Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[madurobob]

The sum total of my knowledge of Texas gun laws comes from Ron White.. but I thought it was patently illegal to shoot anyone in the back in Texas regardless of the circumstance?

("but you can shoot them in the leg until they turn around")

I really need to expand my knowledge base on such things.

I'm no fan of marauding teenagers, and the fact that a teen is only 13 doesn't make him any less of a threat or any less of a criminal than if he was 25. But the whole kneeling and bludgeoning bit is just over the top. This shooter was clearly planning to confront these teens in the act and teach them a lesson. Ultimately the shooting may have been accidental, but the shooter set the events in motion that resulted in the death of the teen.

Catching them in the act and scaring them is OK by me, but once you have them on their knees and at gunpoint the rules change. You are no longer a threatened homeowner protecting his castle. Accidentally shooting someone in that situation has nothing to do with castle doctrine. It sure looks like murder to me, albeit more of the "manslaughter" variety.

 

[billydkid]

I think it is obvious that the man is not being charged with murder simply because he shot a teen, who had broken into his home, in the back. The charges are in the other details.

1- Home had been broken into previously.
2- Sleeping in a nearby shed.
3- Forced all three to kneel and began beating them with gun.
4- Shot kneeling teen in back.

I agree completely that he should be charged with murder if this is what transpired. Using deadly force in the face of a perceived, plausible deadly, or even not necessarily deadly threat is something entirely different. I believe, for example, that a woman has every right to shoot a man attempting to assault her - sexually or otherwise. Actually, I believe any victim of an assault has every right to use every mean at their disposal for their defense. The guilty and responsible party is always the one initiating the use of force.

 

[qayak]

Why leave those out?

Because people who have been robbed of a million dollars by a bank manager don't get as angry as people who had their Cheetos and Pepsi stolen . . . WAIT A MINUTE!!

 

[fuelair]

Why leave those out?


Wait I am talking to the wrong person again. As you have stated that you will intentionaly try to manipulate such situations so that you get to kill someone, I should know not to expect you to ever restrict the use of violence.

I'm sorry but when did I say (congratulations on a good memory - I said and meant it under most situations) I would shoot them in the back? Manipulate is for outside and means I move into a cornered position so there is no way to say I could have run instead (In idiot criminal protecting states). I would shoot in the back only if they had harmed someone
else and still had a weapon or refused to stop (covers me on heat of combat)
but not in the back otherwise. In the back, not in heat of combat or after no more danger would be expensive because it might go to trial and a jury might convict.

 

[fuelair]

No it really seems especialy if fuelair is typical of not trying to choose the safest solutions to a situation, but the fun of getting to shoot people.

I did miss the part where I said it was fun - feel free to quote my writing where that came up (like the back-shooting part above). You seem to have an interesting definition of fun - I see it as getting rid of a criminal hopefully before he has a chance to kill/hurt/ etc. anyone - and at least before he has a chance to do it again. If the police could and the courts would perform their actual duty to the citizens rather than play games of legal ethics over law and protection this would be unnecessary. The can't/won't,means it is (check out a couple of our recent threads on lawyers and the US system of legal "ethics" for samples and pray/hope you are never innocent and it is known but can't be used because it's a lawyer who knows you are innocent).

ETA: This is one of the legal system threads I mention: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111640

 

[Gate2501]

I see it as getting rid of a criminal hopefully before he has a chance to kill/hurt/ etc. anyone - and at least before he has a chance to do it again.

Ever been a teenager?

I know that when I was a teenager, I did some dumb *** things. None of them on the level of breaking and entering, but I certainly trespassed frequently on others property and was involved in a few instances of vandalism.

It would have been a damn shame if I were to have been shot and killed, my son never born, ect. Just because I was an idiot teenager like 75% (unscientific *duh*) of us all were.

 

[shuize]

This really isn't that difficult. If a homeowner confronts someone in breaking into his house and the intruder gets shot, the presumption should go to the homeowner that he was defending himself until other facts emerge. Here, however, if things went down as reported and the homeowner stopped the intruders, forced them to kneel down and then, somehow, one of them ends up with a bullet in the back, he's on the hook for murder plain and simple. He can try to explain himself at trial.

Assuming that's indeed what happened, even as a strong supporter of the castle doctrine, I could easily vote to convict if I were on his jury.

 

[Drudgewire]

I see it as getting rid of a criminal hopefully before he has a chance to kill/hurt/ etc. anyone - and at least before he has a chance to do it again. If the police could and the courts would perform their actual duty to the citizens rather than play games of legal ethics over law and protection this would be unnecessary.

 

[Tricky]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, we don't know for certain whether the boys' story is true about being beaten and forced to kneel. It seems likely, given the other things we know about the case, like that the guy was lying in wait for them, but that will have to be determined by the trial. The indictment means that there is enough evidence to bring it to trial.

