Shot Fired

[baldeagle]

Wellll, since this has been re-opened, I re-read all of the earlier posts and came across this:

Did you call a lawyer before talking to the cops?

I have to ask: Should you call a cop before you talk to a lawyer?


well, i thought it was funny

Read this: What to say after a shooting - from Massad Ayoob

[Purplehood]

...for a theft...with no intrusion into my home, no threat or harm to another, no evidence of a weapon...I agree...nothing in my truck or yard is worth a life...same when I worked in a pawn shop...if they snatched it and ran...911 and describe them well...the second he shows aggression, the game's over...but a thief I won't shoot...the one exception being if he's stolen a gun and so is armed...

...there are no warning shots in my world...there are warnings and there are shots...under no circumstances will I discharge a weapon without intending to stop the person or animal I am facing...

I am not sure, but it sounds like you and I actually agree. :)

[speedsix]

...only my wife and I disagree on EVERYTHING...

[gemini]

Purplehood wrote:
[I have followed this thread with interest and thought about replying more than I have a number of times, but kept my mouth shut.

Yes, the law states that one can legally do what the OP states that he has done.

So I have pondered this entire incident over and over and still come to the same conclusion. The BG was stopped in the middle of a commission of a crime and ran. I simply don't understand the need to attempt to shoot him. In my mind there is no such thing as a warning-shot. If one shoots at somebody, you are shooting to kill them. So I am not sure what the OP's intent was when he fired.

If this guy was surprised, turned around and made any single gesture, furtive movement or had flinched, I would have shot. But as I read this the BG "partially turned towards me", and thats it, he ran.

/I had to get this one off of my chest.]





Complete sentence from original post:

"He partially turned toward me, he had something in his hands, when he turned I couldn't tell if it was a knife, screwdriver or what and I immediately pulled my gun up and fired, from about waist high."


I appreciate your opinions and personal decisions on when to/when not to shoot. However, I was there, you were not. If you face a similar
event in the future, I'm sure whatever action or inaction you take will be the right decision for you, at THAT fraction of a second in time.
In that split second you will decide possible threat or no threat. Had I felt there was a continuing threat, I would have taken the 2nd shot,
and this whole event would have had a different outcome entirely.
I simply posted a true, factual event and the eventual outcome. For me it's past history. I don't dwell on it.

[DEB]

Purplehood wrote:
[I have followed this thread with interest and thought about replying more than I have a number of times, but kept my mouth shut.

Yes, the law states that one can legally do what the OP states that he has done.

So I have pondered this entire incident over and over and still come to the same conclusion. The BG was stopped in the middle of a commission of a crime and ran. I simply don't understand the need to attempt to shoot him. In my mind there is no such thing as a warning-shot. If one shoots at somebody, you are shooting to kill them. So I am not sure what the OP's intent was when he fired.

If this guy was surprised, turned around and made any single gesture, furtive movement or had flinched, I would have shot. But as I read this the BG "partially turned towards me", and thats it, he ran.

/I had to get this one off of my chest.]

Complete sentence from original post:

"He partially turned toward me, he had something in his hands, when he turned I couldn't tell if it was a knife, screwdriver or what and I immediately pulled my gun up and fired, from about waist high."

I appreciate your opinions and personal decisions on when to/when not to shoot. However, I was there, you were not. If you face a similar
event in the future, I'm sure whatever action or inaction you take will be the right decision for you, at THAT fraction of a second in time.
In that split second you will decide possible threat or no threat. Had I felt there was a continuing threat, I would have taken the 2nd shot,
and this whole event would have had a different outcome entirely.
I simply posted a true, factual event and the eventual outcome. For me it's past history. I don't dwell on it.

Plus 1 to you Sir. You provided your actions for us to peruse and for that, I for one thank you. I believe that when I come home or if I go outside and see someone breaking into my vehicle or any of my other property, I would probably react. I go outside, armed always, often to protect my property from coyotes, possums and such. So depending on that thief's/soon to be thief's actions these will probably dictate my actions. But unlike some I like my property and don't intend to give it away to others and I do believe my property, that I have sweated for is worth double the life of a thief. I cannot abide a thief. Most if not all rapists/murderers start out by small robberies that quickly move to home break ins and then to rape/murder. I don't believe I would chase someone down the road, but that is just me and how I am wired or perhaps I am just older or lazier. So, I guess if someone is stealing from me, puts my property down and then runs away, this thing, whom I refuse to give humanity to, could probably get away with it.

