Homeowner shoots man breaking into his shed

[OnceFired]

Where is there any indication he was shooting the burglar through the fence?

Correct me if I missed it, but all the home owner said was that he hit the guy 3 times "as he was leaving." It doesn't say how many times he fired, or where from. Any holes in the fence could easily have been made while the burglar was inside the yard, and if the homeowner missed. Heck, depending on how he hit the perp, even a hit may have made the hole(s)

The HOA can take a flying leap. Where were they when he was being burglarized? Where were they the previous occasions when this man AND his neighbors were being victimized. Clearly the HOA has done such a great job of protecting the community that this owner had to invest in his own security with his own money, time, and effort. This guy has been in the neighborhood for 13 years, and through his actions has prevented three burglaries there that we know of. I'd say he's really looking out for the community, and the HOA should be holding a BBQ in his honor instead.

ZA

[texanjoker]

I have some issues with this story:
1) What does it matter if he had a CHL? It was his property

Now for the bad part of this.
2) I dont think this was a good shoot. The BG was not armed and not breaking into the guys house. I thought it had to be your house or, if after dark, your vehicle.

At nighttime you can shoot a thief, even if they are trying to escape. However, this sounds like a burglary, so he could shoot him 24/7. This seems to be a common misperception on this board. It is perfectly legal to shoot someone who is trying to escape after attempting to steal property.

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.

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault;

IMO we again get into the area of what may be legal vs. what is the ethical thing to do. I am not going to shoot some dude running AWAY from my shed. Just my 2 cents.

[OnceFired]

I hear your point on ethical vs legal, and I respect that.

How would you feel if he was running "out" with whatever prized possession you store in the shed? How about with your 5' crowbar which is easily useful as a weapon? My guess is the owner was pretty close to the golden LEO 21' distance away from the perp here. Can you make the decision fast enough about your ethical hesitation to save yourself should he decide to step one way vs the other?

I buy my firearms primarily to protect both my family & my property. I don't go looking for opportunities to shoot people. In fact I avoid these scenarios through disciplined awareness, and certainly apply continuous effort to disengage from them when not on my property. But, I wouldn't have an issue shooting / killing someone who was stealing my property, let alone intending to or actually taking action to harm my family. In this case, the burglar made his decision to deprive the victim of his clear ownership rights, and I would make my counterpoint toward such a burglar if the time comes for me.

Let's be clear - burglary is violent. It is a penetrative, dehumanizing violation designed specifically to destroy someone else's life in order to enrich another. When someone is on my property being violent, all quibbling or moral quandries about resolving the encounter via use of a firearm goes right out the door. I will defend what is mine.

ZA

[RPBrown]

Where is there any indication he was shooting the burglar through the fence?

Correct me if I missed it, but all the home owner said was that he hit the guy 3 times "as he was leaving." It doesn't say how many times he fired, or where from. Any holes in the fence could easily have been made while the burglar was inside the yard, and if the homeowner missed. Heck, depending on how he hit the perp, even a hit may have made the hole(s)

The HOA can take a flying leap. Where were they when he was being burglarized? Where were they the previous occasions when this man AND his neighbors were being victimized. Clearly the HOA has done such a great job of protecting the community that this owner had to invest in his own security with his own money, time, and effort. This guy has been in the neighborhood for 13 years, and through his actions has prevented three burglaries there that we know of. I'd say he's really looking out for the community, and the HOA should be holding a BBQ in his honor instead.

ZA

This was in the story itself:
"The homeowner said he told the alleged burglar to stop. That's when the alleged burglar dropped the equipment and jumped the fence to an alley. The homeowner said he fired several rounds and hit the man."

[bdickens]

I've got no problems at all.

Maybe - just maybe - if more thugs got shot while perpetrating their thuggery they'd start getting the message that being a thug presents a greatly increased risk of sustaining serious injury or death.

