Arlington Homeowner Shoots Car Burglar

[Mxrdad]

Isn't trespassing a crime anymore? You're on my property at night, uninvited and breaking into my car wouldn't be a good idea. Think I would have set off my security alarm and then showed him the dangerous end of my 12 gauge. Would depend on circumstances whether I would have shot him or not. Does anyone use rock salt loads anymore? I accidentally set off my alarm one without knowing it and walked across the street to talk to my neighbor. I watched a cop arrive about 3 minutes later. The second one arrived about 30 second after that. Sure glad I payed my false alarm payment to the city.

I think using rock salt in a shotgun is a myth. You would do as much by firing a starter gun. Check out some testing:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-t ... a-shotgun/

Also, it is heck on shotgun barrels, and if you need a defense load, you won't have it available. JMHO

Thanks for the link, it was fun reading. Ain't no salt happening over here!

[The Wall]

Isn't trespassing a crime anymore? You're on my property at night, uninvited and breaking into my car wouldn't be a good idea. Think I would have set off my security alarm and then showed him the dangerous end of my 12 gauge. Would depend on circumstances whether I would have shot him or not. Does anyone use rock salt loads anymore? I accidentally set off my alarm one without knowing it and walked across the street to talk to my neighbor. I watched a cop arrive about 3 minutes later. The second one arrived about 30 second after that. Sure glad I payed my false alarm payment to the city.

I think using rock salt in a shotgun is a myth. You would do as much by firing a starter gun. Check out some testing:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-t ... a-shotgun/

Also, it is heck on shotgun barrels, and if you need a defense load, you won't have it available. JMHO

It's no myth. A friend of mine when we were kids got shot with it in the back of his legs while stealing kumquats off a farmers tree. I agree it wouldn't be good for the gun.

[locke_n_load]

It happened Sunday around 3:00 a.m.

Police said no one will be charged in the shooting.

Police said no one will be charged in the shooting. But the case is being referred to the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office.

Burglary of an unoccupied motor vehicle is usually treated differently than actual theft or burglary of a habitation. For theft, there has to be intent shown that the reason they were breaking into the vehicle was to steal it or something in it. And burglary in the penal code is defined only for a habitation or building, not a vehicle (separate section). So, while nighttime does play into it, the guy was not necessarily committing one of the offense listed in penal code 9 for justification of use of deadly force.

So, will be interesting to see how the prosecutor handles this one.

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 Check
(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.

Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner.

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;

So if the vehicle is being broken into, I would think that a reasonable person would believe that theft (at night time) is going on here.
If not, isn't the vehicle getting damaged via break-in, in which criminal mischief at night time would apply? How would it not apply? I see nothing about the classification of the crime (misdemeanor, felony, etc.) anywhere in the justification for deadly force in those instances. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a better understanding of the law.

[Keith B]

So if the vehicle is being broken into, I would think that a reasonable person would believe that theft (at night time) is going on here.
If not, isn't the vehicle getting damaged via break-in, in which criminal mischief at night time would apply? How would it not apply? I see nothing about the classification of the crime (misdemeanor, felony, etc.) anywhere in the justification for deadly force in those instances. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a better understanding of the law.

As I said, we will have to wait to see how the prosecutor and/or grand jury handle it. I agree that it could be assumed they were trying to steal it. It could also meet the damage to tangible property for criminal mischief. HOWEVER, many don't look at the bottom of 9.42 where it says:

(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.

It will hinge on statements of the homeowner, and possibly of the guy that ran off (if they find him) as to determination of justification. There are a lot of cards at play during a homicide investigation, and all the cards have to stack up to make a hand to try and determine if you play your hand, bluff or fold.

[dlh]

I have been wrong before but, even if the case is presented to a grand jury, nonetheless I would be shocked if it was anything other than a no-bill. Come on guys, this is Texas!

[bblhd672]

Man, I hope this doesn't cause an uprising in Arlington cause some sweet boy on his way to college was shot by a homeowner protecting his property.

[stroo]

The point of rock salt was never to penetrate. It was intended to hurt like ever. It wasn't a "self defence" load. It was a drive off nuisance load. It looks to me like it work for that. On the other hand, I don't think I will ever load it in one of my shotguns. I prefer a self defence load.

BTW, we used to use relatively weak BB guns to drive off stray dogs when I was growing up. They didn't appear to penetrate the dogs' skin but the dogs would run off whimpering with tails between their legs.

[locke_n_load]

So if the vehicle is being broken into, I would think that a reasonable person would believe that theft (at night time) is going on here.
If not, isn't the vehicle getting damaged via break-in, in which criminal mischief at night time would apply? How would it not apply? I see nothing about the classification of the crime (misdemeanor, felony, etc.) anywhere in the justification for deadly force in those instances. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a better understanding of the law.

As I said, we will have to wait to see how the prosecutor and/or grand jury handle it. I agree that it could be assumed they were trying to steal it. It could also meet the damage to tangible property for criminal mischief. HOWEVER, many don't look at the bottom of 9.42 where it says:

(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.

It will hinge on statements of the homeowner, and possibly of the guy that ran off (if they find him) as to determination of justification. There are a lot of cards at play during a homicide investigation, and all the cards have to stack up to make a hand to try and determine if you play your hand, bluff or fold.

