TexasCHLforum.com

Lubbock man who fatally shot intruder probably won't be charged

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=5392010

(6/13/07 - LUBBOCK, TX) - Lubbock County's district attorney saye he probably won't pursue charges against a homeowner who fatally shot a man in his home in the middle of the night.

District Attorney Matt Powell said Monday that the law allows a person to use deadly force if they fear injury or death.

"Finding a stranger in your home at that time in the morning, that's about as scary as it gets," he said.

The shooting comes less than three months after Gov. Rick Perry signed into law a bill some refer to as the "castle doctrine" that gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves in their homes, cars and workplaces.

The bill, which goes into effect Sept. 1 and was backed by the National Rifle Association, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force and provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses it.

Police and prosecutors can still press charges if they feel deadly force was illegally used, legislative sponsors have said.

Friends of the slain intruder, Ross Baker of Weatherford, said he apparently was lost or disoriented when he entered an unlocked door of the wrong house Saturday morning and set off an alarm. Baker had recently moved into a home four blocks from the residence.

Baker was shot by Charles Mire, who ordered Baker to surrender several times and fired a warning shot before fatally wounding Baker in the stomach with a 9mm pistol, according to police. The 23-year-old engineering major at Texas Tech died a short time later at a Lubbock hospital.

Toxicology tests are pending, and Powell's office will decide whether a case against Mire is warranted after investigators submit the case, including the test results.


Anygun

"if a case is warranted."

losers. not the home-owner's fault the drunk didn't want to comply. You'da figgered the alarm woulda been, what they call in law enforcement, a clue...

If the facts are anything at all like what's presented in the story, it's a good shoot, IMHO.

HankB wrote:If the facts are anything at all like what's presented in the story, it's a good shoot, IMHO.

Of course, the Lubbock paper is already mixing up the terms "victim" and "offender" while they sing praises to someone who broke into another's home at 3 AM.

Friends mourn death of shooting victim
BY robin pyle
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL

Megan Sturdivant broke down in tears when she learned her friend was shot and killed Saturday morning by a Tech Terrace homeowner.

Her friend was 23-year-old Ross Baker, a Texas Tech engineering major.

Baker was shot at about 3:45 a.m. inside a home in the 3000 block of 24th Street. The homeowner, 43-year-old Charles Mire, told authorities he feared for his and his family's safety when Baker entered the home and set off the alarm, according to Lubbock police reports.

Mire said he warned Baker several times to surrender and then fired a warning shot into the ceiling above his head, according to reports.

Baker was taken to University Medical Center, where he later died of internal injuries.

"I was in complete shock," Sturdivant said. "I understand where the other person was coming from, being scared, but at the same time I can't believe he shot my friend and killed him."

She said she doesn't believe that Baker was doing anything criminal on Saturday morning, adding that Baker's family and friends believe that he must have thought he was at his own house, a residence in which he had just moved and located four blocks from the Mire residence in Tech Terrace.

The Mires said they wished not to comment on the shooting, but Amy Mire, Charles' wife, did say "It's a terrible tragedy for everyone involved."

Baker's family declined to comment on Sunday.

"It's just a horrible situation," Sturdivant said. "I still can't believe it."

Baker, who grew up in Weatherford, doesn't have a criminal history in Lubbock, according to police records.

"He was a really great guy, a real gentleman," Sturdivant said.

She recalls her friend as a funny person who also had a serious side. She said she loved spending time with him because he was fun to be around.

Baker especially loved hunting, fishing and skiing, she said.

How many homeowners would have even fired a warning shot?

Baker was shot at about 3:45 a.m. inside a home in the 3000 block of 24th Street. The homeowner, 43-year-old Charles Mire, told authorities he feared for his and his family's safety when Baker entered the home and set off the alarm, according to Lubbock police reports.

Yep...Lets make sure to narrow down the location of the victim...uhhhh, shooter...uhhhh...Well, ya know what I mean...

txinvestigator, in Man killed after bumping Metro bus passenger wrote:Where do some of ya'll get that "fear of your life" stuff?

Where do people get the "fear of your life" stuff? Straight from the DA of course.

District Attorney Matt Powell wrote:District Attorney Matt Powell said Monday that "the law allows a person to use deadly force if they fear injury or death."

stevie_d_64 wrote:Yep...Lets make sure to narrow down the location of the victim...uhhhh, shooter...uhhhh...Well, ya know what I mean...

that way they know where to picket, right?

FlatLand:

Flatland2D wrote:

txinvestigator, in Man killed after bumping Metro bus passenger wrote:Where do some of ya'll get that "fear of your life" stuff?

Where do people get the "fear of your life" stuff? Straight from the DA of course.

District Attorney Matt Powell wrote:District Attorney Matt Powell said Monday that "the law allows a person to use deadly force if they fear injury or death."

Don't want to worry about that silly wording of the actual law now, do we?

