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."
Sorry......Bad Shoot.
Identities have been released. The two dead perps were dark-skinned immigrants with criminal records.
I can’t believe that a grand jury of honest Americans would indict this elderly hero.
I believe they were illegals, unless I have my stories confused.
S***w you Wentworth! Why don’t you take your cut like a good little third world commissar and leave people alone? The cops won’t be there except to a) fill out the robbery report b) Harass and arrest the law abiding citizen over some third world savages.
I agree.
Vicarious self defense does not extend to property, but this is a TEXAS grand jury. I find it hard to believe he will be indicted. It shades the line, but...
Sure looks like it, to me. I wonder if he could even prove that it wasn't a practical joke, based on what he knew at the time (which is beside the point).
Maybe that is why they will try to hold the trial in Austin. They are all democrats there and not an honest one amongst them.
Or, I could be wrong. Maybe he was just looking to kill somebody.
from the article:
“No identities have been released. “
My initial take was “Wow! Now Texas is like California...
where the identity is obscured to protect the guilty!”
Good to hear the truth is slowly leaking out.
I hope whoever stands in judgement of the old guy hears it.
The 911 tape I heard on Fox must have just had the first call.
In the second call, he says the perps came into his yard.
If that is what prompted this shooting, then he would seem to be justified.
Are the houses close together. It sounded like he used a shotgun—if so and this was at close range, it would account for his 2 for 2 record.
If the perps came onto his property and he thought his life was in danger, then I would not convict him.
Who wants to live to your 70s and be taken out by thugs?
“Identities have been released. The two dead perps were dark-skinned immigrants with criminal records.”
It can’t be true, their just here to work and do the jobs Americans don’t want/s
From what i heard on Larry Elder show the perbs were black
I think he is gonna be in deep sh$t over this. I hope not. and my agreement of a “bad shoot” is from the standpoint of what the courts are gonna do to this guy. I’m happy as hell 2 POS like these were shot.
It does in Texas where this took place.
From the Texas Penal Code concerning the use of deadly force to protect property:
§ 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(3) he reasonably believes that:(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
(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.
§ 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
the complete 9 or 10 minute call is up on LiveLeak.
How ‘bout defending your neighborhood? No use in waiting until your neighborhood is overrun — then it is too late.
Protect your neighborhood, so that your neighbors will want to stay put. For too long we have looked the other way and allowed neighborhoods to fall into the hands of thugs.
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.