'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (San Antonio TX)

[Wickerman]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA.20080430.1A.shooting.b2882ced.html

Web Posted: 04/29/2008 11:14 PM CDT

Robert Crowe
Express-News

After his home was burglarized earlier this week, Thomas Thames decided to arm himself in case the intruder returned, police say. The following night, he heard another noise at his home in the 5800 block of East Midcrown, so Thames, 39, walked downstairs. It was about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday when he once again saw a young man in his kitchen. The back door was open.

This time, Thames fired a gun at the man, who ran into the backyard, where Thames shot at him again, police said. Ronnie Scarborough, 18, was pronounced dead at the scene.

San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.

Police said the man killed at Thames’ Northeast Side home Tuesday matched the description of a burglary suspect the resident said he chased from the home the night before.

Police said Tuesday that Thames likely won’t be charged with a crime because Texas law gives homeowners latitude in protecting their property and themselves. “A property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,” Trevino said.

--more--

[Deep13]

1. So he dragged the dead guy back inside?

That's tampering with evidence and it makes me doubt his story.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. Tampering would imply he ws trying to cover something up.

That's not clear from the story. It seems like he told the police he dragged the guy back inside. Very strange. I would have left him where he fell.

David

[Firethorn]

10. I'd only drag him for one reason...

The only reason I could think of to drag him inside would be if he was still alive and, for some reason, I've decided to administer first aid to try to save his life.

Of course, I also don't normally consider chasing somebody outside and continuing to fire as self defense. Exceptions do apply, and I can understand the guy's situation. Having your home invaded again is disturbing. It indicates the start of a most disturbing pattern, that your home is no longer safe. I can understand somebody reacting strongly to that, seeing the fleeing criminal as a continuing threat that'll just come back later if not stopped now.

[SteveM]

47. Resident probably laboring under the "urban legends" surrounding old law...

Before the "castle doctrine" became popular and in many places law, the off-hand interpretation of law in Texas was: you could shoot someone entering your house, as evidenced by his body being found in, or mostly in, your residence. Such notions as a stiff hanging "mostly in" via a window or threshold were taken as evidence that a resident was acting lawfully. Third 'round of beer discussion topic for years.

[bossy22]

2. hmmm

im all for getting rid of the duty to retreat but i dont know why people shoot burglars who are running away- in NY, you can shoot someone in your home without retreating, but you can be charged if you shoot a guy while he is running away

[Tejas]

19. simple

To prevent retalliation/return visits.

Sure, you scared the perp off but he's still thinking about that bigscreen in your living room or that ring on your finger or watch on your wrist that he could pawn for drugs.

[sandnsea]

3. Nope, you should have to warn them

and if they're running, let them go. This is just some sick sick shit. I hate this fucked up country more every day.

[bossy22]

4. im not so gung-ho on the warning them

i think that can put you in more danger- but im all for letting them go when they are running away- to me its just plain wrong to shoot a guy while he is retreating

[sandnsea]

5. Most people will run

If they know you have a gun. There's something seriously fucked up about people who can't wait to kill someone and that's what is going on with these shoot first assholes.

There may be incidents in your own home where you might shoot with no warning, I wouldn't say there isn't. But the thinking of people should be to want to scare the intruder away, not murder them.

[Tejas]

13. Somebody lied to you

"Most people will run If they know you have a gun."

Tell that to a police officer that has to deal with thieves wired up on drugs.

Most of them are on drugs and looking to steal to support their habit, running is the last thing on their mind. Now that they know you're home, the only thing on their mind is making you give them money etc.

As far as "scaring them away" (forever), care to bet your life on that? Take the example in the OP, 2nd night in a row. How did the homeowner know the thief didn't come back to kill him?



Anyways, if you insist on "firing second" instead of first, good luck to ya, we'll come to your funeral.

;)

[sandnsea]

15. We've done it

Rather my husband did, with the end of a fucking broom handle no less. Hell I've scared people away from my house just by yelling at them. I swear to god you people are just fearmongering idiots. I bet you're all voting for the queen of the fearmongers too, aren't you. Or McCain.

[bossy22]

16. i guess you havent seen my other post

today lol

[Testament]

36. Just because it happened once to you...

does not mean that it's a good course of action for all circumstances. Things change when the guy in your house is high on meth. Things change if this isn't a kid looking for a couple of bucks, but is a hardened criminal out from our shithole prisons. Warning shouts, racking the action, warning shots, are all generally stupid courses of action that are more likely to get you killed than to help you out. Their use should be up to the person defending themselves, and not mandated by law, afterall, that person didn't ask to be victimized. Just like compliance with an assailant, put the idea in your toolbox and pick the right tool for the situation, this is not a one size fits all thing. Everything that you do can get you killed, including doing nothing.

