This guy may have some legal troubles...

[Scott in Houston]

... all to protect his neighbor's stuff.


http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=8774648" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I get why you would 'want' to confront several people burglarizing your neighbor's house, but I don't think I would. It's not worth the legal trouble if you had to shoot, which he did.

Video camera and a phone would be my friend if I'm playing armchair-neighbor.

[MoJo]

Oh my, shades of Joe Horn - - -

[Scott in Houston]

Oh my shades of Joe Horn - - -

Yep... was thinking same thing. Sounds very similar, but no 911 call to confirm.
He hasn't been charged "yet", but may. What 'stuff' is worth it? (Especially not your stuff!?)

[MoJo]

Heck my stuff isn't worth shooting someone over. I have insurance for Pete's sake. Now my wife, kids, grand kids, or dogs - - - give your soul to God, the rest of you is mine!

[flb_78]

Police say the case will go to a grand jury, but no charges are being filed at this point.

Sound like he'll probably be fine legal wise.

[Topbuilder]

Interesting point: would he actually be better off NOT having a CHL in this situation? I think so.

[flb_78]

Interesting point: would he actually be better off NOT having a CHL in this situation? I think so.

Doesn't matter. The law applies the same to everyone in a defense shooting.

[RoyGBiv]

I'd suggest the good neighbor wasn't just protecting "stuff". Getting thieves off the street adds to his own safety.
The one he shot was captured. I'll bet he rolls on his accomplices.
Successful encounter, IMO.

Would I have taken the same path? Hard to say.
I certainly would have called the police before engaging the criminals.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If the facts are as presented by the media in Houston (TV), then it sounds more like a traditional self-defense shooting, not a "defense of a 3rd person's property" case. He fired only when the suspected burglar made a furtive movement. Even if it was property, he should be fine according to TPC §§9.42 & 9.43.

I am commenting on the legality not the wisdom of his actions. That said, the law was drafted to discourage burglary and theft. Burglary is not always a bloodless crime.

Chas.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

• (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
  
  • (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
    
    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
    
    (3) he reasonably believes that:
    
    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
    
    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or . . .

[beefmobile]

one of the comments on the article was "Joe Horn Rocks"...i got a giggle out of that.

Thankfully this wasn't nearly as bloody and hairy as Joe's encounter. Maybe this will also change BG's minds as to what career path they'll be on without having to die. I, too, agree that this was a successful encounter. He waited until one of the BGs attempted to draw a weapon (of some sort, maybe) before he fired.

[ffemt300]

Heck my stuff isn't worth shooting someone over. I have insurance for Pete's sake. Now my wife, kids, grand kids, or dogs - - - give your soul to God, the rest of you is mine!

Totally agree! Couldnt have said it better.

While this guys intentions were great. He may be in over his head on this one.

[Topbuilder]

"What 'stuff' is worth it? (Especially not your stuff!?)"

I have reciprical agreements with all of my neighbors to defend property each others property with deadly force. The way I look at it, when the bad guy makes the decision to steal knowing that people die every day while trying to steal... THEY made the decision that what they were going after is worth more than their life. And, I agree.

[Scott in Houston]

"What 'stuff' is worth it? (Especially not your stuff!?)"

I have reciprical agreements with all of my neighbors to defend property each others property with deadly force. The way I look at it, when the bad guy makes the decision to steal knowing that people die every day while trying to steal... THEY made the decision that what they were going after is worth more than their life. And, I agree.

What if it's day time?

[fickman]

"What 'stuff' is worth it? (Especially not your stuff!?)"

I have reciprocal agreements with all of my neighbors to defend property each others property with deadly force. The way I look at it, when the bad guy makes the decision to steal knowing that people die every day while trying to steal... THEY made the decision that what they were going after is worth more than their life. And, I agree.

What if it's day time?

I have an agreement with one neighbor directly across the street to watch each others' houses, but it has little to do with saving his property.

Here's the thing: I work from home, my wife is a homemaker, and my kids are normally here. Even if our vehicle is gone, you can't assume our house is empty.

My neighbor is a Federal K-9 officer (DHS) and likewise works odd shifts, so he's likely to be sleeping at any time - day or night. He also has a wife and two kids.

I would call the police first, but there are circumstances where I would confront (wise or not) a burglar during the day at his house, even if I can't use deadly force to protect property. It's not about property - for all I know, he or his family could be home. Once confronted, the BG would have three choices: 1) surrender, 2) flee (away or back into the house), or 3) attack. If he chooses #3, a new crime has been committed. . . one that does allow for deadly force to protect myself. If he chooses #2, it's up to my neighbor (if BG re-enters the house) or the police to resolve.

I'm not a cowboy, a vigilante, a cop, or batman, but I've got a neighbor who is watching my back and I'm watching his. FWPD is a great department, but up in here the farthest northern reaches of the city limits, they seem understaffed and overworked. The patrolmen have a LOT of ground to cover. Responding officer(s) could easily have to cover 10-15 miles and risk getting caught in traffic or at rail crossings.

From a tactical standpoint, I spend most of the day in my office, which has a large upstairs window overlooking this particular neighbor's house. I can clearly see the houses on either side of him, his side yards, gate, fence, front door, windows, and garage. You cannot see into this window due to the solar screens we installed. The design of the front of my house also provides some unique cover. If I had to engage somebody, I'd use my AR and yell commands from a covered spot across the street - and my neighbor knows the spot I'd occupy if that went down. I wouldn't cross the street or enter my neighbor's house. . . that's a good way to get shot by friendly fire.

As I look outside right now, one vehicle is in his driveway and the garage is open, so I'm assuming he's home. If he looked at my house, my wife is running errands and he'd have no idea if I was home or not.

Regarding the OP story, it sounds like the BG chose to alter crimes mid-stream, and once the event became a direct threat to the neighbor, he was justified to shoot. I also think that without the shoot, the BGs may have gotten away. I agree that with one in custody, the rest of the story will most likely come to light.

[ClarkLZeuss]

I would call the police first, but there are circumstances where I would confront (wise or not) a burglar during the day at his house, even if I can't use deadly force to protect property. It's not about property - for all I know, he or his family could be home. Once confronted, the BG would have three choices: 1) surrender, 2) flee (away or back into the house), or 3) attack. If he chooses #3, a new crime has been committed. . . one that does allow for deadly force to protect myself.
...
Regarding the OP story, it sounds like the BG chose to alter crimes mid-stream, and once the event became a direct threat to the neighbor, he was justified to shoot. I also think that without the shoot, the BGs may have gotten away. I agree that with one in custody, the rest of the story will most likely come to light.

Yeah, it sounds like Joe Horn 2 did exactly what you said, confronted them and only shot after he saw the guy pulling a weapon. BUT, the case will really hinge on whether 1) The neighbor produced his gun before confronting the burglars, and if so, whether that was justified, plus 2) Did the burglar who reached for his waistband actually have a weapon?