TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:If, for example, you catch someone inside your house, yell "Stop or I'll shot" and they immediately put up their hands, should you have the right to shoot them? I don't think that's what the castle doctrine means. I think it means that if that person represents a threat, you have the right to shoot. That's clearly been the case here in Texas, where a man was shot through the door, and the homeowner wasn't charged, and a man halfway into the house through a window is shot and the homeowner wasn't charged. Then there's the guy who pursued two burglars breaking in to his neighbor's house and shot them, and was no-billed.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but what I've put in red gives me pause. In the first place, saying stop or I'll shoot may not be a particularly smart move in the middle of the night when you have no idea if the guy you're confronting is in your house with accomplices. If he has an accomplice or two you've just put yourself in a bind. You'd better hope he's alone at that point or that he runs out the door because if he does stop you've got to deal with him not knowing who else you may have to deal with. I'm not saying you should shoot at this point, but that you'd shouldn't have warned him and his potential accomplices to start with, unless you were absolutely sure he was alone.

I'm also not saying you should necessarily shoot without a warning. You should identify the target before shooting anyone. It might be an unarmed neighbor kid for instance. It might be a friend or family member being stupid, or just being where you didn't expect them. But if a person is inside your home that doesn't belong there their mere presence represents a threat. You don't know if he's got a gun tucked in his belt, he's picked up a knife from your kitchen counter, or he's got a buddy or two around the corner.

So when in your mind does an intruder constitute a threat? If one guy busts through your door while you're watching television is he a threat if he doesn't appear to be armed? Do you shoot him or wait until his buddies come crashing through behind him? If he's advancing towards you, all 6'4" muscled up 250 lbs, telling you sorry, I thought this was my girlfriend's place? To me, anyone inside my home that isn't supposed to be there is an immediate threat. There has been a thread discussing the Tueller drill....would you wait until he rushes you and try to get a shot off then? Have you seen the video of the guy with his hands up, cops in front and behind him, who still tries to shoot the cop in front of him? Would you assume him putting his hands up is not a ploy? His hands are up and he's walking towards you...what then?

I agree that there are circumstances where you shouldn't shoot someone when it would perhaps be legal under the Castle Doctrine, but I also don't think an intruder inside your house putting his hands up necessarily means that there is no threat.

jimlongley wrote:So what was the kid doing in his garage, a foreigner sightseeing?

Due to the fact that I was forced by my yankee carpetbagger parents to grow up in NY State, I was well acquainted with their laws. NY had a no traps law when I was a kid, but a similar case, in the 60s, where a homeowner whose barn had been raided by neighborhood kids several times, was ruled justified when he shot one after waiting up all night, in the barn, for several nights. Now the barn was not locked, and the doors were not left open, but he did sit up in there, and when the kids walked in, he warned them and all but the one he shot ran. The one he shot advanced toward him and appeared to have a weapon (it was a flashlight) but nobody argued that he set a trap.

And how many times have we read "Armed Citizen" tales of people sitting up all night to guard their homes and businesses? Are those also now to be defined as traps?

jimlongley wrote:If he did indeed set a trap, then maybe he deserves some punishment, but the thing that seems to be overlooked in everything I read is the reason he set the trap, and the fact that the trap was tripped.

I would also like to know how they determined what order the shots were fired. I don't know that it makes a difference. Was the criminal home invader injured by any of the other shots? Was he trying to leave the garage? And consider the spacing of the shots per other witnesses, it would have to be an awfully large garage to allow three shots, with a pause, and then a fourth if the criminal was departing. Were the first shots merely warning shots and only when the criminal had not retreated did he shoot to stop the threat.

jimlongley wrote:I think this draws a line just a little to the left of "castle doctrine" (for the lack of a better term) and if it gets used as a precedent nationally the line may increment to the right just a little too easily. I can imagine a Moms Against Defense type prosecutor deciding that the fact that I keep a variety of firearms about my home and person, in ready condition, must also be a trap and that I am just as determined to kill someone. Makes me glad that in every conversation I have ever had about self-defense, I have advocated stopping the threat, not killing it.

And just as I dislike the misuse of the term "Assault Rifle" I dislike "Shotgun Blast" which seems to ascribe magical powers to shotguns.

mojo84 wrote:I just don't understand how this can happen in America. It goes to show that justice is not always the goal of our justice system.