Couple notes on the story...

Dragging a body is stupid cause it makes it look like a questionable shoot.
Dragging a body is stupid cause maybe that guy isn't incapacitated, but faking it, hoping for a break.
Dragging a body is just plain stupid.
Shooting someone that is running away is generally illegal unless they are running to attack someone else, or you're a cop and there are sometimes special cases allowing you to shoot in public interest.

[slackmaster]

8. What if they are running but you have reason to believe they are likely to come back and attack you?

Things are rarely as simple as "if they're running, let them go" in the real world.

[sandnsea]

11. OMG, call the police

Get out of the house. Shoot them when they return.

Those were some really tough solutions to think of.

:eyes:

[Tejas]

17. Come on now

"Shoot them when they return."

Really?

When is the badguy coming back?

Shoot them?

As you stated above, shouldn't you just wave a gun around and scare them away?

[slackmaster]

18. Or a broomhandle

:eyes:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

22. easy now

"Yeah, you would have rather blown someone to bits had your 3 kids get up in the middle of the night to blood and bones and body parts all over the house.

Fucking idiot."

"This is just some sick sick shit. I hate this fucked up country more every day."

"that's what is going on with these shoot first assholes."

"I swear to god you people are just fearmongering idiots."



Do you own a firearm?

Are you from Canada?

[sandnsea]

23. Same idiots, for years and years

And I'm an idiot for continuing to try to knock some sense into them. The wild west was a problem, responsible gun ownership was the solution. It still is. Blowing people away at the drop of a hat, is not a solution. It's a problem. People who advocate it have sick fucked up minds. Deal with it.

[slackmaster]

26. Let me explain something here, sandnsea

Blowing people away at the drop of a hat, is not a solution. It's a problem. People who advocate it have sick fucked up minds. Deal with it.

No thoughtful person really wants to do that. People who have been trained in self-defense, or who have reflected carefully on the legal and moral aspects of the use of deadly force, consider it to be an act of last resort to be used only when necessary to protect life or limb.

Your attempts to force your views on others (nice use of the metaphor "knock some sense into them" BTW) seem to say the issue with you is lack of ability to control other people. Your "solutions" always involve use of force on others, whether they have actually done anything wrong or not.

Why do you suppose you have that problem?

Go cogitate on that for a while while you cool off.

[sandnsea]

28. Well which is it, blow them away or scare them away

I mean, you can't do both at the same time.

[slackmaster]

30. I'm all for scaring them away (and I have a few times BTW) if that is sufficient

If not, I would reluctantly use enough deadly force to STOP someone who was attacking. If they die or get blown to bits, that is an unfortunate but unintended consequence but not the intent.

[sandnsea]

32. Well then we agree, hell has frozen over

Scare them away if you can. Why is it so damn hard for you to tell these other idiots that they don't have to blow someone away the second they see them.

[slackmaster]

33. Nothing froze over - You opened your mind for a moment

Why is it so damn hard for you to tell these other idiots that they don't have to blow someone away the second they see them.

I don't believe anyone is actually saying that you MUST use deadly force the moment you detect an intruder in your home. That attitude would run contrary to all the training I have ever gotten.

Maybe you are reading too much into Internet bravado. Real-life situations are not easily depicted in a few lines of text or a primitive Microsoft Paint diagram.

[sandnsea]

34. That is exactly what I said to start with

You should have to warn them away, not use deadly force the moment you detect an intruder in your home which is what everybody else in this thread advocated. Oh my god, you couldn't scare them away because what if they come back and get you. Well what's the alternative choice then? Oh yeah, blowing them away.

You were made to face blood and guts and body parts in front of little kids and realized that was a pretty sick choice, especially if "get out of here" would do the job. That's what happened here.

And that's what I find every single time I get down to the nitty-gritty on guns in the real world. Nobody is full of the kind of false bravado NRA talking points the way those in this gun forum are.

[slackmaster]

41. The "have to" is where you and I diverge

Sometimes the situation allows for warning an invader away. Sometimes it does not.

Oh my god, you couldn't scare them away because what if they come back and get you.

You may have additional information above and beyond their unauthorized presence and present behavior that would create a reasonable fear of retaliation.

Every situation is unique. It sounds like you are advocating for a "duty to retreat" doctrine like they have in the UK. My feeling is that California-style castle doctrine is the best compromise between duty to retreat and hyper-extended castle doctrine like they have in Florida and Texas.