[speedsix]

...as kindly as I can put it...you messed up...you went into a situation where you couldn't see with a gun in your hand...without a light, you couldn't see well enough to see what, if anything, he had in his hand...coulda been a weapon or a car key ring...if your shot had hit him, you could have gone to prison...if we carry a gun, we MUST carry a good light...when the DA asks you in front of the Grand Jury..."I thought he had..." won't get it...it's not like he'd shot at you and then fled...then turned and extended his hand again...you had seen no weapon, suffered no threat...and BANG...it could have landed a good man in prison...and an unjustified shooting is not protected by Castle Doctrine against civil suit...I'm glad that it went like it did...but if you don't get a pocketable powerful light and keep it with you at night...next time could go poorly...the shot was not justified by law...nor would have been the second shot that you said would have been legal...there was no justification to shoot at all...especially in the back... this "theft" from auto doesn't make the deadly force list with the facts you gave us...and your future's on the line...


WOW....BANG!!!!! Why in the world do I disagree with most of the guys on this one??? You said yourself that you didn't know if there was a theft or vandalism going on...you never mentioned seeing anything gone from the truck or in the guy's hands as he fled...(where's the theft during the nighttime??? where's the "recovery attempt?") you can't tell a Grand Jury either that he had stolen anything or was fleeing with any property...so those two, hence the right to use force...are out...so where's the justification of force...much less deadly force...and did his turning as he fled threaten you and cause you fear? Why?
...work through the force and deadly force law with the facts as you gave them to us...how would you convince the Grand Jury that this young man should be dead...or even wounded??? We're on your side...nobody had any business in your son's truck in the night...what if he was sleeping off a drunk??? You have to be able to make a Grand Jury "be there"...see the danger, feel the fear, and understand why a reasonable man would have shot...work your way through PC 9:41..where's the dispossession? of what?he wasn't trespassing...he was fleeing---preventing is out...HE has terminated any trespass by fleeing...where's the tangible, moveable property??? you have to be able to show that 9:41 covers you before the right to deadly force kicks in (9:42(1) AND (2) and following...have we satisfied (1) yet??? I don't see how...

...are you outraged yet? work through it...can you convince a retired schoolteacher why you fired a shot? A lot to think about...you got the good ole boy treatment...they knew you were a good guy...he was a bad guy...he was wrong to be in the truck...we agree to that point...but no further...can you show in 9:31 why you used force???if you can't...stop reading at 9:32(1)

I'm being sincere, not sarcastic...

[gemini]

...as kindly as I can put it...you messed up...you went into a situation where you couldn't see with a gun in your hand...without a light, you couldn't see well enough to see what, if anything, he had in his hand...coulda been a weapon or a car key ring...if your shot had hit him, you could have gone to prison...if we carry a gun, we MUST carry a good light...when the DA asks you in front of the Grand Jury..."I thought he had..." won't get it...it's not like he'd shot at you and then fled...then turned and extended his hand again...you had seen no weapon, suffered no threat...and BANG...it could have landed a good man in prison...and an unjustified shooting is not protected by Castle Doctrine against civil suit...I'm glad that it went like it did...but if you don't get a pocketable powerful light and keep it with you at night...next time could go poorly...the shot was not justified by law...nor would have been the second shot that you said would have been legal...there was no justification to shoot at all...especially in the back... this "theft" from auto doesn't make the deadly force list with the facts you gave us...and your future's on the line...


WOW....BANG!!!!! Why in the world do I disagree with most of the guys on this one??? You said yourself that you didn't know if there was a theft or vandalism going on...you never mentioned seeing anything gone from the truck or in the guy's hands as he fled...(where's the theft during the nighttime??? where's the "recovery attempt?") you can't tell a Grand Jury either that he had stolen anything or was fleeing with any property...so those two, hence the right to use force...are out...so where's the justification of force...much less deadly force...and did his turning as he fled threaten you and cause you fear? Why?
...work through the force and deadly force law with the facts as you gave them to us...how would you convince the Grand Jury that this young man should be dead...or even wounded??? We're on your side...nobody had any business in your son's truck in the night...what if he was sleeping off a drunk??? You have to be able to make a Grand Jury "be there"...see the danger, feel the fear, and understand why a reasonable man would have shot...work your way through PC 9:41..where's the dispossession? of what?he wasn't trespassing...he was fleeing---preventing is out...HE has terminated any trespass by fleeing...where's the tangible, moveable property??? you have to be able to show that 9:41 covers you before the right to deadly force kicks in (9:42(1) AND (2) and following...have we satisfied (1) yet??? I don't see how...

...are you outraged yet? work through it...can you convince a retired schoolteacher why you fired a shot? A lot to think about...you got the good ole boy treatment...they knew you were a good guy...he was a bad guy...he was wrong to be in the truck...we agree to that point...but no further...can you show in 9:31 why you used force???if you can't...stop reading at 9:32(1)

I'm being sincere, not sarcastic...

