TexasCHLforum.com

http://abc13.com/news/homeowner-in-unde ... t/1352186/

Found this on another forum I frequent...Thought I would share

Thanks for sharing.

My first thought would be to go check it out as well. My wife would want me to call the police and just make sure he doesn't come inside.

Teague appears to have bumped into the doorbell on the gate while trying to get inside.

"Then I heard something hitting the garage," George said.


Teague hit the garage with his fists, and then he opened the mailbox next to the garage and rifled through George's mail.

George then ran outside wearing only his underwear and held Teague at gunpoint.

Holding an intruder at gunpoint; generally a bad idea, or case by case basis?

I think that it's probably generally a bad idea to try to hold someone under arrest like this, however in this situation I would probably be inclined to do what this guy did. If you've got the BG under control then keep him till the cops arrive. I don't want to shoot, but you have to be ready to if needed. You also don't want to let him go and rob the neighbors or potentially come back with weapons and/or backup.

Trespassing on MY property and going through MY things at night... I'd have held him at gunpoint too. I definitely would not have let him just go on his way and if you don't hold him at gunpoint, then you better be well versed in some hand to hand combat. Because he isn't just gonna hang around for the cops to show up.

Had he not had a gun, this guy might just have attacked him on the spot when almost naked guy came out to inspect what's going on. And if he's on drugs, and you don't have a weapon, you might not stand a chance... depending on the drugs he's on.

Ryan wrote:Trespassing on MY property and going through MY things at night... I'd have held him at gunpoint too. I definitely would not have let him just go on his way and if you don't hold him at gunpoint, then you better be well versed in some hand to hand combat. Because he isn't just gonna hang around for the cops to show up.

Had he not had a gun, this guy might just have attacked him on the spot when almost naked guy came out to inspect what's going on. And if he's on drugs, and you don't have a weapon, you might not stand a chance... depending on the drugs he's on.

If you tell him to "Freeze" but he turns and runs, then what do you do?

You can't shoot in self-defense if he's running away, right? You could chase him and try to hold him down, but I think that you're best decision is to let him run, then tell the cops which way he went and how they might be able to find and identify him.

Lots of self control will be required. What happens will depend on the bad guys desire to live and belief that you would actually shoot him if he moves or leaves the scene. I think it would be a monumentally poor idea to shoot someone that didn't freeze and just left without taking anything with them. If he comes at you I think you'd be okay in shooting to defend yourself.

allisji wrote:If you tell him to "Freeze" but he turns and runs, then what do you do?

You can't shoot in self-defense if he's running away, right? You could chase him and try to hold him down, but I think that you're best decision is to let him run, then tell the cops which way he went and how they might be able to find and identify him.

If he were to turn and run then yes, I would let him go and let cops handle it from there. As long as his direction of choice was not running straight at me.

But I would never confront someone in this type of situation without being armed. And no, there would be no chasing.

Read TX PC 9.42 regarding what is legal.

Thanks for posting this.

Here's a few immediate observations (& possible teaching points gleaned in parentheses) from the video & article:

1. Homeowners had a security camera overwatching the entrance. (They had somewhat of an idea what was happening, & there was only one visible perp.)

2. Homeowner made decision to respond by going outside to confront perp. Not mentioned in the reporting is who called the police; I'd assume since the husband was busy outside that the wife made the call to police. (Delineation of tasks; lots of stimuli for the mind to process under stress, with little wiggle room for error. However, if wife made the call from inside house it may have been difficult to relay dispatcher's instructions to her husband; IE, "officers are on scene, make sure your husband puts his gun down before they approach")

3. Husband stayed 'inside' of the closed gate while issuing commands to the intoxicated guy. (Good use of an obstacle between him & threat. However, if threat had been armed with a gun, gate wouldn't have offered much protection).

4. Husband seems to have put his gun down before officers approached. (Good job; never greet the responding officers with a gun in your hand; you will be the immediate threat that needs to be dealt with).

Just a few of my observations, for what it's worth.

That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

As I read it I was thinking about the garage door intruder story that you posted a while back. Noticed that this guy happened to be in the Rice Military area and that the BG was banging on the garage door when caught.

One could assume that he was trying to gain entry into the garage, and possibly into the home. It sounds like the homeowner would have been justified in the use of lethal force. At best this guy was committing criminal mischief on his property at night.

allisji wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

As I read it I was thinking about the garage door intruder story that you posted a while back. Noticed that this guy happened to be in the Rice Military area and that the BG was banging on the garage door when caught.

