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."
“That’s a good enough reason to take cover.”
Perhaps, but it isn’t required by law, and the 911 transcript doesn’t begin to cover all the relevant facts. As for what I would do - I don’t know because I wasn’t there.
You are right about the justification, which is why this case isn’t 100% clear cut.
The police aren’t the law, a 911 dispatcher isn’t necesssarily the police, and the police can “be on the way” for a very, very long time. Texas law says you can use deadly force in a variety of situations. The dispatcher’s comments were purely personal, even if it was an officer.
Great citation. Hope this case goes the way of more “blowin’ in the wind.” Meanwhile this good neighbor/home owner’s life is in a turmoil. Bless his heart, hope we get a follow up on the outcome.
Bailiff....whackem on the pee pee... (A Firesign Theatre routine, had to have been there I guess)
Simply because taking cover to escape possible police gunfire coming in your direction isn’t required by law doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.
Eeven if the dispatcher is a LEO, his telephone advice does not deprive a citizen of the statutory right to defend the property of others. The “value judgment” of the dispatcher (essentially, “property isn’t worth shooting someone over”) is not the value judgment in Texas law. Moreover, the dispatcher’s judgment reflects the kind of liberalism that has resulted in rampant crime. Assuming that these were thieves, they undoubtedly would have continued victimizing others and probably had, or would, commit crimes against persons.
In the past month, or so, I’ve posted articles out of Texas where homeowners have killed or held perps “in the act” and the police and neighbors have praised their courageous actions. I pray that the gentleman has a excellent lawyer and supporters turn out in force. Texans have their heads screwed on straight when it comes to matters such as this. Other regions across the fruited plain can learn a lesson from Texas!
Wow, going to the actual law? What a concept! Clear that the reporter and possibly cops commenting didn’t. Grand jury will, and from my lay reading, looks like the shooter was well within the law. We’ll see.
IMHO, that segment of the Texas Penal Code should be law in every state in the union.
Actually it is one of the cops’ jobs, actually usually the sheriff’s, to be there if requested when a landlord retakes possession of property from a deadbeat tenant. One of their oldest duties in fact under common law. Why? To prevent breaches of the peace.
You are absolutely correct. Found ourselves in the same position once — we saw burglars taking property out of our neighbor’s home. We called the cops and then stayed inside and watched as they came and busted the guys. This was Los Angeles. But we also studied and wrote down as many details as we could about the burglars, in case they got away before the cops got there. Served as eyewitnesses in their trial, where they were convicted, and the neighbors were very grateful.
This old guy, as well-intentioned as he might have been, could have gotten himself shot (how did he know there weren’t accomplices nearby?) and/or gotten a police officer shot.
I didn’t say that it was or was not a good idea. There are many situations in which that might be exactly what I’d do. On the other hand, “the police are on the way” can mean about the same thing as “the check is in the mail.”
Within a few weeks there will be a clearer picture of what this incident was really all about.
Yes, agree with your comment. It clearly was three shots.
My not-so-well-explained 2 for 2 comment was that he bagged two out of two perps. There have been so many stories of gunfights with police involved where they fire a multitude of shots without achieving the efficirncy of this guy in the kill ratio.
Then again, having a pump shotgun at this kind of range helps to lessen the errors made.
My, my are you obtuse. It's simply not the responsibility of the cops to hold a landlord's hand. That's why they all have a friend or two around to bust door locks off with hammers.
Sometimes it's best to keep your nose out of the police followup when you've reported an ongoing crime.
They'll know their own.
I think he’ll be no billed by the grand jury. There was an interesting case also in the Houston area several years ago where a neighbor shot and killed an intruder burgling the house next door. It turned out that the burglary was actually faked for an insurance scam. The home owner got convicted for conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.
There ya go cut and dried.......BTW I am of the understanding that the Castle Doctrine is more or less protection against a “civil” lawsuit in addition to no requirement to try and retreat or evade the threat before application of deadly threat.......
Where’s my little sawed off red neck lawyer at ?
Eaker !! Front and center, need a subject matter expert. You shoot people all the time . What say you ?
Stay safe Ya’ll .....!!!!
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.