[baldeagle]

IMO we again get into the area of what may be legal vs. what is the ethical thing to do. I am not going to shoot some dude running AWAY from my shed. Just my 2 cents.

I have no problem with individuals making ethical or moral shoot/no shoot decisions. I just want to make sure that readers know that the law does authorize them to shoot fleeing burglars, regardless of the moral or ethical ramifications.

As a police officer you are held to a higher standard, I believe. I don't think officers can, by policy, shoot fleeing suspects. However, the law authorizes citizens to do so when they observe illegal acts that fall within the scope of deadly force law, and that is what readers should know. Making the conscious decision to ignore the law and not shoot is an individual one and would never be criticized by me.

[OnceFired]

The story I just read says...

Police said the homeowner woke up to his storage shed’s alarm going off. The homeowner, armed with a .45-caliber handgun, went out to his yard. He told police he spotted Johnson leaving the shed with two of his weed eaters, so he fired six times at Johnson, who then jumped the fence and fled, police said.

So, the perp was exiting the shed (not the yard) and homeowner fired. Then the burglar ran. Note this was not the original story I read (which was more vague) but it does reinforce my point.

And, it also provides more clarity on how the rounds went through the fence. He declared to have hit the perp in 3 places, but fired 6 times. Unless he hit the same 3 places multiple times, he missed as many as 3 times.

ZA

[Panda]

I am not going to shoot some dude running AWAY from my shed. Just my 2 cents.

Would you mind posting your address so I can tell burglars to take their business where its safer for them?

[texanjoker]

I am not going to shoot some dude running AWAY from my shed. Just my 2 cents.

Would you mind posting your address so I can tell burglars to take their business where its safer for them?

Safer? I have a police k9 in my back yard and will go after any thief. I just won't shoot somebody in the back that is running away over a weedwacker. If you want to, have at it. Let us know how it works out for you.

[RPBrown]

The story I just read says...

Police said the homeowner woke up to his storage shed’s alarm going off. The homeowner, armed with a .45-caliber handgun, went out to his yard. He told police he spotted Johnson leaving the shed with two of his weed eaters, so he fired six times at Johnson, who then jumped the fence and fled, police said.

So, the perp was exiting the shed (not the yard) and homeowner fired. Then the burglar ran. Note this was not the original story I read (which was more vague) but it does reinforce my point.

And, it also provides more clarity on how the rounds went through the fence. He declared to have hit the perp in 3 places, but fired 6 times. Unless he hit the same 3 places multiple times, he missed as many as 3 times.

ZA

I was going by the original story that said the perp jumped the fence then the homeowner shot. If he had clear line of site then I don't have a problem with the shoot.

[OnceFired]

I think you're referring to this point in the OP linked story:

The homeowner said he told the alleged burglar to stop. That's when the alleged burglar dropped the equipment and jumped the fence to an alley. The homeowner said he fired several rounds and hit the man.

But that doesn't provide a timeline, nor a direction of shooting, nor even a distance between the men. That was the point I was trying to make - the info was vague, at best. It's also evidence of sloppy reporting - the attention to detail is quite lacking, and the implied timeline is misleading at a minimum.

ZA

[probation_officer]

IMO we again get into the area of what may be legal vs. what is the ethical thing to do. I am not going to shoot some dude running AWAY from my shed. Just my 2 cents.

I have no problem with individuals making ethical or moral shoot/no shoot decisions. I just want to make sure that readers know that the law does authorize them to shoot fleeing burglars, regardless of the moral or ethical ramifications.

As a police officer you are held to a higher standard, I believe. I don't think officers can, by policy, shoot fleeing suspects. However, the law authorizes citizens to do so when they observe illegal acts that fall within the scope of deadly force law, and that is what readers should know. Making the conscious decision to ignore the law and not shoot is an individual one and would never be criticized by me.

Case law is boring and I only remember this specifically because I wrote a paper on it in a criminal law class.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

[Deltaboy]

Good shooting and one less thug on the street.