You were made to face blood and guts and body parts in front of little kids and realized that was a pretty sick choice, especially if "get out of here" would do the job. That's what happened here.

I'd rather have my kids see the blood and guts of a stranger who attacked us, than have them see my blood and guts, or have them killed.

[sandnsea]

43. If your life isn't presently threatened,

you shouldn't be able to kill someone. Period. If someone is going to retaliate at a later time, then you're just going to have to deal with it at a later time. Or go to the police. There's either an imminent threat, or there isn't. Kind of like Iraq. It isn't complicated at all.

[slackmaster]

44. The problem is you cannot always be sure that your life is not threatened

That's why California's law on justifiable use of deadly force, our implementation of Castle Doctrine which works very well, is written as follows:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[sandnsea]

45. "bare fear"

"A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it."

You cannot just 'fear' someone is going to come back and attack you later, that is not sufficient.

[SteveM]

49. Your place, once broken-in to, WILL be broken-in to again...

Police and victims agree on this point: If someone breaks into your place, they'll be back for "some more" the second time. Fueled not only by a drug habit but by contempt for an "easy victim," the criminal will be back, and "some more" may be you.

Though not a pleasant image, some B&E victims report a criminal's pile of feces dropped onto a living room floor or elsewhere. Kind of tells the victim something about whose territory the house is now.

[sandnsea]

50. Never happened to anybody I've ever known

Not in 50 years. In the 10 different states I've lived in. It's stunning, truly.

:eyes:

You guys just love your hysteria.

[SteveM]

51. Happened to folks I've known and those I have not known...

In 60 years. Talk to the police and see what they say.

BTW, you show more signs of hysteria in your posts than I feel in my 8+ hours sleep/night.

[sandnsea]

53. It does not happen

It's just more of this crazy ginned up fearmongering that this country thrives on. And I am really glad my hysteria level is at the sound asleep stage, which is where everybody's should be - unless they're life is in imminent danger. IMMINENT.

[slackmaster]

55. Dogedly insisting that it never happens is just as unreasonable as saying it always happens

:nuke:

[Tejas]

66. I've never met an astronaut, they must not exist either. n/t

[slackmaster]

54. Right, but if you have a concrete reason to believe they are going to come back

For example, the person threatens you in front of one or more witnesses, that's a lot more than a bare fear.

[sandnsea]

56. You can't shoot someone because someone is threatening you

You know better than that. That is less than "bare fear". If your life is in imminent danger, shoot. The odds of that happening in anybody's life is slim. The odds of it happening more than once is even slimmer. This is just a bunch of absurd fearmongering bullshit. It's the same kind of fearmongering that leads people to believe balsa wood planes are going to fly over from Iraq and spray anthrax on you.

[slackmaster]

57. Sure you can

Someone who says "I'm going to kill you" is a good target.

[sandnsea]

58. Oh really?

So if I said "I'm going to kill you", you think you could come shoot me? No. You can't. And no, you can't even if somebody says "I'm going to go get my gun and bring it back and shoot you." Nope, your life or safety (or property) has to truly be threatened. In most states, you can also only respond proportionately. For instance, you can't shoot someone because they're stealing a watermelon. Your car, savings, or other means of subsistence is what that used to refer to, until this country turned into a greedy selfish hyperbolic insane asylum.

[slackmaster]

59. Oh yes I could, if...

...you were presenting a credible threat.

Your freedom of speech does not extend to threats, extortion, blackmail, slander, etc.

[sandnsea]

60. lol, no you couldn't

But you just keep dreaming about it, okay slick, I mean slack.

See ya. This has gotten beyond silly and you know it.

[slackmaster]

64. And once again sandnsea slips back into personal attack mode

She knows damn well a person can't go around threatening to kill people and expect to live.

Just a reminder of the snippet of the California Penal Code that I brought up as an example:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein...

I think it's pretty clear that someone who presents a credible threat to kill you is a good target. That does not include a 4-year-old girl pounding her fists her bedroom door, or a rude person on the Internet who behaves like one.

[sandnsea]

69. Too bad all the women threatened by abusive jerks

didn't just blow them away and cite your interpretation of the law.

I thought people knew by the time they were 10 years old that a verbal threat is no excuse for a physical response.

[slackmaster]

70. I never said that a verbal threat ALONE was an excuse for a physical response

For crying out loud. It's all about context, past behavior, body posture, historical information, etc. etc. etc.

BTW - I don't have any problem with someone saving her (or his) own life by preemptively killing an abusive man (or woman) who has made a credible threat to kill her (or him).

