Posted on 11/16/2007 4:59:15 PM PST by Daffynition
HOUSTON (CBS) ― It will be up to a Texas grand jury to decide whether a man who fatally shot two men he thought were robbing his neighbor's home acted within the state's self-defense laws.
The man, who is in his 70s, shot the two suspected burglars Wednesday afternoon in a quiet subdivision of the Houston suburb of Pasadena. He confronted the men as they were leaving through a gate leading to the front yard of his neighbor's home.
No identities have been released.
Police say that just before the shootings, the man called 911 to say he heard glass breaking and saw two men entering the home through a window.
911: "Pasadena 911. What is your emergency?"
Caller: "Burglars breaking into a house next door."
A police spokesman says the man told the dispatcher that he was going to get his gun and stop the break-in.
Caller: "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"
911: "Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
The dispatcher repeatedly urged the man to stay calm and stay in his own home, reports CBS News correspondent Hari Sreenivasan.
911: "I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."
Caller: "I understand that, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself."
A Texas law strengthening a citizen's right to self-defense, the so-called "castle doctrine," went into effect on Sept. 1. It gives Texans a stronger legal right to use deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.
The telephone line then went dead, but the man called police again and told a dispatcher what he was doing.
Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.
He shot one suspect in the chest and the other in the side.
Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said a legal expert.
If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter's favor, defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. "That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role."
The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.
It "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth told the newspaper. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."
If his claim that the robbers came at him in his yard is substantiated, then he’s got a good case for a good shoot. If not, then he’s got more to worry about than big legal bills, I reckon.
I suppose they have the right to shoot back in Texas also, and that's something you really should consider before stepping out and firing on others.
Best to take cover, and to maintain maximum safety if you've already convinced the cops to come to the event, which he had.
That has nothing to do with Texas law ~ just the best way to manage a potential firefight.
You may have just come up with a new "extreme" sport.
Good pick up. I still haven’t listened to the 911 call. I should probably do that so I’m a little more informed!
Remember, it is Texas.Great things come out of Texas.
You are unable to prove your assertions from the material in this story.
Another thing, Is it “BOOM YOU’RE DEAD” or “MOVE YOU’RE DEAD” which is said on the tape? I can’t really tell.
The little difference could go a long way in a juries opinion.
EXCELLENT point.
Please note the final “or”. There is no requirement that you have been asked to protect the property, etc.
§ 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
That was in Louisiana.
I think we've discussed that one several dozen times in the last decade ~ someone keeps bringing it up.
Hey!! I’m from the North and am highly offended!!! Perhaps I belong in Texas ;-)
I’m not saying that he’s going to prison. I’m saying that he didn’t follow instructions and it’s all on tape.
It’s going to be an uphill battle for him.
My final thoughts on this matter.
Oh my goodness!! I am at least trying to make my conclusions based on the facts given here. That is quite a stretch!!!!!!
“He had to start sometime. 70s as good an age as any.”.......are you being facetious????
Hang on to your seats. This will be a good ‘un. He took two thieves off the streets who might have killed an innocent victim during another robbery. Way to go Joe!
Remember, he may end up prosecuted, convicted and tossed in the clink.
We'll wait on that story.
“The codger had more evidence for what he did than you do for your commments.”
Well, let’s see....the old guy was there on the scene and went through the whole thing - he had first hand evidence and would be competent to testify as a witness. You, on the other hand, engage in psychoanalysis, among other things, based on the story.
Please note, I am not saying that his actions will fall within the statutory language. We’ll just have to wait to see how this plays out on the facts.
“If this old coot had been in error, and these guys weren’t really criminals, and they were armed, he’d be swiss cheese and his estate would be paying damages to them.”
And this is the risk we ALL take owning guns. Besides, I don’t think he would really give a hoot if his estate would have to pay damages if he were swiss cheese!
I certainly hope it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.