There are a lot more things I'd like to know about the case. When the boys robbed his place earlier, did they tear things up? Did they do more than raid the pantry? Was there any evidence that they were armed? All of these things would be important in determining how severely I'd judge the homeowner.

 

[fuelair]

[qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bronsoncheetos.jpg[/qimg]

Cute - and if you have seen the movies you will know why I admire them - but, I would never (well, true emergency - but I own none) use a shiny/chromed pistol. Good caliber though.

 

[Drudgewire]

Cute - and if you have seen the movies you will know why I admire them - but, I would never (well, true emergency - but I own none) use a shiny/chromed pistol. Good caliber though.

I'm with you there. I've been going back and forth on which Kimber 1911 to get and finally realized I couldn't talk myself into liking a shiny one. So it's either going to be a Raptor or Gold Match because the Team Match only comes in a shiny version (plus that USA logo on the grip is just ugly).

And yes, the frame is silver stainless on the Raptor but it's SOOOO pretty.

 

[Hamradioguy]

One seldom gets the details of the investigation in these sorts of stories. Self-defense law can get really complicated.

As to the prospect of a successful prosecution of the fellow.....Good luck. Try to impanel a jury that would convict the guy.

Well, the old saying, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" probably still applies. That said, while I am a strong supporter of both the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense, I have a real problem with shooting anyone when your life or property is not at risk. If someone is fleeing I think it would be hard to justify risk to life or property.

The specifics of this particular case seem rather murkey at this point. And it's hard to know how any of us would really react in such a situation. Some of you may remember Bernie Goetz, the NYC "Subway Vigilante" from the 1980s. He shot four young men who tried to rob him. He ended up serving time, but his case wasn't helped by his fleeing the scene or saying to one of his victims, "You don't look too bad, here's another" and trying to shoot him again.

 

[The Fool]

This guy is an Idiot. In Australia the guys that want to shoot children for petty crime are much much smarter. Not so long ago we had the case of a guy who owned a derelict house that children were entering at night and were writing naughty words on the walls and other minor vandalism. He picked a random night and hid in the building armed with a rifle. As the first child climbed in a window he shot him.....

Now comes the bit about how much smarter our child shooters are.

When it got to court his story was that he called out "I am armed and if you don't go away I will be forced to defend myself" He then claimed the child called out "I don't care what you say I am going to kill you"....


He got off. The 14 year old child survived with a colostomy bag as a souveneer.

All lived happily ever after.

 

[Mobyseven]

I think it is obvious that the man is not being charged with murder simply because he shot a teen, who had broken into his home, in the back. The charges are in the other details.

1- Home had been broken into previously.
2- Sleeping in a nearby shed.
3- Forced all three to kneel and began beating them with gun.
4- Shot kneeling teen in back.

I would say that the charges are first degree because this was premeditated. The owner was sleeping in a nearby shed and probably admitted to police that he was waiting for the teens who had broken in previously. He catches the teens and makes them kneel on the ground.

Up until this point everything is okay.

Then he makes his first mistake. He begins beating the teens with his gun. He has now committed assault with a weapon. He is now the aggressor and the teens have every right to defend themselves.

Whether the teen who was shot tried to defend himself and was shot for it, the gun simply went off by accident, or the guy shot the teen on purpose, the fact is, he shot the teen during the commission of a crime, the assault.

And so, he has been charged with first-degree murder as he should be.

Agreed.

@ RandB: I misunderstood the situation - I thought the teen was shot in the back while fleeing.

 

[Bikewer]

The fuller description of the fellow's activities seem to justify the indictment. It is within one's rights to attempt to take such criminals into custody. (a "citizen's arrest) It is permissible to hold them at gunpoint; they are in fact felons committing a burglary.

It would be permissible to use deadly force if one of the burglars so confronted suddenly rose up an attacked the citizen.
However, to begin beating the apparently captive and submissive young felons, and then to arbitrarily shoot one....Again, if the facts are as stated, the indictment is justified.

We have seen cases where individuals who have been previously victimized by burglars have lain in wait, allowing burglars to force their way into the house before opening fire on them.
The law is liable to view such things with a rather jaundiced eye.

Just to digress for a moment..... The media frequently misreports these incidents and uses incorrect descriptions of the crimes committed. They frequently toss out terms such as "robbery" and "burglary" rather interchangeably.
"Burglary is breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime. Breaking into an unoccupied home or business is considered to be "2nd degree", less serious than breaking into an occupied dwelling, which is "1st degree".
Most all first-degree burglaries are inadvertent. The homeowner or resident is present, but sleeping or whatever. Burglars do not want confrontations. They do not want to be seen or identified, and they are generally not inclined to violence. The normal reaction to confrontation with citizens is to run.

