Austin shooting outside home

[A-R]

This could be an interesting one to follow for use of force discussions.

Very few details right now. One man shot and killed. Apparently shot outside a home by resident of the home. speculation that the man who was shot was involved in a one-car wreck into a stone retaining wall, then walked up street to the home where a "confrontation" took place.

This all happened not too far from my home.


" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... ng_sh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[schufflerbot]

curious to see how this plays out.

just a wild guess, but i'm thinking perhaps there was some drugs/alcohol involved there.

[chlag01]

I really hope it was a justified shooting. It will be a real shame if it was just a guy looking for help after his car accident and the home owner thought it was a burglar.

[A-R]

Homeowner/shooter charged with murder ...

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... ng_sh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.kvue.com/home/One-dead-after ... 35259.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I had a bad feeling this would be the outcome of initial investigation when I read earlier that the other man was shot outside the home. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but doesn't look good for the shooter. Guessing a tragic misunderstanding of the Castle Doctrine had something to do with this. STAY INSIDE AND CALL 911!!!!!



Read some local rumors/scuttlebut that the driver/man who was shot had been a) intoxicated and b) fleeing from police, but no offical confirmation whatsoever of that sequence of events

[alexrex20]

Too bad for the kid, the circumstance of the crash and potential testimony of the shooter's neighbor will likely put him in prison.

regarding the neighbor's statement:

“He felt like that was his property and he had to protect his property,” said Liz Hudson, who used to live next door to the family. “He said he wouldn’t hesitate [to shoot] if anybody was on his property.”

[dave_in_austin]

We all know there is more to this than is being reported, but one scenario I see that is consistent with what has been reported is as follows.

(1) Driver either has tire blowout and this causes wreck, or has wreck and has tire damaged and needs a replacement tire. This is consistent with the phone call the driver is said to have made after the wreck.

(2) For some reason, the driver does not want to wait at scene of wreck for help, but rather leaves the scene of the wreck and starts walking along the neighborhood. May be looking for a place to obtain a replacement tire.

(3) Driver stops at shooter's house and gets under shooter's car in shooter's driveway to attempt to remove spare tire stored underneath vehicle.

(4) Shooter's wife sees driver under shooter's car and reports this to shooter. (This is consistent with news reports).

(5) Shooter goes outside to find driver under shooter's car and believes that driver is either committing theft or criminal mischief.

(6) Shooter confronts driver and tries to hold him for law enforcement (this is consistent with news reports).

(7) Driver starts to run away and is shot by shooter who believes that driver is stealing shooter's property.

(8) Somewhere in here, shooter's wife calls 911. Time line of this is uncertain based on reports.

(9) Police arrive and shooter is arrested and charged with murder.

This is all speculation and none of it may be true, but it looks like one possible explanation that is consistent with news reports that I have read/heard.

[chlag01]

Biggest questions I'm waiting to have answered are:
1) why was the driver under the car, as alleged by shooter's wife, and
2) original reports stated driver was unclothed, but those reports seem to be missing now. Was he clothed or not, and if not, why?

Not sure if it legally matters (assuming shooter thought he was shooting to recover stolen property at night), but how far from the house was the driver when he was shot?

[tbrown]

It's hard to figure out the truth with so many holes in the reporting but something doesn't add up.

[Lugnut]

Yeah, a few versions of what may or may not have actually happened. Such is the way of the media.

Reading between the lines, sounds like the homeowner may have a good defense under 9.42, but that comes down to what really happened...or rather, what a judge/jury believe really happened. Personally, not the choice I would make. The hassle and risk of prison just isn't worth it. Plus, you will always spend more on lawyers than the property you are protecting is worth. You come IN my house, another story....but just isn't anything in my driveway or garage that is worth possibly taking someone's life. That's just me though.