TexasCHLforum.com

HighVelocity wrote:There's a big piece of the story missing.

Yep, there sure is. As I read the article, the homeowner shot the burglars when he arrived, then shot at their vehicle as they drove away. It's vague, but I take it to mean the homeowner shot and hit the guys before they left in their vehicle.

The article has prompted several posts in this thread dealing with the use of deadly force to protect property, including my post. I take these to be generic discussions, rather than being related specifically to this incident. From the meager information we have at this point, it's impossible to tell why the homeowner shot these guys. He may have been in fear for his life, may not. Not having a gun doesn't necessarily mean the burglars were "unarmed." Knives, pry-bars, screwdrivers, hammers, clubs are all weapons, but many folks think of being armed as meaning they have a gun.

Other factors also have to be considered. The homeowner was out numbered; was the homeowner an old person unable to defend himself without using the gun; did the burglars make any deadly threats against him; did they try to rob him before they realized he had a gun. There is far more about this incident we don't know than we do know.

Regards,
Chas.

dolanp wrote: I'd be interested to see was Charles thinks on that, [. . .]

You and txinvestigator are correct; there is no "justification" in Chp. 9 for non-LEO's to use deadly force against someone merely because they are a fleeing felon. As you pointed out in your post quoting Chp. 9.42(2)(B), deadly force is justified against some "fleeing" actors, but it is very limited and focuses on preventing the completion of certain property crimes, not on preventing the escape of the actor after a completed crime. In short, when specific statutory conditions are met, you can shoot a fleeing burglar to prevent the completion of a property crime, but you can't shoot a fleeing murderer.

Please note, I'm not remotely suggesting that I would shoot someone solely to protect property, nor would I offer that advice to anyone else. I am also not suggesting that I would allow the murder of my wife or one of my sons to merely walk away; I'm sure I would be in fear for my life as well. Surely, a murder wouldn't allow witnesses to live.

Also, there often is no bright line as to whether an event is “merely� a property crime, or the combination of a property crime and a threat of death or serious bodily injury. Car-jacking comes to mind. I wouldn’t shoot anyone to solely protect my Corvette (and I wanted it for 30 years). However, many, perhaps most, car-jacking also involve the suspect killing the driver, so if I'm ever faced with that threat, I may well shoot at the first opportunity, to protect myself, not the car.

I think it’s important to recognize that we are engaging in somewhat of an academic exercise. Regardless of the provisions of the Penal Code, in the real world you may or may not have a problem if you shoot a fleeing burglar in the back. Likewise, a prosecutor may be loath to prosecute you for shooting a fleeing murderer. The law taught in class in law school often is not applied as written in the real world. The bottom line for me is simple: “If I have to shoot, then I'll shoot; but I pray (sincerely, not merely a figure of speech) the need never arises.�

Regards,
Chas.