I'm not outraged over anything. I freely admit I am not a internet authority on any subject. Though many believe that once behind a keyboard and
using the anonymity the internet provides, they become this century's "Master Mind of I-Net" and their opinion is the only correct opinion. Briefly,
9:32 (2) key words "reasonably believes"
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force
9.41: key words "reasonably believes"
9.42: again, key words "reasonably believes"
9.42 (A) key words "to prevent"
9.42 (B) key words "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately........"

If the term or use of Castle Doctrine is in Texas law, please provide that reference. Thanks.
I am not a lawyer. However, immediately after this incident I consulted a Board Certified Criminal Defense Lawyer.
No problem with my actions. I also spoke with officers on the scene. No problem. I also spoke with the ADA
that was handling this case. No problem. And if being a "Good Ol Boy" is suddenly not PC, then I must admit I'm
not PC.

For the last time, whatever you or anyone else decides to do in a similar situation, I hope that it turns out well. I wish
no one (including you ; not being sarcastic) makes the mistake of acting incorrectly OR failing to act and then suffering
the consequences.

One last thing. Can you direct me to the section of law that says a justifiable shoot is ONLY justified if the BG is shot
in the front while facing the actor? I can't seem to find any reference where the shooter is directed to only hit certain
parts of the body. Thanks.

[speedsix]

...first off, you and I and 97% of the others on the board know what the Castle Doctrine name means...it's commonly used by professionals across Texas ( i.e. http://www.ianinglis.com/article-texas- ... rine.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) and if you weren't upset you wouldn't pull a picky snit about it... second, your comments about internet anonymity, etc..are childish...I don't know your name or face either, but when someone quotes the law chapter and verse...maybe you could see past the fact that he is an old fat grey-haired guy and actually read the law as pertains to your post...and learn from the law...without getting all upset...most of us here learn from others' posts...does the law say I'm wrong in what I claim...or not??? that's the bottom line...you have the option of ignoring the post...while we're not "internet authorities", we commonly share points in the law for the common good...and, hopefully, adjust where we're wrong...

...as to your question about the "justified shoot" question...the law doesn't specify where you have to hit them...you just have to be able to convince a Grand Jury why you took careful aim at the center of a man's back and shot him as he ran, when you didn't even see him have anything in his hand,even some of your property, much less a weapon, and he had harmed noone...don't think that'll be too easy...

...as to your nuggets of truth and reason:

9:32 (2) key words "reasonably believes"......only kicks in AFTER you satisfy (1) which says you have to be justified under 9:31

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.....anyways, he used nor attempted any unlawful deadly force......

9.41: key words "reasonably believes"....read WHAT you must reasonably believe...you're not terminating a trespass or unlawful interference with the property...he's done that...he's gone...fleeing...you're not recovering property...you didn't see him take any...forget (1) and (2)...which are required elements...they don't apply either...


9.42: again, key words "reasonably believes"
9.42 (A) key words "to prevent"
9.42 (B) key words "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately........".....again...these three don't apply because you can't satisfy 9:41, so 9:42 can't apply
...what you're doing here is picking and choosing phrases throughout the law to support your "position"...ignoring the qualifying material...and you don't qualify to claim these phrases...it's like saying 1=2 without the +1...it doesn't work...

...when using the law, you can't pick and choose and take here a little or there a little...you have to follow it through like diagramming a sentence...putting things in the right order...the ifs, thens, and ands all mean something...

...you got a pass...you got away with what you did...great...my point to you or anyone else who's willing to pick up the law and read it, is that it's not like you think it is...you got a weekly quiz...the Grand Jury's more like a final...and, had your bullet hit, or you'd taken the second "legal" shot aimed right at his back, you'd have been in a world of hurt...if you don't care enough to learn...maybe someone else here will...I've done my evil deed...I can't help it if you don't like it or me...I'm just quoting the law...not interpreting...quoting...be mad and sarcastic as you want to be...or think about it and learn...not from me...from the law you'll be judged by...I'm on your side...like it or not...no apologies or regrets from me...if ONE person gets it...it's worth it...what have I got to lose by trying???

[gemini]

I think you're upset that I don't agree with you. I have nothing to be upset about. Obviously, you know more about the smallest details of an event
at which you were not present than I do, or the police do, or the DA does. Interesting. You know that the available amount of ambient light was not adequate by knowing which porch lights were on, the beam spread and direction of my headlights etc. Amazing. You are more able to interpret correctly the criminal code than the currently commissioned officers that responded, or the DA, or a criminal defense attorney. Again, I applaud your knowledge.
As stated previously, this event is over. Post if you must, but I'll no longer respond.