"I understand where the other person was coming from, being scared, but at the same time I can't believe he shot my friend and killed him."

Of course, it's always sad when a confrontation comes down to taking a human life, but what else would you have the true victim (the shooter just so we're clear) do? Pending verification of his story, giving multiple verbal warnings along with a warning shot is far more courtesy than many people would extend someone in the same situation.

The fact is, your choices do have real consequences. Are those consequences often tragic, sad, heartbreaking? Yes - of course they are. But they're still the result of your choices, not the fault of the true victim.

This is a touchy topic for me. I actually thought about posting this when it first happened, but didn't.

I personally knew Ross, but I also agree with what the homeowner did. He didn't know Ross' intentions and therefore he acted within his rights.

I know Ross wasn't going to do anything....he was just wasted and ended up going to the wrong house. How, no clue, but again....wasted.

I am glad no charges will be pressed and hopefully his family will agree with what happened.

I will leave my reply short.

I don't know what I'd do in this situation. I would most likely put holes in anyone in my home that I didn't know. If you're in my house though...you didn't just walk in, you had to break in.

In this case, the home-owner told him to surrender a few times. If I saw an obviously drunk or high college kid though, I would hesitate. Especially if I was leaving my front door unlocked. Who leaves their front door unlocked these days? Just asking for trouble IMO.

Flatland2D wrote:

txinvestigator, in Man killed after bumping Metro bus passenger wrote:Where do some of ya'll get that "fear of your life" stuff?

Where do people get the "fear of your life" stuff? Straight from the DA of course.

District Attorney Matt Powell wrote:District Attorney Matt Powell said Monday that "the law allows a person to use deadly force if they fear injury or death."

I was going to comment how the DA seems to not even understand the law. DF of you fear "injury"? What an idiotic statement.

The word "fear" is no where in the use of force laws.

But your point is valid.

PS I just covered chapter 9 in a guard class today. I use scenarios, questions and posting from here as part of the training. (all in a good way)

txinvestigator wrote:
The word "fear" is no where in the use of force laws.

But your point is valid.

PS I just covered chapter 9 in a guard class today. I use scenarios, questions and posting from here as part of the training. (all in a good way)

Though I can't begin to cite actual cases, I think there is a fair amount of case law dealing with the concept of being "in reasonable fear for your life" as applied to the justified use of deadly force.

Ayoob talks about this a lot in a few of his books.

One thing I am sure of is that if I was ever in a situation where I was under a threat of deadly force, I sure would be in fear for my life. So, legal justification or not, it would certainly be true, for me at any rate. So if someone then asked me if I was in fear for my life at the time that the incident took place, I would have to truthfully answer, "Yes.".

And I suspect that if my fear was judged to be "reasonable", perhaps because the BG actually did have "means, motive, and opportunity" and a convincing willingness to act, the GJ or trial jury will then judge my subsequent actions to have been reasonable as well. And fully within the law.

Just my opinion.

govnor wrote: In this case, the home-owner told him to surrender a few times. If I saw an obviously drunk or high college kid though, I would hesitate. Especially if I was leaving my front door unlocked. Who leaves their front door unlocked these days? Just asking for trouble IMO.

If I saw an obviously drunk or high person in their late teens to mid twenties wandering through my apartment at 3:45am, and they failed to respond to my demands for surrender, I would be absolutely terrified. Someone young, strong, and so messed up that he doesn't seem to care that I have a firearm? That's easily on my list of top 3 types of home intruders I am most afraid of.

I hope I am never in this situation ... I cannot imagine how terrible it must be for the homeowner. But I think that his response, in light of the facts he knew at the time, was completely reasonable.

I can't determine from this story whether or not the door was unlocked. Even if it was, I don't think that impacts the reasonableness of the homeowner's response to the situation. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and locks are one of those "automatic" things that it's easy to mess up on on days like when you're carryng fifty pounds of groceries in from the car, your toddler is letting you know that he has to go to the bathroom right now, and the phone is ringing.

Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and locks are one of those "automatic" things that it's easy to mess up on on days like when you're carryng fifty pounds of groceries in from the car, your toddler is letting you know that he has to go to the bathroom right now, and the phone is ringing.

Boy, not me! My doors are always locked. I've forgotten to lock the truck a few times, but never the house door. Probably a result of living in the 'hood for so long. This guy probably lives in a decent area...plus, it's in Lubbock. My uncle that lives in Vernon hasn't locked his door for as long as he's lived there. He does have a big German Shepherd though...

I agree that if I went into my living room and saw someone that wouldn't respond to me...it would be a pretty hairy situation. I also think the guy was justified in his actions. Still, if it was a drunk college kid, I might walk up and kick him or hit him with the butt of my shotgun instead of shooting him. That would get his attention. Probably not the smartest thing to do, but of course it depends on the situation. I might have shot him in the same situation. I guess it's one of those things you'd only know if you were there...