[sandnsea]

72. Unless your life is in imminent danger

You Do Not Have A Legal Right To Kill. In most states. That has always been the law. You can't kill someone just because they verbally threaten you, even if you believe them. It will never stand up in a court of law. I know you know better. And btw, "slick" was just teasing, I thought you had a sense of humor, my bad, sorry.

[Tejas]

74. "Unless your life is in imminent danger"

Is exactly what we are talking about. Only thing is, your interpretation leaves the badguys plenty of leeway. Who's side are you on?


Serious question: Do you have a close relative that was killed or is in prison due to a confrontation?


I ask because the things you are spouting off make no sense whatsoever when it comes to how the actual laws read, at least in some states, Texas for certain.

[sandnsea]

76. No we aren't, go back and read

Someone threatens to come back and kill you, you believe them, you can kill them. NO. That is not the law. I am not referring to the new kill anybody you want laws. I'm talking about historically. Slackmaster knows it. I don't know why he's pretending you can shoot people who threaten you when we all know you can't. And what the fuck kind of question is that prison shit? Because I don't jump to the conclusion that every kid who makes a mistake needs to be gunned down - I suddenly am trash whose family is all in prison???

[slackmaster]

78. There is no specific time limit on "imminent"

Someone who says "I'm going to my car to get my gun, then I'm coming back to kill you" is a valid target for deadly force. Same if the person says "I'm going home to get my gun, then I'm coming back to kill you."

In California. Today. Before he or she actually leaves and comes back with the gun.

[sandnsea]

79. Wow. Take my advice, please

If anybody ever says that to you, please please, go to the police. You seriously cannot kill them. Seriously. Contact a lawyer. You can't. You're just wrong. I don't know what else to say to someone who seriously believes they're right about something like that.

[slackmaster]

81. I'd most certainly call the police at the earliest possible moment

But I would not wait until the brink of death to exercise my right to self-defense.

And some advice for you:

Don't threaten people.

[sandnsea]

85. You better wait until you know the threat is real

Somebody running to their car is not a threat. Get real. And I don't threaten people, so I don't know where the hell that came from.

[slackmaster]

91. I guess you missed the part about going to the car to get a gun then come back and kill me

You have an annoying habit of taking a one-dimensional look at every situation.

[Tejas]

82. um, call me crazy but

I'm pretty sure the person will return from their vehicle with the gun before you finish your 911 call, much less before the cops arrive.

[sandnsea]

84. You better make sure they're returning

I don't care what you think, you'll go to prison if you mow them down while they're running towards their car, or getting in their car. You don't know if they're really getting a gun, or trying to scare you so they can drive away.

[Tejas]

87. wow (again)

"Posted by sandnsea

You better make sure they're returning
I don't care what you think, you'll go to prison if you mow them down while they're running towards their car, or getting in their car. You don't know if they're really getting a gun, or trying to scare you so they can drive away."



I'd love to hear your reasoning for a police officer in fear for her/his life having justification to shoot but a private citizen doesn't.

[sandnsea]

88. Cops can't just mow people down either

The person has to be a serious criminal suspect, or seriously threatening them, in order for a cop to just shoot them outright. What do you think all these trials are about? Have you ever seen one where they got away with gunning someone down because he was running to his car??

[Tejas]

90. more drama

"Mow" huh?

Try ignoring an officer's lawful commands and just head on back and grab the door handle on your vehicle like it's nobody's business. With any luck at all you'll simply be tasered like that maroon in Utah.

Bonus points: Do it at 3am, and again, post the vid on Youtube.





edit to add: If you have children, you might be well advised to have your affairs in order if you attempt any of the above. Probate can be a mess.

[sandnsea]

92. Tasered isn't shot

And a cop has to have a reason to hold you. Yes, you can just move on about your business and not expect to get shot to death.

And this isn't a thread about the police, it's about what regular citizens can legally do and they can't shoot people who are walking towards their cars.

So how about YOU cut back on the drama and the "maroon" and the family affairs and family in prison and all the rest of the shit you've been spewing in this thread -- and stick to the facts. You have to be in imminent danger before you can use lethal force.

[Tejas]

93. please, from one side of the mouth only

Correct, as I mentioned already, immenent danger is indeed the issue at hand. The fact that you continuosly see no possibility of immenent danger in any situation that could ever occur is ridiculous. All you keep coming up with is "what ifs' that have nothing to do with reality, much less anything to do with laws that exist (which you also deny the existence of).