[speedsix]

...just applying the written law to the facts as you gave them to us to consider...I assumed you were accurate...You said you couldn't see what was in his hand (though you guessed a bit)...now you want to make hints about light sources...taking the "facts" as you presented them in one hand and the law in the other...a high school senior would come to the same conclusions...it doesn't add up...and rather than discuss the facts, you went off into sarcasm and such...

...once again...it's not interpreting anything...it's seeing if the requirements of the law are met by the facts as you presented them...they're not... that's just reading and comparing...simple as filling a grocery list...

[Purplehood]

Purplehood wrote:
[I have followed this thread with interest and thought about replying more than I have a number of times, but kept my mouth shut.

Yes, the law states that one can legally do what the OP states that he has done.

So I have pondered this entire incident over and over and still come to the same conclusion. The BG was stopped in the middle of a commission of a crime and ran. I simply don't understand the need to attempt to shoot him. In my mind there is no such thing as a warning-shot. If one shoots at somebody, you are shooting to kill them. So I am not sure what the OP's intent was when he fired.

If this guy was surprised, turned around and made any single gesture, furtive movement or had flinched, I would have shot. But as I read this the BG "partially turned towards me", and thats it, he ran.

/I had to get this one off of my chest.]

Complete sentence from original post:

"He partially turned toward me, he had something in his hands, when he turned I couldn't tell if it was a knife, screwdriver or what and I immediately pulled my gun up and fired, from about waist high."


I appreciate your opinions and personal decisions on when to/when not to shoot. However, I was there, you were not. If you face a similar
event in the future, I'm sure whatever action or inaction you take will be the right decision for you, at THAT fraction of a second in time.
In that split second you will decide possible threat or no threat. Had I felt there was a continuing threat, I would have taken the 2nd shot,
and this whole event would have had a different outcome entirely.
I simply posted a true, factual event and the eventual outcome. For me it's past history. I don't dwell on it.

Does surprising a burglar in my brothers house while he was trying to frantically unplug a big-screen TV count? I walked up behind him, drew my weapon and watched him turn around. He still had one of the power-cords in his grubby-paws and raised them as if he were going to strike me with them. At that point he looked in my eyes to see who was going to flinch and determined that cord vs. .40 caliber is probably a losing proposition. He ran out the door without the TV. I did not fire.
As I stated earlier. I have thought about the scenario you present, and assuming that you are accurately reflecting what happened, it is my own opinion that you should not have shot from both a legal and a moral perspective.
I think too many people are ready to shoot when they shouldn't be. So I would have to say that I still disagree with you.

It is most unfortunate if this appears to be a personal attack. It is not. If you decide to post a true-life experience, you should be prepared for some feedback from people that indeed have been in the same-boat that you were.

[gemini]

Purplehood wrote:
[I have followed this thread with interest and thought about replying more than I have a number of times, but kept my mouth shut.

Yes, the law states that one can legally do what the OP states that he has done.

So I have pondered this entire incident over and over and still come to the same conclusion. The BG was stopped in the middle of a commission of a crime and ran. I simply don't understand the need to attempt to shoot him. In my mind there is no such thing as a warning-shot. If one shoots at somebody, you are shooting to kill them. So I am not sure what the OP's intent was when he fired.

If this guy was surprised, turned around and made any single gesture, furtive movement or had flinched, I would have shot. But as I read this the BG "partially turned towards me", and thats it, he ran.

/I had to get this one off of my chest.]

Complete sentence from original post:

"He partially turned toward me, he had something in his hands, when he turned I couldn't tell if it was a knife, screwdriver or what and I immediately pulled my gun up and fired, from about waist high."


I appreciate your opinions and personal decisions on when to/when not to shoot. However, I was there, you were not. If you face a similar
event in the future, I'm sure whatever action or inaction you take will be the right decision for you, at THAT fraction of a second in time.
In that split second you will decide possible threat or no threat. Had I felt there was a continuing threat, I would have taken the 2nd shot,
and this whole event would have had a different outcome entirely.
I simply posted a true, factual event and the eventual outcome. For me it's past history. I don't dwell on it.

Does surprising a burglar in my brothers house while he was trying to frantically unplug a big-screen TV count? I walked up behind him, drew my weapon and watched him turn around. He still had one of the power-cords in his grubby-paws and raised them as if he were going to strike me with them. At that point he looked in my eyes to see who was going to flinch and determined that cord vs. .40 caliber is probably a losing proposition. He ran out the door without the TV. I did not fire.
As I stated earlier. I have thought about the scenario you present, and assuming that you are accurately reflecting what happened, it is my own opinion that you should not have shot from both a legal and a moral perspective.
I think too many people are ready to shoot when they shouldn't be. So I would have to say that I still disagree with you.

