TX - Man allegedly shoots would-be burglars

[FWiedner]

Man allegedly shoots would-be burglars

BY JOHN CRAVEN

Was it self-defense or vigilante justice? Police say a man shot two burglars who broke into his house Monday morning.

It happened at North 18th and Cumberland in Waco. After two unarmed men broke into a house there, police say the man who lived there drove up and shot both of them. When they ran away, he started shooting their car.

One of the shooting victims was found in a nearby alley. Neighbor Alma McDonald saw him collapse.

"He leaned back and he just laid there, and he put his hand on his heart, like he might have had a heart attack or something," she says.

Another victim ran to a nearby muffler shop, where employees gave him first-aid.

Employee Jason Cornett says, "Gentleman came running down and just hollering for help, holding his chest, said he'd been shot. So we called for 911."

We attempted to get the homeowner's side of things, but got no answer at his door.

There is a state law allowing you to shoot burglars under limited circumstances. Investigators are trying to figure out if it applies in this case. Both suspect were unarmed.

Waco Police Sgt. Ryan Holt says, "To use deadly force, even in Texas, you have to feel like you're in imminent fear of bodily injury or death or you're protecting your property at night."

The burglary suspects will be charged when they get out of the hospital. As for the man who allegedly shot them, the District Attorney will decide whether he'll face charges. The man has no prior criminal record.

http://www.kcentv.com/news/c-article.php?cid=1&nid=7118

*FW Note:

OK, Let's review the facts.  Two guys break into another guy's house.  He comes home and catches them in the act.  He uses necessary force to protect and to defend his property and his life.  It is two against one, and he did surprise them in his home in the act of commiting a crime.  He drove them away from the premises like the craven scum-bags they are.  He didn't ambush them, nor did he tie them up to execute them in his front yard.

Why would anyone consider this man a vigilante for merely doing what he had to do with the tools at hand?

 :?

[Graybeard]

Shooting the car after they ran away on foot was a bit much. That might be his down fall if it goes to court. Otherwise I must agree it seems he was within the bounds of what I understand TX law to be.

[dukkillr]

Waco Police Sgt. Ryan Holt says, "To use deadly force, even in Texas, you have to feel like you're in imminent fear of bodily injury or death or you're protecting your property at night."

It is not considered reasonable under any state's law to claim you're in imminent fear of bodily injury when the bad guy is fleeing.  It's never been considered socially acceptable to shoot anyone in the back, and that hasn't changed in today's laws (even in TX).  

Most states also wouldn't allow you to shoot in this situation because he wasn't IN the house.  Most states require you to flee if possible.  I'm not saying it's right (please don't attack me) but it is the law, and I'd prefer to spend the rest of my life free rather than in jail.

[alsatian]

I love to read of criminals being shot while committing their crimes.  I particularly enjoy reading about criminals who threaten others with a gun being shot and killed.  At the same time, taking a life is a grave thing, and I hope I am never put in the position where I have to shoot someone.  While I think it is fair to pursue someone who is fleeing from the scene of the crime, to hold them to face the police, I don't know if I think shooting them as they flee is the right thing to do.  I will let the law courts work this out.

I have heard that Florida has in fact recently passed a law which allows one to shoot a criminal outside of one's home, so long as one feels threatened.

[Graybeard]

I could be wrong but as I understand TX law you are allowed to use deadly force to protect your property not just your life even outside your home not just inside it.

I might be reading the original post wrong but I do not read it that he shot the burglers as they fled but as they were coming out of the house. I take it they fled on foot and then he shot their car after he had shot them. That might not be a proper interpretation but is the way I read it.

[muzzleblast525]

From the BOOK (Texas Penal Code):

9.41  A person in lawful possessoin 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 immeidatley necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if hte actor uses the force immeidately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and the actor reasonalby believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor or the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

9.42 A person is justifed in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property if he would be justified in using force against the other under 9.41 and when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immeidately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, or to prevent hte other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property and he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by an other means, or 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 guess you can take this and interpet it how you see fit.  I've worked a couple of these where the suspect was shot at, not hit because the people were bad shots, and there was no indictment for their actions.   :sniper: