Dallas Morning News 11/11/05

[jimlongley]

A positive article.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 92bdf.html

Jacquielynn Floyd:
Under the gun, she was in control

08:07 PM CST on Thursday, November 10, 2005

A lot of armed people are running around who are too stupid, too dangerous or too hotheaded to own a firearm.

If you favor more stringent gun laws, they're the people who come to mind: drug-addled stickup artists, dimwits who keep loaded weapons with kids in the house, bad-tempered drunks and psycho stalkers and cop-killers with nothing to lose.

But there are less-celebrated people who could make a pretty good case in favor of responsible gun ownership. Susan Gaylord Buxton, the Arlington woman who shot and wounded a housebreaker early Wednesday, might give even the most ardent gun-control activist a moment's pause.

Talk-show hosts and radio jocks have had a lot of fun with the story of the 66-year-old grandma who was packin' a .38 pistol when she found a bald-headed, muscle-bound burglar crouching in her front-hall coat closet.

She warned him to get down and lie still – you can hear it on the 911 tape – but when he ignored her and tried to grab the gun, she shot him in the thigh.

Ms. Buxton, in her ladylike and good-natured way, has played along, dutifully recounting the scary moments when she confronted the intruder, a car theft suspect who was trying to run from the cops.

There's high entertainment value in the taped conversation between her 28-year-old granddaughter and police dispatchers, as Ms. Buxton screams angrily (and uncharacteristically, since she rarely curses) in the background, "How dare you come in my house, you lousy son of a bitch!"

She was so awash in adrenaline, in fact, that the police had already caught the guy and were taking her statement when she realized she was still wearing the same outfit in which she had awakened: a T-shirt that said, "WORK FOR GOD – THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE GREAT." And underpants.

"I said, 'Excuse me, I need to get some pants,' " she recalled primly.

It's an entertaining novelty story, the kind of thing that will blow over in a day or so. If you heard about it, you probably thought, Score one for Granny! and went about your business.

But you might also have wondered what could have happened had the two women, alone in their house at 1 a.m., not heard a slight noise that alerted them something was wrong.

You might have wondered what the intruder, who outweighed the two women put together, would have done had Ms. Buxton not been armed. A person crazy or desperate enough to grab for a loaded gun might be crazy or desperate enough to do serious harm to somebody without one.

"I've had this gun for 12 years, and this is the first time I've ever had to use it," said Ms. Buxton, a commercial artist who lives on a quiet cul-de-sac in north Arlington, surrounded by her pets and a huge, shady yard out back that slopes down to the creek.

In her own quiet way, Susan Buxton is a capable and self-reliant woman. She loves her low-key life, her family, her pets and her house. Anyone who has suffered the sudden, ice-water shock of a break-in or a confrontation with a criminal knows the dreadful feelings of panic and rage that follow: How dare you come in my house?

Ms. Buxton says it was the mandatory conceal-and-carry firearm training that helped her keep the panic at bay. She was mad, but she was in control.

"My sister" – a naval reserve training officer – "taught me how to shoot," she said.

Ms. Buxton sees owning a gun – one that she knows how to use, maintain and handle – as part of her obligation to be self-sufficient.

"I'm tired of it seeming that the word 'woman' equals 'victim,' " she said. She believes women, especially those who live alone, should own a firearm and know how to use it.

"You just don't have to let anybody take advantage of you," she said. "If you can't protect your own home, where you can relax and be who you are, then life's not worth living."

I don't know whether I'm ready to endorse Susan Buxton's firm belief that women should arm themselves, that they should be prepared to defend themselves, their families and their homes with deadly force. It's a personal decision that cannot be made lightly.

But she makes a compelling argument. Her experience is hard to contradict.

E-mail jfloyd@dallasnews.com

I have emailed Ms. Floyd asking her to please give me the numbers of the types of response she gets, ie positive/negative.

[Paladin]

good article!