This is quite different from a "home invasion", which is essentially an armed robbery of a residence. Many of these are drug-related... But not all. Well-to-do individuals who have a large quantity of cash or other valuables around the home may be targeted. These are often very violent crimes involving terrorizing or torturing the resident in order to find valuables.

 

[Cuddles]

In Laredo, a man has shot and killed an intruder and winds up indicted for murder.


What is wrong in America today when a man who is defending his right to drinks and snacks faces prison time for shooting thirteen-year-old criminals in the back as they were running away? I just thank God that our country recognizes the importance of keeping guns handy so that we can bring these snack-stealing burglers to justice before they have a chance to grow up into a life of crime.

Fun as it is to criticise American gun culture: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/718129.stm

 

[fuelair]

Interesting to see Britain approves Burglary!! AndI love the way the police refer to the dead burglar. And, I hope no one missed the "put out a contract" thing on the shooter. Non-criminal families generally do not have the contacts for that IIRC.

 

[Architect]

Fun as it is to criticise American gun culture: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/718129.stm

Been discussed already here. Tony Martin sat in wait and shot him in the back. He rightly was convicted of murder. No problem there.

 

[Rolfe]

Been discussed already here. Tony Martin sat in wait and shot him in the back. He rightly was convicted of murder. No problem there.

And yet, just last week, another guy was released without charge after killing an intruder with a kitchen knife. I can't find the details of the case but the TV news said it was pretty clear self-defence.

It all depends onn the individual circumstances. Tony Martin's problems were that he boasted in the pub before it happened that if these guys came back he would shoot them (evidence of pre-meditation), he lay in wait with the gun (more evidence of pre-meditation), and he shot the guy in the back while he was running away.

Note that while there was huge outcry in favour of the right to self-defence after that case, there was not a single voice heard calling for more liberal gun laws. In fact what happened was that the police and the legal profession patiently pointed out that in fact all the scenarios where people were demanding the right to self-defence, were already legal and would not result in a prosecution, and the law did not change. The outcome of the stabbing I mentioned above confirms that reasonable self-defence is a sound defence.

By the way, to expand on the three verdicts, it's actually an anomaly.

Originally the Scottish courts had only two verdicts - proven and not proven. As it should be. You do not have to porve innocence, you have to prove guilt, and if you can't, the case falls - not proven. Then came a case where the innocence of the accused was apparently shining like the day, and public perception was that "not proven" wasn't strong enough exoneration. There was a demand for a "not guilty" option.

Thus the present situation is quite unsatisfactory - "not proven" should be the standard negative verdict, but instead it has become equivalent to "we think you did it but the evidence just isn't quite good enough". In effect, guilty on the balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't really like this at all, and I think they'd be better to go back to "proven and "not proven". Because that's what it's all about. Probably too late now though, because "not proven" is associated with actual guilt in the minds of the public.

Rolfe.

 

[bigred]

This really isn't that difficult. If a homeowner confronts someone in breaking into his house and the intruder gets shot, the presumption should go to the homeowner that he was defending himself until other facts emerge. Here, however, if things went down as reported and the homeowner stopped the intruders, forced them to kneel down and then, somehow, one of them ends up with a bullet in the back, he's on the hook for murder plain and simple. He can try to explain himself at trial.

Assuming that's indeed what happened, even as a strong supporter of the castle doctrine, I could easily vote to convict if I were on his jury.

This more or less sums it up for me. I generally have little sympathy for someone who breaks into someone else's home or attacks someone (etc) and gets seriously hurt and have long been sick to death of the over-emphasis (IMO) on the "rights of the criminal," but it sounds like (granted the jury is out) he went way overboard here, even if he didn't intend to kill. If not murder, then manslaughter perhaps, or some such.

Perhaps.

I do disagree w/those ranting about how terrible it is to shoot someone who has broken into your home and use the wonder of hindsight ie they were "just" kids, they were only stealing food, etc......and this guy was supposed to know that how? You break into my home I assume you intend me bodily harm, whether you have other goals (eg theft) or not. It would be idiotic to assume otherwise, considering what lies in the balance, ie my life and/or lives of family. Given that, I have no problem inflicting serious hurt on said person(s) in defense - including blowing the dumbasses away if I feel justified. In a situiation like that, you don't exactly have a lot of time to sit and reflect about "well gee maybe they're just hungry and are just kids" etc and so on. Plus if they run away, who's to say they won't turn around when they hear you and blow you away? Feel like taking that chance, go for it; I'll pass.

But again, the CONFIRMED circumstances of this all make a huge diff. If this guy was just doing some "rage" thing and had no such concerns, certainly, convict him. It's just not a black n white issue by any means.