The "police" thing was brought up to try and put your silly reasonongs into perspective. You continually insist that there "just can't" possibly be a situation where a citizen would need to fire upon a perp, well wake up already.
An officer who is in fear for his life and can easily justify a shoot is in no different a situation than a citizen. Common citizens do not need badges to add weight to the merits of self-preservation.

If you think otherwise, then you obviously place no value on life to begin with and can not be taken seriously in any of your views.




edit to add: yes, I know, typos left and right, too many to fix.

immenent = immInent LOL!

[sandnsea]

94. Not what I said at all

You can't respond to what I did say, because I'm right, so now you pretend I said there "can't possibly be a situation" where a citizen would have the right to shoot. I never said that. Why don't you grow up.

[Tejas]

95. "grow up"

Wow, impressive.

You're "right"?

About what?

[sandnsea]

96. No profile, no pm's

pretending to not be able to comprehend the written word. I at least hope the pay is good.

[Tejas]

80. oh the drama

It was a serious question, no barb intended, sorry you just had to seize the opportunity and be a jerk about it. I asked because I hadn't thought of the possibility until now, and that if so then it could be the reason you were so passionate about self-defense. Again, it was a serious question with no hidden agenda.

As far as "trash", I have no relatives (that I know of) in prison, but I sure don't think anything less of anyone that does. That said, carry on with your blue-blood antics.

[sandnsea]

83. I'm passionate about 11,000 firearm homicides

And the crazy thinking in this forum that contributes to it.

[Tejas]

86. ah, the Bradyisms begin

The typical 11,000 firearms deaths that gets quoted here (like you just did) also includes Police actions (local/state/federal) and accidental shootings.

But hey, since you like numbers, why don't you tell us how passionate you are about the 16,000+ auto deaths that occur in this country each year? How about alcohol-related vehicle deaths?







edit: Bradisms = Bradyisms

[jmg257]

97. We learned/ taught "The Deadly Force Triangle", as cop & instructor in NY.

"The deadly force triangle is a decision model designed to enhance an officer's ability to respond to a deadly force encounter while remaining within legal and policy parameters.(2) The three sides of an equilateral triangle represent three factors - ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. All three factors must be present to justify deadly force.

In this model, ability means the suspect's physical capacity to harm an officer or another innocent person. This is widely interpreted as a suspect's being armed with a weapon capable of inflicting death or serious injury, such as a firearm, knife, or club. Ability also includes personal physical capability, such as that possessed by a martial arts practitioner, a powerfully built man, or an agitated suspect on drugs.

Opportunity describes the suspects' potential to use their ability to kill or seriously injure. An unarmed but very large and powerfully built suspect might have the ability to injure seriously or kill a smaller, less well-conditioned officer. However, opportunity does not exist if the suspect is 50 yards away. Similarly, a suspect armed with a knife has the ability to kill or seriously injure an officer but might lack opportunity if the officer has taken cover.

Jeopardy exists when suspects take advantage of their ability and opportunity to place an officer or another innocent person in imminent physical danger. For example, a situation in which an armed robbery suspect refuses to drop a weapon when cornered after a foot pursuit would constitute jeopardy.
..."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-20564013.html

Ability + Opportunity + Jeopardy, with the all-important "imminent" which = "NOW"!

Alot of what Sandnsea was saying is correct re: "imminent" vs threats - especially those for the future.

Another "example" taught us was "the box". Someone is inside the box when they meet all the "serious physical injury" criteria above (or per NYS law) - but the instant they are outside the box, shooting is no longer a justified option.


The NYS Law (somewhat typical, & actually "allows" a little more leeway, but I wouldn't necessarily shoot just because they SAY it is OK):

2. A person may NOT use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one UNLESS:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

35.20 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or
terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

...

35.30 4. A private person acting on his own account...
... and he may use deadly physical force for such
purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

[slackmaster]

75. Sounds like you STILL haven't read or comprehended California PC section 197, paragraph 2

Homicide is justifiable to stop any felony, not just to protect your own life.

[gorfle]

103. It's all about context.

Look, this is an absurd back-and-forth going on.

Obviously, it's all about context.

If my buddy and I are playing on my Playstation and I beat him and he exclaims, "Motherfucka, I'm gonna KILL you!", this does not mean I can whip out my pistol and blow him away.

If, on the other hand, I'm walking downtown and a guy steps out of a alleyway with his fists balled up and says, "Motherfucka, I'm gonna KILL you", I may be quite justified in whipping out my pistol and blowing him away.

I have to believe my life is in imminent danger. What causes this belief could be any number of things, from words, to body language, to insinuating gestures, to pulling out a weapon.