[Jim101]

We are all proud of her and what she did, and as I understand it the NRA called her and wants to do a story on her.
Now for an interesting question: as I understand it, she shot through the door as he was leaving and caught him in the leg. Since he was in "retreat" mode, can she get in trouble?? Just wondering... I may need to know someday....

Jim

[KinnyLee]

We are all proud of her and what she did, and as I understand it the NRA called her and wants to do a story on her.
Now for an interesting question: as I understand it, she shot through the door as he was leaving and caught him in the leg. Since he was in "retreat" mode, can she get in trouble?? Just wondering... I may need to know someday....

Jim

As far as I understand, once the threat has his/her back turned on you, you're not suppose to shoot. But no one really knows the exact story beside the woman and the intruder.

[txinvestigator]

We are all proud of her and what she did, and as I understand it the NRA called her and wants to do a story on her.
Now for an interesting question: as I understand it, she shot through the door as he was leaving and caught him in the leg. Since he was in "retreat" mode, can she get in trouble?? Just wondering... I may need to know someday....

Jim

Chapter 9, Texas Penal Code



§9.31. Self-defense.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree he
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect
himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.


Text
§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not
have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

A person fleeing is not in the imminent commission of one of those crimes, nor is he using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force.



§9.41. Protection of one's own property.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible,
movable property is justified in using force against another when and
to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or
unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property
if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the
dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of
right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor.

§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

(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

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(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.

Unless he was fleeing with property she can't claim defense of property.

Now don't get me wrong, I am in support of this woman, but if she keeps talking its going to cause her problems.......

[BenGoodLuck]

She warned him to get down and lie still – you can hear it on the 911 tape – but when he ignored her and tried to grab the gun, she shot him in the thigh.

Sounds like he was still a threat.

[uncle dan]

I say, "Job well done!"

[Warhorse545]

Real good article. I loved this part

" Ms. Buxton sees owning a gun – one that she knows how to use, maintain and handle – as part of her obligation to be self-sufficient. "

If more people took that stance I think the world would be a better place.


Stacey

[Renegade]

Now don't get me wrong, I am in support of this woman, but if she keeps talking its going to cause her problems.......

Yep. She is talking to much. She might not get charged, but a civil suit is sure to follow. Shooting him in the leg did not help much either, a COP would have unloaded a mag into him and killed him and kept his mouth shut. She needs to get her story straight, and in line with the above penal code.

[stevie_d_64]

I heard Hannity had her on again on his radio program...Yesterday, Friday afternoon...

I was almost tempted to call the program up and tell them to cool it, regardless of the notoriety of the encounter...

And after everyone I have seen posting similar cautions, is thinking she needs to fade real fast into obscurity...

I'm thinking some legal beagle is going to get with the guy who got shot and reverse her fortunes...

We'll have to see...

[Kyle Brown]

Let's see if I have this straight...

1. Article says "she found a bald-headed, muscle-bound burglar crouching in her front-hall coat closet. She warned him to get down and lie still – you can hear it on the 911 tape – but when he ignored her and tried to grab the gun, she shot him in the thigh. "

2. Jim 101 says, "as I understand it, she shot through the door as he was leaving and caught him in the leg. Since he was in "retreat" mode, can she get in trouble??"

3. Texasinvestigator quotes us some law and determines, "A person fleeing is not in the imminent commission of one of those crimes, nor is he using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force. " However, no mention was made of the original article which clearly states he tried to grab her gun.

4. Texasinvestigator decides that the use of deadly force in this case would be justified only if the intruder was fleeing with her property thereby totally ignoring her right to use deadly force to prevent the "imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime." NOTE THIS TOOK PLACE AT 1A.M. and he attempted to grab her gun.

5. Renegade decides she needs to get her story straight (has she told more than one story) and that a civil suit is SURE to follow despite the fact that there is no evidence that civil suits are SURE to follow in simular situations in Texas.

Gosh guys...it seems the tone of this thread has gone from good to bad just because Jim101 stated he UNDERSTOOD the guy was fleeing. Am I missing something here??? I know a lot of attorneys, but I cannot think of one that would touch this unless the bg has a lot of money for a retainer.

[Renegade]

5. Renegade decides she needs to get her story straight (has she told more than one story) and that a civil suit is SURE to follow despite the fact that there is no evidence that civil suits are SURE to follow in simular situations in Texas.

Gosh guys...it seems the tone of this thread has gone from good to bad just because Jim101 stated he UNDERSTOOD the guy was fleeing. Am I missing something here??? I know a lot of attorneys, but I cannot think of one that would touch this unless the bg has a lot of money for a retainer.

Yes, you are missing the half-dozen or more TV interviews the woman has given on DFW local TV in which her story is different each time.

As for civil suits, what is your evidence that they do not follow? Just about every shooting I know of has litigation attached to it.

[txinvestigator]

Now don't get me wrong, I am in support of this woman, but if she keeps talking its going to cause her problems.......

Yep. She is talking to much. She might not get charged, but a civil suit is sure to follow. Shooting him in the leg did not help much either, a COP would have unloaded a mag into him and killed him and kept his mouth shut. She needs to get her story straight, and in line with the above penal code.

No, a cop would not have "unloaded a mag into him" I know, I was one.

If you use Deadly Force you should just plan on getting sued. That would be the least of my worries. My concern is being indicted and convicted.

[txinvestigator]

Let's see if I have this straight...

1. Article says "she found a bald-headed, muscle-bound burglar crouching in her front-hall coat closet. She warned him to get down and lie still – you can hear it on the 911 tape – but when he ignored her and tried to grab the gun, she shot him in the thigh. "

2. Jim 101 says, "as I understand it, she shot through the door as he was leaving and caught him in the leg. Since he was in "retreat" mode, can she get in trouble??"

3. Texasinvestigator quotes us some law and determines, "A person fleeing is not in the imminent commission of one of those crimes, nor is he using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force. " However, no mention was made of the original article which clearly states he tried to grab her gun.

4. Texasinvestigator decides that the use of deadly force in this case would be justified only if the intruder was fleeing with her property thereby totally ignoring her right to use deadly force to prevent the "imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime." NOTE THIS TOOK PLACE AT 1A.M. and he attempted to grab her gun.

5. Renegade decides she needs to get her story straight (has she told more than one story) and that a civil suit is SURE to follow despite the fact that there is no evidence that civil suits are SURE to follow in simular situations in Texas.

Gosh guys...it seems the tone of this thread has gone from good to bad just because Jim101 stated he UNDERSTOOD the guy was fleeing. Am I missing something here??? I know a lot of attorneys, but I cannot think of one that would touch this unless the bg has a lot of money for a retainer.

Well, well. If you will actually READ my post, you will see that I referenced not "some law" but THE law regarding using deadly force in Texas.

I also quote THE law regarding protection of persons and protection of property. Your attempt at a point #4 is evidence you didn't read what I wrote. I said she could not claim protection of PROPERTY if he was not in the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, OR attempting to escape WITH property after committing one of those. We know that was not the case.

Your attempt at point #3 misses also. My statement is correct. I did not address whether or not he tried to grab her gun, but I will now. I can't imagine how a person on the opposite side of a door could be attempting to grap your gun, can you?

If she shot him as he was attempting to grab her gun she has no worries. However, if she shot him as he was fleeing, regardless of what he tried to do first, she could face prosecution.

My point is she should shut up and consult with an attorney.

You attempt at point 5 shows you have no understanding of DF lawsuits in Texas.

[Renegade]

No, a cop would not have "unloaded a mag into him" I know, I was one.

You must have carried a revolver, like I did. The hundreds of cop shootings I read about each year in which the cops of today shoot to slide-lock would suggest otherwise.