It is most unfortunate if this appears to be a personal attack. It is not. If you decide to post a true-life experience, you should be prepared for some feedback from people that indeed have been in the same-boat that you were.

I'm sure whatever decision you made at your brothers house was the right decision for you. At that time. In that place. Under those exact circumstances.
I was not trying to write a novel explaining every minute detail, but what I posted IS a accurate reflection of what happened.
The act of a BG breaking into a domicile to burglarize....... caught in the act. Legal to shoot? Did you slowly sneak up behind the TV bandit? Did you have time to make certain he was only unplugging a TV with no weapon present? I don't have enough information to even guess if your action or inaction was appropriate.
If my post made it appear I can't wait to blow someone away then I need work on my writing skills. What is legal and what is moral often conflict. I can't help you with making the shoot/don't shoot decision. Like others, you must make that decision for yourself.
I don't think your post is a personal attack. I have answered questions. I'm to a point where I will only agree to disagree.

[Heartland Patriot]

Purplehood wrote:
[I have followed this thread with interest and thought about replying more than I have a number of times, but kept my mouth shut.

Yes, the law states that one can legally do what the OP states that he has done.

So I have pondered this entire incident over and over and still come to the same conclusion. The BG was stopped in the middle of a commission of a crime and ran. I simply don't understand the need to attempt to shoot him. In my mind there is no such thing as a warning-shot. If one shoots at somebody, you are shooting to kill them. So I am not sure what the OP's intent was when he fired.

If this guy was surprised, turned around and made any single gesture, furtive movement or had flinched, I would have shot. But as I read this the BG "partially turned towards me", and thats it, he ran.

/I had to get this one off of my chest.]

Complete sentence from original post:

"He partially turned toward me, he had something in his hands, when he turned I couldn't tell if it was a knife, screwdriver or what and I immediately pulled my gun up and fired, from about waist high."

I appreciate your opinions and personal decisions on when to/when not to shoot. However, I was there, you were not. If you face a similar
event in the future, I'm sure whatever action or inaction you take will be the right decision for you, at THAT fraction of a second in time.
In that split second you will decide possible threat or no threat. Had I felt there was a continuing threat, I would have taken the 2nd shot,
and this whole event would have had a different outcome entirely.
I simply posted a true, factual event and the eventual outcome. For me it's past history. I don't dwell on it.

Plus 1 to you Sir. You provided your actions for us to peruse and for that, I for one thank you. I believe that when I come home or if I go outside and see someone breaking into my vehicle or any of my other property, I would probably react. I go outside, armed always, often to protect my property from coyotes, possums and such. So depending on that thief's/soon to be thief's actions these will probably dictate my actions. But unlike some I like my property and don't intend to give it away to others and I do believe my property, that I have sweated for is worth double the life of a thief. I cannot abide a thief. Most if not all rapists/murderers start out by small robberies that quickly move to home break ins and then to rape/murder. I don't believe I would chase someone down the road, but that is just me and how I am wired or perhaps I am just older or lazier. So, I guess if someone is stealing from me, puts my property down and then runs away, this thing, whom I refuse to give humanity to, could probably get away with it.

As I said the last time I posted on this, I'm not a wealthy guy. I cannot afford to just keep a good lawyer on retainer, cooling his heels waiting to defend me against some overzealous ADA who's gunning for me to make a name for himself. I have renters insurance...if someone were to make off with my property, most of it anyway, I would call the police, make a report, get a copy of said report, and file a claim. A lawyer to defend me against an ADA trying to make me, a law-abiding guy, look like a monster would cost me a heck of a lot more. I like my property, too...but I like being a free man without huge credit card debt better. Each person has to make the decision at the time of whatever incident occurring. Training can assist with that decision making process, no doubt.

[bilgerat57]

A few more neighbors like yourself would make me a much happier homeowner. I am quite sure that the thief in question will not be inclined to visit your locale any time in the near future also. It is fortunate that things ended up the way they did (as far as nobody got hurt, etc), it keeps the regrets away at night and it's much cheaper financially. With any luck at all, you'll never have to encounter another situation like this again.

[Bob in Big D]

After reading thru the whole thread I just want to add one thing that you need to think about before anyone goes chasing a bg down the street. You may be running into an ambush if his buddy's are waiting for him to come back with the loot he has stolen. While this worked out very well for you this time, it may not work out quite as well if there are two or three other bg's waiting in the get away car down the block.