Since it was at night, I would think that the homeowner would state something like "it was dark, and I was worried that if I gave a warning or shouted for them to leave, they might be holding a weapon that I could not see and open fire immediately." But then again I'm not his lawyer.

I also wonder what the defintion of "cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" actually means. How else would you protect your vehicle and belongings inside without putting yourself at risk?

[locke_n_load]

I have been wrong before but, even if the case is presented to a grand jury, nonetheless I would be shocked if it was anything other than a no-bill. Come on guys, this is Texas!

In Houston, every conservative judge was voted out this past election, we have appointed Art Acevedo as HPD chief, and our conservative Sheriff was voted out for a sanctuary city Sheriff. Don't take being in Texas as being friendly to self defense.

[Jusme]

The point of rock salt was never to penetrate. It was intended to hurt like ever. It wasn't a "self defence" load. It was a drive off nuisance load. It looks to me like it work for that. On the other hand, I don't think I will ever load it in one of my shotguns. I prefer a self defence load.

BTW, we used to use relatively weak BB guns to drive off stray dogs when I was growing up. They didn't appear to penetrate the dogs' skin but the dogs would run off whimpering with tails between their legs.

I too had heard about rock salt being used, from the time I was knee high to a grasshopper, but I have never met anyone who could show me any scars, or even first hand accounts of its effectiveness. There have been several accounts related by friends or relatives, who swore it happened. There are also several television and movie references to its use.(Beverley Hillbillys comes to mind) But, the ballistic effectiveness, at more than 10 feet, is more than suspect. I have heard stories of rock salt "puttin' a hurtin'" on someone across a watermelon patch, but if you think about the cost of loading shells with rock salt, and the damage to the interior of barrels of the only gun on the farm, why not just shoot bird shot?
I'm sure if the county sheriff came around to ask if they were intending to kill the melon thief, he could say "Nah I used rock salt to burn em'" JMHO

Rock salt loses velocity very quickly, you almost have to be at spitting distance to do any damage.

[rguy90]

Since this happened less than 4 miles from my home, I will be watching to see how Arlington DA Office handles this.

I agree, I went to high school at Mansfield then attended college at UTA and spend lots of time in Tarrant County although I now live in Dallas. Either way very familiar with the area. Interested to see how it plays out.

[bblhd672]

Ft. Worth Star Telegram Editorial Board says in opinion piece: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/ed ... 22579.html

The neighbor in this case apparently had every “right” under the law to kill. But killing in the defense of property can never be right.
Shooting someone can only be right when it is to protect a person.

Liberals hardly ever can be on the side of law abiding citizens.

[Soccerdad1995]

Ft. Worth Star Telegram Editorial Board says in opinion piece: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/ed ... 22579.html

The neighbor in this case apparently had every “right” under the law to kill. But killing in the defense of property can never be right.
Shooting someone can only be right when it is to protect a person.

Liberals hardly ever can be on the side of law abiding citizens.

Here's how I think about it.

Is a car (or it's contents) worth a human life? Well I know it's not worth my life, or the lives of my loved ones, because I know the value of those lives. I would think that it's also not worth the life of a random person who I find in my driveway in the middle of the night.

But here's the thing. That random person believes their life is not worth more than my car, since they decided that is a potential trade off they are willing to make the moment they decided to steal my car. And who am I to think that I know the value of their life better then they do? If they really value their life that low, then I'm not going to waste time arguing with them about it.

[rotor]

Ft. Worth Star Telegram Editorial Board says in opinion piece: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/ed ... 22579.html

The neighbor in this case apparently had every “right” under the law to kill. But killing in the defense of property can never be right.
Shooting someone can only be right when it is to protect a person.

Liberals hardly ever can be on the side of law abiding citizens.

Here's how I think about it.

Is a car (or it's contents) worth a human life? Well I know it's not worth my life, or the lives of my loved ones, because I know the value of those lives. I would think that it's also not worth the life of a random person who I find in my driveway in the middle of the night.

But here's the thing. That random person believes their life is not worth more than my car, since they decided that is a potential trade off they are willing to make the moment they decided to steal my car. And who am I to think that I know the value of their life better then they do? If they really value their life that low, then I'm not going to waste time arguing with them about it.

The BG may be thinking that the car is worth more than your life though and he might be ready to take your life and your car. I would guess that a BG never thinks that he is going to die stealing or burglarizing a car.

[bblhd672]

Ft. Worth Star Telegram Editorial Board says in opinion piece: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/ed ... 22579.html

The neighbor in this case apparently had every “right” under the law to kill. But killing in the defense of property can never be right.
Shooting someone can only be right when it is to protect a person.

Liberals hardly ever can be on the side of law abiding citizens.

Here's how I think about it.

Is a car (or it's contents) worth a human life? Well I know it's not worth my life, or the lives of my loved ones, because I know the value of those lives. I would think that it's also not worth the life of a random person who I find in my driveway in the middle of the night.

But here's the thing. That random person believes their life is not worth more than my car, since they decided that is a potential trade off they are willing to make the moment they decided to steal my car. And who am I to think that I know the value of their life better then they do? If they really value their life that low, then I'm not going to waste time arguing with them about it.

The Star Telegraph said "killing in the defense of property can never be right" - did not say car/truck/van, they said "property." They think anything you own is not worth using deadly force to protect. They believe anything a store/business owns is not worth using deadly force to protect. They are idiots disguised as journalists.