And I would say that a verbal threat, in the correct context, most certainly could lead me to believe my life was in imminent danger.

Bear in mind that one cannot just toss out the defense that you thought your life was in danger. It has frequently been said that unless you are willing to spend many tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself in court you shouldn't consider using a weapon in self-defense. You can make whatever excuse you want - odds are it's going to cost you a lot of money and court time to clear yourself.

[Tejas]

63. This is a joke, right?

"So if I said "I'm going to kill you", you think you could come shoot me? No. You can't. And no, you can't even if somebody says "I'm going to go get my gun and bring it back and shoot you." Nope, your life or safety (or property) has to truly be threatened. In most states, you can also only respond proportionately. For instance, you can't shoot someone because they're stealing a watermelon. Your car, savings, or other means of subsistence is what that used to refer to, until this country turned into a greedy selfish hyperbolic insane asylum."



You really have no clue as to what a "Castle Doctrine" is, much less what the laws are in most states. Just to be safe, I think you should move to Canada, don't forget to take your broomstick with you to ward off rabid mooses.


;)

[Firethorn]

102. Well, you're lucky I wouldn't shoot you for that...

"I'm going to go get my gun and bring it back and shoot you."

You're right. Odds are I wouldn't shoot you for this. Odds are that by the time you got to your house the police would be waiting for you though.

Now, if you show up after making that statement, find me not around, pull out and waive around a gun odds are you're going to be shot. And not with a handgun either.

As for the proportionate response - be careful here. I don't believe in proportionate response. That's had people say that if somebody comes at me with a knife, I can only respond back with a knife, because a gun would be escalation. If you come at me with bare fists but deadly intent, I WILL use my gun if it makes sense. I'm not a duelist. I'll take every advantage I can get.

And this stuff is more a codification of defense rights - there were always areas where you could shoot someobody for stealing a watermelon, there were areas where you could be charged with murder for shooting a man coming at you with a knife.

In rural areas I wouldn't understate the saying 'shoot, shovel, and shut up' in the past.

Of course, I blame 50-80% of our crime on the 'war on drugs', so I have some different ideas on how to reduce the number of people breaking into homes in the middle of the night.

[Tejas]

62. The comedy is strong with this one

In Texas, if a perp threatens, it's on.

Perp stands there with his hand in his pocket and threatens to "cut" you, he's a dead man walking. Threatens and reaches into his pocket, same thing, dead meat. Try walking into a convenience store, put a hand in your pocket, and tell them to fork over the money. See what happens.


Better yet, if you want to throw the BS flag, try any of the above (and more) on a police officer and see what it gets you. If you will be so kind, please have a friend video your experiment and post it on Youtube.

[Firethorn]

101. Don't have any sympathy towards criminals.

If someone is going to retaliate at a later time, then you're just going to have to deal with it at a later time.

What if it's the former boyfriend/husband who's been stalking you for the last three years, causing you to move a half dozen times, he's been arrested three times, but been let out each time for either a technicality or for 'time served', and each time the violence he offers increases?

After a point I'd consider killing him a public service, because next time he might get lucky.

Still, I have very little sympathy for those who'd break into a occupied home at night. Or rob a store at gunpoint, mug somebody, etc...

Of course, the way I look at it it's everybody's duty to prevent crime, to ensure criminals are caught for punishment, etc... I want crime to not pay, in rather obvious ways. You get fewer criminals that way.

By the same token though, I also think that schools need to teach useful stuff, and that drugs should be legalized, taxed, and regulated. It'd do more to cut down on abuse than the current illegality and the resulting anything-goes sales system. Put the tax monies from the occasional users and functional addicts toward funding treatment centers for the non-functional addicts*. Not to mention eliminating the biggest source of funding for organized crime going. Should cut down on OD's due to better consistency as well.

*IE they gotta commit crimes to fund their habit, leech welfare, or just feel the need to commit crimes while high for some reason.

[Tejas]

61. Yes, and you still don't get it

"You should have to warn them away, not use deadly force the moment you detect an intruder in your home which is what everybody else in this thread advocated."

Incorrect, nobody here advocates blowing away someone the second they are detected inside your house. You might wish that's the way firearms owners think, but being ridiculous will get you nowhere.

As far as blood/guts goes, if the intruder is indeed a problem, then get ready to redecorate. Beats your children seeing YOU splattered all over the place. That is, if the intruder doesn't kill them too.

[Tejas]

73. Then maybe that should tell you something

It should tell you that maybe you don't "know" what you think you do. Try looking at various state laws for some insight as to what is actually legal before trying to broadcast your fantasy as fact.


