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."
Ping.a....ling
Probably would be in Minnesota, but in Texas, it's probably was not. In Texas, you can use deadly force to protect property, even that of your neighbor, at least under some circumstances, and the facts in this case seem to at least come close to those circumstances.
Not quite sure what you mean by "Vicarious", he was there after all, but you can use deadly force to protect property in Texas. See my post above with the relevant portion of the Texas Penal Code.
I’d no-bill that in a second and give the guy a medal. Good riddance to bad trash.
Most shootings in Texas do, even those that are obvious justified under the law. It tends to clear the name of the defender. Which helps a lot in any ensuing civil case.
True, but it has everything to do with Texas law as it existed before the recent "castle doctrine" law was passed and as it remains now.
He clearly fired three rounds. And you can clearly hear that sound so feared by folks in places they should not be, doing things they shouldn't be doing, the sound of the action of a pump shotgun. Nothing else quite like it.
Once again, it appears that the shooter ignored advice from the cops after calling 911 and did it all wrong. On tape. It appears that the shooter pushed the situation while observing a crime. It appears (I know....)that the shooter stepped out of his house (and safety) and confronted the BG’s on his neighbor’s property. On tape.
I wish him nothing but the best, but this is going to be a tough one to defend.
Just sayin’.....
Actually he went: BOOM, clack-click, BOOM, clack-click, .... BOOM, clack-click.
Yes, that’s my correct meaning.
thanks...
If the police won't or can't come promptly when called, very little good at all.
It has already been pointed out that the man told the dispatcher he did not know the people who lived in the house. And he is not on good grounds for the shooting under all of 9.42, the dispatcher told him the cops were on the way.
So, the dispatcher is not a commisioned officer of the law. He's just a government employee, with no authority over the individual. They are trained, wrongly I believe, to respond that way. Same thing happened to a lady just a little younger, whose granddaughter lived with her in Arlington Texas. Same thing happened to the perp in that case too. Well he got shot, but not killed. The cops came and took her gun, but someone, can't recall if it was a neighbor or a relative, promptly replaced it. She was never prosecuted, IIRC, her case didn't even go to the Grand Jury. But the dispatcher still told her granddaughter, who was the one on the phone while Granny got and used her gun, "tell her not to shoot him" and then "tell her to stop shooting him".
Yeah, "officer are on the way" is like "the check is in the mail". It may be, but it also may not get to you before your own balance goes negative.
But he didn't interfere with anything, except the burglars. The police weren't there to be interfered with.
Most lever actions make the same noise!
I imagine the "old coot" knew darned good and well who lived in that house, and who owned it, if they were not the same person. The guys he dispatched were neither, and he knew it.
Not generally when there's property stolen from that "somebody else's" home laying around in the yard.
Here in Texas they usually go to the grand jury, which promptly returns a "no bill", thus clearing the defender of any criminal responsibility, and helping him out in the civil case that may follow.
Seventy year old Texans don't "act out" the just act as the see fit.
Bottom line, if the departed had not been burglarizing houses, they'd still alive.
I know I couldn't shoot anybody (heck, I had to keep from throwing up when I was in the blind with my son when he shot his first deer a few weeks ago!), but I think a few more incidences like this will go a long way to stopping burglaries.
When I was growing up, I always learned that you never know what might happen if you do something bad, but whatever the consequences, you deserve them if you take the risk!
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.