Kingsland man shoots burglars of neighbor's house

[mr.72]

How about if they are driving away in the getaway car? IANAL but I think this is probably still legally justified, but in the court of public opinion it would get the shooter skewered, especially if the BGs are minorities and the shooter is not. This is not likely to play out in the court of public opinion however since it's in Kingsland and not a large TX city.

[The Annoyed Man]

It may not be the popular opinion, but I think this shooting stinks. I agree that there exist people who "need killin," but I don't want to be the executioner unless there is no other recourse and I or someone else are being directly threatened with violence. I am not a paladin, and nobody has appointed me to the role of society's "punisher." In an exchange of PMs with another member who rightly cautioned me about being too zealous regarding property if it places my own life in danger with an unknown or unquantifiable amount of risk, I concluded that one must be careful to be aware of that point where one's blind pride intersects with one's desire to do the right thing.

I believe that God has no problem with me defending my home and its contents with lethal force from an intruder if I am inside. I also believe that God has no problem with me defending my person or the person of another outside of my home with lethal force from someone who intends to carry out violence. I don't think that, in God's economy, He smiles on my shooting a man in the back who is absconding with my neighbor's television. Back shooting is morally problematic for me.

I don't think the thief should get away with it, but I don't think he should die for it. I believe that real justice allows for measured responses according to the crime, and to the circumstances surrounding the crime. If the shooter had the time to get his gun and then exit his house to confront the thieves, then he also had the time to write down their license plate number and descriptions - from a safe distance - and report the information to the police. Odds are, they would have been apprehended fairly quickly and property recovered. There is no mention of whether or not the thieves were armed, and while they certainly didn't seem worried about being confronted by an armed neighbor, there is no indication in the article of whether or not they actually threatened the shooter, or just ignored his commands to stand down. At what point did his blind pride intersect with his desire to do the right thing? I've very leery of this one.

[WildBill]

It may not be the popular opinion, but I think this shooting stinks. At what point did his blind pride intersect with his desire to do the right thing? I've very leery of this one.

This is exactly the type of shooting that can convince reasonable people that concealed carry laws should be repealed.

[mr.72]

This type of shooting has nothing to do with concealed carry laws.

The guy retrieved his gun from inside his home and proceeded out the door with it on his own property, and we do not know yet whether he was on his property when he shot the bad guys but the point is this was not a CHL issue. It doesn't even matter if the shooter had a CHL, it was not important.

Half or more of all households in the USA own a gun and therefore you have a 50/50 chance as a bad guy that the house you are hitting could be occupied by a gun owner, and a near 100% chance that a nearby neighbor has a gun.

The CHL gives us the opportunity to carry a gun outside out home or car, but these shootings like this one and Joe Horn are completely beside that point. This gun was deployed within range of the shooter's home, where it is always legal to carry a gun.

[WildBill]

This type of shooting has nothing to do with concealed carry laws. It doesn't even matter if the shooter had a CHL, it was not important. The CHL gives us the opportunity to carry a gun outside out home or car, but these shootings like this one and Joe Horn are completely beside that point. This gun was deployed within range of the shooter's home, where it is always legal to carry a gun.

You are, in fact, correct. However, in the public's eye, self defense with firearms, the Castle Doctrine, and CHL are all intertwined. If you don't agree, I would refer you to the numerous Joe Horn threads in this "Texas CHL Forum."

[KJV]

I stand corrected. But I am having some trouble with this shooting in the back thing. Cowards shoot people in the back.

You mean like special forces snipers or more like fighter pilots who try to engage the enemy's six?

Certainly human life has some value left in Texas.

Yes. Most people are good and their life has positive value but some people are evil and their life has negative value because they hurt innocent people for their own personal gain.

But a third party has no vested interest in the property, and suffers no personal loss if the property is stolen. That is hardly a mandate for shooting people in the back.

That's true. There's no legal mandate to be a Good Samaritan and help and protect your neighbors. But morally if you let a criminal escape and he rapes a girl next week, you're a little bit responsible because you could have stopped it.

[casingpoint]

if you let a criminal escape and he rapes a girl next week, you're a little bit responsible because you could have stopped it.

If that were so, I should go out and shoot anybody I think might rape a girl next week. And how about guys who might rape guys, I'll shoot them too. They had one of those awhile back in Baytown. Why, I'll just make a run through Houston and kill everybody without clean hands. Man, Frontier Justice is back!

Tonto: Best we leave now, Kemo Sabe.
Lone Ranger: Nah. According to this internet message board, we got a heap 'o work to do, Tonto.
Tonto: What you mean, Kemo Sabe?
Lone Ranger: Well, it says here to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Hey, who's that on the cell phone?
Tonto: Lisa Falkenberg of the Houston Chronicle.
Lone Ranger: Let's ride, Tonto. And turn that phone off. They could be GPS tracking us.

[boomerang]

But a third party has no vested interest in the property, and suffers no personal loss if the property is stolen. That is hardly a mandate for shooting people in the back.

That's true. There's no legal mandate to be a Good Samaritan and help and protect your neighbors. But morally if you let a criminal escape and he rapes a girl next week, you're a little bit responsible because you could have stopped it.

I think your judgment is too harsh. What if the girl is a stranger? As a third party he can say he has no vested interest in her life, and suffers no personal loss if she is hurt or killed. He can say he has no mandate so why should he get involved?

Right?

[lunchbox]

But a third party has no vested interest in the property, and suffers no personal loss if the property is stolen. That is hardly a mandate for shooting people in the back.

That's true. There's no legal mandate to be a Good Samaritan and help and protect your neighbors. But morally if you let a criminal escape and he rapes a girl next week, you're a little bit responsible because you could have stopped it.

I think your judgment is too harsh. What if the girl is a stranger? As a third party he can say he has no vested interest in her life, and suffers no personal loss if she is hurt or killed. He can say he has no mandate so why should he get involved?

Right?

all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

[bdickens]

Shooting in the back is for cowards? We're not living in a Roy Rogers movie where everybody follows the "code of the west" which never really existed and the bad guys all wear black hats. Can you see his hands? What is the guy doing with them? What is he reaching for? Is he just trying to hold up his baggy pants or is he grabbing that stolen gun he carries so he can whip around and pop a cap in your ....?

Remember, you're betting your life that he is fleeing the scene and not running for cover.

[WildBill]

Remember, you're betting your life that he is fleeing the scene and not running for cover.

If he is driving away in the getaway car, I think he is fleeing the scene. As long as the car isn't pointed at you!

[WildBill]

Tonto: Best we leave now, Kemo Sabe.
Lone Ranger: Nah. According to this internet message board, we got a heap 'o work to do, Tonto.
Tonto: What you mean, Kemo Sabe?
Lone Ranger: Well, it says here to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Hey, who's that on the cell phone?
Tonto: Lisa Falkenberg of the Houston Chronicle.
Lone Ranger: Let's ride, Tonto. And turn that phone off. They could be GPS tracking us.

I know that this is a serious subject, but this cracks me up.

[SCone]

Strange car driving up and down the street - call the police and report the activity, get a license plate, description of the occupants, maybe a photo or two.

[mr.72]

Strange car driving up and down the street - call the police and report the activity, get a license plate, description of the occupants, maybe a photo or two.

Maybe in Kingsland this would do some good.

In Austin you would just be wasting the police's time. They are not going to investigate something like this. Suspicious car? Give me a break!

[mr.72]

BTW a few more details are coming out.

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=8777227

Also there is a four page discussion on it over on THR. I see some of our TX CHL Forum guys are contributing over there.