Suffice it to say, if you keep glaring at the world through those rose-colored glasses of yours, you stand a good chance of becoming a statistic.

[slackmaster]

24. Wow, a Straw Man plus a completely unwarranted personal attack

Why can't you people EVER carry on a civil discussion in this forum?

I'm serious. Gun control advocates seem to all be lacking in both reasoning skills and self-discipline.

OTOH it's probably best for everyone that you have elected not to allow yourself to have dangerous weapons.

[sandnsea]

25. People blown to bits is a straw man???

How can the exact thing you're advocating be a straw man?

[slackmaster]

27. It's a Straw Man because at no point have I ever advocated that

Got it?

And calling me "Fucking idiot" is a pretty poor substitute for trying to find some common ground. I will not tolerate being brow-beaten by you or anyone else.

[sandnsea]

29. Well what were you advocating in post 8 then n/t

[slackmaster]

31. Post #8 does not advocate any one-size-fits-all action

In fact it is intended to point out that solutions should be tailored to fit specific situations.

[Tejas]

35. Probably because

the ONLY viewpoint you seem to have is the fairytale of the badguy being unarmed and the homeowner absolutely dying to blow away an unarmed person.


If you could get past being so dramatic, it might help the discussion.

[sandnsea]

20. That was the question I answered

What if they come back. Gee, wait and see if they do. MOST DON'T.

[Tejas]

77. So, you're going to wait up all night?

Of course, you're probably also certain they won't bring a gun to a broomhandle fight.


Your children have any say-so in this?

[Turbo Teg]

100. Nah, shooting them is much easier for me.

not so much for them, but I'm not on thier agenda, their on mine. If you think that I'm gonna leave my house because somebody may come back, your very wrong. Just aswell put a couple of slugs in them and let the ambulance or the morgue deal with it.

[krispos42]

37. Not good enough, I don't think

Of course, you can do it and then plead your case to a jury, but in general I don't think "what ifs" are good enough to shoot somebody in the back.

Okay, if the guy had his own gun, I guess maybe the justification that you shot him to prevent a violent, armed felon escape into the neighborhood would do for shooting a fleeing intruder.

Or if you knew he was wanted for something serious. Like you had seen him on the evening news.

But just "hey, he might" isn't good enough.

Of course, there is something to the idea that if the criminal is smart, he might stake your place out a little, try to steal your gun(s), or maybe just torch your house in revenge after he runs away and elude the police. But that's somewhat far-fetched if it's just a random home invasion.

[SteveM]

48. Unarmed and running away, I agree with you. (nt)

[Turbo Teg]

99. The only warning a person should get is the knowlege that b&e can kill you.

Warnings are stupid and dangerous.

[slackmaster]

7. The first shot (in the kitchen) would have been perfectly OK under California's castle doctrine

The second one, outside the home, could result in prosecution in California but convicting the shooter for any crime would by no means be assured.

We had a similar case in San Diego a few years ago. Someone was holding a house party. A man who was unknown to the homeowner crashed the party violently and proceeded to attack people. Homeowner shot him. Wounded crasher ran outside, homeowner pursued and shot the man a second time. I believe the crasher survived and the homeowner was initially charged with assault but charges were dropped after the DA reviewed the evidence.

It would really depend on details, i.e. precisely what the intruder was doing immediately prior to the second shot being fired. Was he trying to get away? Was he armed and assuming an attack stance? But that's California. In Texas, as I understand it, there would be little chance of any charges being filed against the homeowner.

[iverglas]

9. remember this one?

It was here somewhere but I can't find it, so I had to go find it on the big wide net.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302217,00.html

MOBILE, Ala. — An 81-year-old woman shot a homeless man after finding him washing his clothes in her laundry room ... .

Ethel Sanders told police she heard noises in her laundry room Monday morning, so she grabbed her handgun and found James Penn, 25, standing in his underwear near the washing machine, Mobile Police Officer Eric Gallichant said.

Sanders, who normally uses a walker, shot Penn when he came at her, Gallichant said. She was knocked to the ground by the force of the shot and Penn grabbed the gun from her, the officer said.

Penn pointed the gun at Sanders, took his clothes from the washing machine and fled, Gallichant said.

That's the story as it got told here, along with the report of finding the nearly naked guy in some public place with a gunshot wound to his leg. And there was much cheering and applauding for little old ladies with handguns who ain't afraid to use 'em.

I try to keep up on the news, and in particular to follow up on tales like these. So I did post the update, but nobody seemed to see it.