One could assume that he was trying to gain entry into the garage, and possibly into the home. It sounds like the homeowner would have been justified in the use of lethal force. At best this guy was committing criminal mischief on his property at night.

I'd disagree on this, at least from what's been disclosed so far. The security camera video only showed the drunk guy banging his fist on the garage door a couple times; I find it unlikely that would qualify as "unlawfully with force entering, or attempting to enter unlawfully with force" an "occupied dwelling". This may have met the presumption of reasonableness in the Texas Penal Code if he had been attempting to kick in the front door or otherwise gain entry, but I seriously doubt banging on the garage door a couple of times would.

And for Criminal Mischief, some monetary damage must be made. Unless there's damage to the property (garage door or mail box hanging on the wall), it would likely be a stretch to find the justification under "to prevent Criminal Mischief at night". The end of the news report stated that Federal charges wouldn't be sought for mail tampering since he rummaged through it without taking anything, & there was no damage to the mail box.

I'm not a lawyer, but there's quite a few on this forum who are or who have a solid foundation for the law. I'll defer to them if there's something i missed.

Mike S wrote:

allisji wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

As I read it I was thinking about the garage door intruder story that you posted a while back. Noticed that this guy happened to be in the Rice Military area and that the BG was banging on the garage door when caught.

One could assume that he was trying to gain entry into the garage, and possibly into the home. It sounds like the homeowner would have been justified in the use of lethal force. At best this guy was committing criminal mischief on his property at night.

I'd disagree on this, at least from what's been disclosed so far. The security camera video only showed the drunk guy banging his fist on the garage door a couple times; I find it unlikely that would qualify as "unlawfully with force entering, or attempting to enter unlawfully with force" an "occupied dwelling". This may have met the presumption of reasonableness in the Texas Penal Code if he had been attempting to kick in the front door or otherwise gain entry, but I seriously doubt banging on the garage door a couple of times would.

And for Criminal Mischief, some monetary damage must be made. Unless there's damage to the property (garage door or mail box hanging on the wall), it would likely be a stretch to find the justification under "to prevent Criminal Mischief at night". The end of the news report stated that Federal charges wouldn't be sought for mail tampering since he rummaged through it without taking anything, & there was no damage to the mail box.

I'm not a lawyer, but there's quite a few on this forum who are or who have a solid foundation for the law. I'll defer to them if there's something i missed.

That's interesting. So if lethal force wasn't justified then neither is the Threat of Lethal Force, right?

allisji wrote:

Mike S wrote:

allisji wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:That's a neighbor of mine, nice guy. Glad it worked out for him.

As I read it I was thinking about the garage door intruder story that you posted a while back. Noticed that this guy happened to be in the Rice Military area and that the BG was banging on the garage door when caught.

One could assume that he was trying to gain entry into the garage, and possibly into the home. It sounds like the homeowner would have been justified in the use of lethal force. At best this guy was committing criminal mischief on his property at night.

I'd disagree on this, at least from what's been disclosed so far. The security camera video only showed the drunk guy banging his fist on the garage door a couple times; I find it unlikely that would qualify as "unlawfully with force entering, or attempting to enter unlawfully with force" an "occupied dwelling". This may have met the presumption of reasonableness in the Texas Penal Code if he had been attempting to kick in the front door or otherwise gain entry, but I seriously doubt banging on the garage door a couple of times would.

And for Criminal Mischief, some monetary damage must be made. Unless there's damage to the property (garage door or mail box hanging on the wall), it would likely be a stretch to find the justification under "to prevent Criminal Mischief at night". The end of the news report stated that Federal charges wouldn't be sought for mail tampering since he rummaged through it without taking anything, & there was no damage to the mail box.

I'm not a lawyer, but there's quite a few on this forum who are or who have a solid foundation for the law. I'll defer to them if there's something i missed.

That's interesting. So if lethal force wasn't justified then neither is the Threat of Lethal Force, right?

TPC 9.04, Threats as Justifiable Force, only requires that 'force' be justified; therefore I don't see a problem with the homeowner in this case showing his firearm in order to "cause apprehension that he would use deadly force if needed". Force is justified in order to prevent or eject a trespasser (force, NOT deadly force), and I believe that's what the news said the drunk/drugged guy would be charged with.