He and his daughter were spending the night at the house "just in case."
Two teens were shot, one was killed. Another teen was injured jumping from an upper deck and was the one detained and held for the police. The police are also looking for a 21 YO male who fled the scene. They know who it is and it is just a matter of time before they get him.
The young homeowner and his family are devastated. Send prayers
The object the owner thought was a weapon was a shovel they used to break in the door.
The government should pay a bounty whenever human garbage is killed. And a medal.
I lift them up in prayer to God. He was in reasonable fear of his life - and so he did what he had to do to protect himself and his child...
Kudos to your nephew. That's pretty good shooting.
As to the perps, I have zero sympathy for these slugs. Burgle an occuppied home and die: it's as simple as that. You'd think the word would start to get out.
Perhaps "teens" shouldn't be breaking into houses.
Too bad, but...I'd do the same thing. Period.
Another success story.
in before the ping
Prayers up for your nephew and his family. May God grant him the peace of knowing that he did the right thing.
IMHO, 14-15 year-olds should be quite old enough to know that busting into someone else's house in the middle of the night is a really bad idea. May they serve as a warning to others.
The community should insist that young people are educated in the schools that burglary and theft and wrong and obeying these prohibitions (as well as other moral law) protects everyone. Reckless disregard and coveting the property of others always harms someone.
Interesting that the ethnicity of the "teens" (youths) was not mentioned.
Well at least the kid avoided a life of crime.
The media will play and replay the word "teen".
Join the NRA.
In case of what? A break in? At least he had the wisdom to put his daughter's life in jeopardy too.
___________________________________________________________________________
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 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.
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.
§ 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.
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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept.
1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
____________________________________________________________________________________