Penn said Sanders is his sister's godmother and she helped raise him.

She apologized. Fortunately he was still alive to forgive her.

[gorfle]

12. Dumb.

Never tamper with evidence at a crime scene. I'd certainly never drag the damn body around for any reason.

I'm all for shooting home intruders. If they flee the scene, you gotta let them go.

Next time up your caliber. :)

[Tejas]

14. maybe

and yes it's a stretch, I'd like to think the homeowner might've had the thought of trying to save the badguy's life. Perhaps drug him into the light to try and help, but who knows, the story will come out.

[facepalm]

38. if it is evidence tampering it's pointless tampering

It doesn't matter where the guy eventually expired. Texas has long had use of force laws that go far beyond what is today referred to as "castle doctrine." While Florida law now (since October 2005) creates a presumption of violent intent when someone breaks into an occupied residence (a reasonable presumption here in Florida, I might add), Texas has long allowed homeowners to pursue and kill burglars to recover property.

It may sound barbaric to someone from NYC or Boston, but the people who live in Texas make the self defense laws there and this is how they prefer it. This is the other side of embracing diversity people- learning to live with lifestyles that you disagree with. This is a cultural issue, not a political one. And no, the Texas self defense rules are not a threat to public safety unless you happen to be a burglar.

[Indy Lurker]

39. I have never been in such a situation

But I would think you would try to detain the criminal by pointing a gun at them and yelling freeze.

The article doesn't go into such detail as to if such an exchange occurred.

I can't really imagine shooting at someone running into my backyard if they chose to run and not freeze.

Without knowing the layout of the house and yard (if it's wooded, fenced, etc), It's hard to say if going outside was a good idea or not.

I have friends with two sliding doors to their back yard, one in the kitchen, and one in the bedroom. In such a situation, I'd be more inclined to venture outside (again to detain) rather than risk the criminal seeking around behind me from the bedroom.

If there was only one way to the yard, I think I'd park myself in a chair with a gun pointed toward the back door, and wait for the police.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that for such a complex set of events and possibilities it's difficult judge what happened without all the details.

[facepalm]

40. Some people use have-a-heart, some people use a shovel

Not everyone believes in catch and release, especially once the criminal knows where you live.

[Firethorn]

46. I like how you think...

Some people use have-a-heart, some people use a shovel

Says you. I use a backhoe. ;)

Not everyone believes in catch and release, especially once the criminal knows where you live.

Very true. MOST criminals won't return to a house where they were threatened with a gun. But not all will, and some will bring friends on their return.

Personally, I tend to think that a criminal getting perforated during the commission of a criminal act to be one of the truest forms of justice out there.

[sandnsea]

52. Oh what cute and cuddly sloganeering!! n/t

[slackmaster]

42. Someone who ran into MY back yard would have a major problem

The perp would be trapped. The yard is fenced on all sides and there is no gate, except to my neigbor's yard where two surly dogs live.

:D

[Tejas]

65. tactical broomhandle with beams!

Paint it up with bedliner, throw a Surefire on it, they'd be clawing a hole in the fence to get away!

LOL!

[slackmaster]

67. My calico cat already killed a rabbit this week

She's working her way up to home invaders.

[Tejas]

68. uh oh, boltactionsnipershotgun alert!

There by the dividing wall, right up front within reach, even has the choke that I heard Blackwater uses!!!1!

(where's the AK's?)

[slackmaster]

71. Sadly, I was unable to afford a full-featured AK before they were banned here

I believe I could still build a "featureless" one with a fixed magazine and sporter-style stock.

BTW Tejas - Good eye spotting the bolt-action shotgun. One of the extractors is broken at the moment so it's not functional. I bought it from a biker who was liquidating his gun collection to help pay for his wife's medical bills. Very sad story, actually.

Also, since I shoot left-handed it is completely impractical for me to use.

[Tejas]

89. The rest of us hold out hope that

the efforts of the membership of Calguns will turn the tide someday. We may pick on you left-coasters but down deep we're all in it together.

I mean, for the love of.........it's a frigging pistol grip for crying out loud.





I know, I know, preaching to the choir..........

[Turbo Teg]

98. Hell yeah, good shooting!

Another worthless punk off the steet. HA, he drug him back into the house, that's classic! More states should be like Texas.

[radioburning]

104. Good. Fuck Criminals.

Here's where the anti's go "Oh, the loss of a precious life...blah blah blah". People die, and when criminals die in the act of doing a crime I feel no sympathy for them. Ok , anti's you can start your childish name calling now...