree that a life sentence would be way too much.

 

[Biff Starbuck]

No, section 9.41 is the use of [force] to protect ones own property, section 9.42 is use of deadly force to protect ones own property.
The expansion is in the amount of force which can be used, not the property which can be protected.

9.42 starts "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" (my bold).
9.42 only applies in cases were 9.41 already applies, in other words in the protection of ones own property, it authorizes the use of deadly force in certain circumstances where force was already allowed by 9.41.
It does not authorize the use of deadly force in circumstances where 9.41 does not allow the use of force at all.

Sorry,

I forgot to post the most important section.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
​

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.​

And in case anyone is curious, you cannot use fatal booby traps, rig up a shotgun, or as in one case, high voltage metal screens, to protect your property. Only devices which will not cause serious bodily injury or death are allowed.

9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:​

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and​

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.​

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If this vigilante justice style law were in effect in Flordia, I might be dead now. A few months ago, I helped a friend move into his new house. He sent me over his old place to pick up some of his belongings while he got some of his things from storage elsewhere. I drove there, found the spare key he keeps in an undisclosed location, and let myself in. I spent a few hours loading my car with his things, locked up, and drove off.

If a cop showed up, I knew that I could explain what was going on without any undo fuss. However, if this whacked out gun nut neighbor had lived next my friend, I could have been shot for doing a favor for a friend.

 

[Biff Starbuck]

If this vigilante justice style law were in effect in Flordia, I might be dead now. A few months ago, I helped a friend move into his new house. He sent me over his old place to pick up some of his belongings while he got some of his things from storage elsewhere. I drove there, found the spare key he keeps in an undisclosed location, and let myself in. I spent a few hours loading my car with his things, locked up, and drove off.

If a cop showed up, I knew that I could explain what was going on without any undo fuss. However, if this whacked out gun nut neighbor had lived next my friend, I could have been shot for doing a favor for a friend.

The law in Florida is pretty similar. In fact, Florida is well known as being the first state in the US to have a "shall-issue" concealed handgun law, where the state had to issue the license to carry a gun if the person passed the background check, training class, etc.

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.​

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be. [emphasis added]​

If we are arguing hypotheticals, we can look at the unusually high rate of carrying guns by lawful citizens if Florida and the fact some studies suggest it was a factor in lowering the crime rate. It is also possible you would have been robbed while trying to help your friend move, but the crime never happened because of the lower crime rate and the criminal's fear you might be carrying a pistol for self defense. Or you could have been shot by a neighbor. Or the neighbor could have seen you being robbed and shot the robber.

 

[JoeEllison]

If this vigilante justice style law were in effect in Flordia, I might be dead now. A few months ago, I helped a friend move into his new house. He sent me over his old place to pick up some of his belongings while he got some of his things from storage elsewhere. I drove there, found the spare key he keeps in an undisclosed location, and let myself in. I spent a few hours loading my car with his things, locked up, and drove off.

If a cop showed up, I knew that I could explain what was going on without any undo fuss. However, if this whacked out gun nut neighbor had lived next my friend, I could have been shot for doing a favor for a friend.

Florida has one of these "cowards with guns" laws too.

 

[Beerina]

"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

Is this a good policy, when "somebody" is "thief in the act"?