Woman shoots man through wall

[Soccerdad1995]

I'm sorry, but how in the heck was this woman not charged on the scene? She's claiming self defense against an unknown person who was outside her home and there is no mention in the story that the man was armed.

Yes, I do see the "peeping tom" reference, but not sure that justifies the use of deadly force.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-woman- ... eeping-tom

[03Lightningrocks]

I'm sorry, but how in the heck was this woman not charged on the scene? She's claiming self defense against an unknown person who was outside her home and there is no mention in the story that the man was armed.

Yes, I do see the "peeping tom" reference, but not sure that justifies the use of deadly force.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-woman- ... eeping-tom

I agree. This one may not be over just yet. Truth is, how could they verify he was peeping in the window? The guy may have simply been walking between the houses. Even if he was peeping in the window, that would not be considered an emanate threat to life or even protecting ones "castle". I always thought you could only shoot the bad guy if he was stealing something after dark or in the process of trying to gain entry.

[Soccerdad1995]

I'm sorry, but how in the heck was this woman not charged on the scene? She's claiming self defense against an unknown person who was outside her home and there is no mention in the story that the man was armed.

Yes, I do see the "peeping tom" reference, but not sure that justifies the use of deadly force.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-woman- ... eeping-tom

I agree. This one may not be over just yet. Truth is, how could they verify he was peeping in the window? The guy may have simply been walking between the houses. Even if he was peeping in the window, that would not be considered an emanate threat to life or even protecting ones "castle". I always thought you could only shoot the bad guy if he was stealing something after dark or in the process of trying to gain entry.

My plan is to sit in my house with rifle ready while my wife calls 911. If the perp or perps breach a door / window, I'm lighting them up. But as long as they are outside, I'm not opening fire. Aside from the questionable legal justification, I'd also be concerned about any bullets that might miss and end up in a neighbors yard, or house.

According to this story, there were 2 stray rounds that went somewhere.

[NotRPB]

peeping tom,
man about to/trying to break in through window ...
casing the joint for unlocked windows, looking in each one as he checked the latches ...
yeah she might should wait for her attorney prior to making statements

[Soccerdad1995]

peeping tom,
man about to/trying to break in through window ...
casing the joint for unlocked windows, looking in each one as he checked the latches ...
yeah she might should wait for her attorney prior to making statements

The specifics are extremely important here. Huge difference if he had his hands on the window (especially if it was unlocked), for example.

[longtooth]

With only one story, when and if all the facts come out we will see. I do think single women, alone, of age....are due a lot more latitude concerning disparity of force than I was at 40.

[03Lightningrocks]

With only one story, when and if all the facts come out we will see. I do think single women, alone, of age....are due a lot more latitude concerning disparity of force than I was at 40.

I agree that she may get extra consideration for disparity of force. I also happen to feel that disparity of force is a real thing. She should have just called a cop and remain vigilant with her rifle in case the perp tried to get in. But she obviously became fearful for her safety.

[longtooth]

With only one story, when and if all the facts come out we will see. I do think single women, alone, of age....are due a lot more latitude concerning disparity of force than I was at 40.

I agree that she may get extra consideration for disparity of force. I also happen to feel that disparity of force is a real thing. She should have just called a cop and remain vigilant with her rifle in case the perp tried to get in. But she obviously became fearful for her safety.

Yes sir and fear alone is no justification for deadly force. She will have to articulate the threat. Whatever it may have been.

[philip964]

This may depend on location in Texas.

Austin facing trial for sure.

Houston. Maybe. But we have a female DA. Plus up for re-election in 2022. Wants to show she is tough on crime. Prosecuting a woman shooting a peeping Tom, is not everyone’s idea of being tough on crime.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

If the guy was casing for burglary, he probably has a criminal record along those lines....

[RottenApple]

If the guy was casing for burglary, he probably has a criminal record along those lines....

While true, it's legally irrelevant as the woman had no way of knowing that at the time of the shooting. Therefore the defense (if there is one) cannot bring it up at trial. Now if the prosecutor brings it up..... Fair game.

[srothstein]

Truth is, how could they verify he was peeping in the window? The guy may have simply been walking between the houses. Even if he was peeping in the window, that would not be considered an emanate threat to life or even protecting ones "castle".

The first part is really easy to prove. If she shot at him while he was peeping in the window, the bullet wound will be in his chest. If he was just passing through (between urban houses is questionable anyway), it will be in his side or back. As we know from Force Science Institute's time-motion studies, being in the side or back does not disprove her story, but being in the front would help prove it.

The second part is going to be relatively easy for her to prove now too. There are too many news stories of rapes and burglaries to say she wasn't in fear. And many of the news stories for years have been telling women that peeping tom's become sex offenders as a matter of course and progression. This would lead a single woman who is alone at the time to reasonably believe that he was about to break in, thus justifying the use of deadly force.

I doubt I could get away with it, but any decent lawyer should be able to get her off on it that way. Especially if she is smart enough to, as others have suggested, shut up until she gets with her lawyer.

[RottenApple]

The first part is really easy to prove. If she shot at him while he was peeping in the window, the bullet wound will be in his chest. If he was just passing through (between urban houses is questionable anyway), it will be in his side or back. As we know from Force Science Institute's time-motion studies, being in the side or back does not disprove her story, but being in the front would help prove it.

Not necessarily. Plate glass windows. She exclaimed, he turned to look, BANG! He did nothing wrong (except possibly trespass), and now he's dead.

The second part is going to be relatively easy for her to prove now too. There are too many news stories of rapes and burglaries to say she wasn't in fear. And many of the news stories for years have been telling women that peeping tom's become sex offenders as a matter of course and progression. This would lead a single woman who is alone at the time to reasonably believe that he was about to break in, thus justifying the use of deadly force.

I'll agree with this, provided that it applies to men equally. Don't the Dems want all sexes (all 264,000 of them) to be "equal"? Then the same rules apply regardless of whether is was a man or woman. Gender should not be an issue.

I doubt I could get away with it, but any decent lawyer should be able to get her off on it that way. Especially if she is smart enough to, as others have suggested, shut up until she gets with her lawyer.

HA! Never gonna happen. People, in general, are too stupid to keep their mouths shut when they should.