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 not going to play well with a jury either. At the very least this guy's going to have some really big legal bills.
I understand your hypotheticals; however, how many stories of plumbers being shot by neighbors do we hear about? And how many stories of landlords reclaiming their homes by breaking into them because they didn’t have a key do we hear about? I cannot recall even one. Ask me how many stories I hear of scum breaking the law.....endless.
We can come up w/ hypotheticals for EVERYTHING and therefore, not do anything about anything because “something” might happen.
Your cite of the Texas Penal Code includes the term “at nighttime.” According to the reports I’m seeing, this took place at 2:00 in the afternoon.
You said the Sheriff locked the door; therefore, he had the key. How did the Sheriff get the key? The deadbeat tenant happily handed it over?
All you have is an old guy who thinks someone has commited a crime. He has little evidence to go on. But he doesn't care. He takes out his trusty shotgun and kills both of them.
I suppose that proves they weren't all that dangerous ~ couple of young bucks, taken out by an old guy.
I think he's going to go to jail as a multiple murderer. Unfortunately they will not execute him, but the history of his type is such that you can almost count on him killing someone else in prison.
Again, depends who’s on the jury. The operator said HE was going to get shot, he said “I don’t think so”, in his own words of course. Besides, if there is a law in Texas that covers defending a neighbors property and he was given the task to defend the neighbors property AND knew the law, it may not be such a long shot.
You have to have a tungston or titanium bellhousing on the lock to keep out the pros.
He said on tape that he doesn’t know the neighbors who live in the house that was broken into, so any assertion that the neighbor asked him to protect their property is not going anywhere in court.
The history of his type? Does this “very violent offender” have a record? Violence usually doesn’t start when someone is in their 70’s, they usually get the taste of “blood” when they’re much younger.
Regarding “plumber shot”, it appears 335 times on the net. “carpenter shot” appears 1,140.
First, Wentworth was probably ambushed by the media. He didn’t know much if anything about the case, and so couldn’t comment cogently. Second, the recently enacted “castle doctrine” is not the relevant law here. The castle doctrine makes it very , very difficult to proceed against someone legally for using deadly force under certain circumstances. The codger, however, will probably be defended on the basis of law that existed before the castle doctrine. Whether he gets indicted depends on facts and politics. If indicted, whether he gets convicted will depend mainly on facts (because it is Pasadena).
Oh yes you can...
IMO the Operator was implying that if the officers arrived and saw him standing there with the shotgun, they would possibly shoot him in the “fog of war”
However a good defense attorney could use this statement to bolster the notion that the shooter was in fear for his life.
Also From the tape:
“I understand that, but I have a right to protect myself too”
He does not state, “I have the right to defend my neighbors property”
From what I’ve seen,after skimming two threads,most of the
folks that have a problem with this are from the north,,,
Where they don’t have the same “Rights”...;0)
“911: “Nope, don’t do that. Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?” “
Not....”No sir, that is illegal and you will be arrested” or anything to that fact. Just property not worth shooting someone over. Found that a tad strange.
I have to go listen to the entire 911 call, I am going by the information posted here......
He had to start sometime. 70s as good an age as any. He’s acting out finally and killed two guys ~ we still don’t know if they had actually commited a crime (the public record is thin on this one).
Correct sir, in the tape the caller states “broad daylight”
He has little evidence to go on. But he doesn’t care.
The codger had more evidence for what he did than you do for your commments.
I’m sure it does, but what are the facts in those cases. I cannot recall any story about a plumber or carpenter being shot because someone thought they were burglarizing a home.
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.