Cedar Hill couple reeling months after shooting intruder

[PUCKER]

Check out the below article. Seems the homeowner(s) were fully justified (both legally and morally in my eyes)...the fallout seems pretty harsh...this little tidbit is very telling: "we were banned from the local neighborhood watch"...Curious how those critical of these lawful homeowners would react to a drug-crazed lunatic breaking into their home...the neighborhood watch folks must be a real treat...

Cedar Hill couple reeling months after shooting intruder
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/da ... /18152545/

[RPBrown]

I do feel for the couple. I can only imagine what they must be going through.

On a side note and just my .02, I think that the mayor should have acknowledged that the shooting was not the fault of the couple. This may help with their grief somehow. Not sure, but it could. But instead they are saying the step sons life had meaning. Now, as I see it, all lives have meaning. However, it's all about what you want or think that meaning should be. In the case of the intruder in this incident, he thought his meaning was to get high and break into someone home.

[MechAg94]

Wow. Looking at that Mayor's statement, it appears his priorities are a bit off. It sounds to me like he didn't acknowledge that his son's life had gone downhill and still doesn't. I have no information, but I am thinking his step son was probably protected from the consequences of his actions up to that point. That would certainly seem to fit.

[carlson1]

I have always said (especially with my old occupation) I am bless to never have had to use my firearm. I pray that I never will have to shoot anyone.

[joe817]

I have always said (especially with my old occupation) I am bless to never have had to use my firearm. I pray that I never will have to shoot anyone.

Well put carlson1, I agree.

[StewNTexas]

It is my opinion that Carlson1 nailed it.

I cannot think of any person I know that would want to kill an intruder, but I also cannot think any of them would hesitate to do what was needed to protect his or her family.

While I understand the mayors statement, he is still a weasel.

[Rikk101]

I did not see whether the intruder was armed or not, but the story mentions a bullet hole in the blinds.
Sounds like the bullet may have passed through the intruder. In either case, armed or not, if someone breaks into your
home, he/she is asking to get shot.

[OldCurlyWolf]

I have always said (especially with my old occupation) I am bless to never have had to use my firearm. I pray that I never will have to shoot anyone.

Me too. I also once had an occupation where that possibility is higher than it now is.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The shooting was obviously justified, per TPC §9.32(b) and it was morally justified also. The fact that the burglar had PCP on board is also significant. Anyone who has dealt with someone on PCP knows that you aren't going to reason with them and they aren't going to follow instructions even if they are looking down the barrel of a cannon.

Chas.

[C-dub]

The shooting was obviously justified, per TPC §9.32(b) and it was morally justified also. The fact that the burglar had PCP on board is also significant. Anyone who has dealt with someone on PCP knows that you aren't going to reason with them and they aren't going to follow instructions even if they are looking down the barrel of a cannon.

Chas.

Charles, I'm sure it's significant from the frame of mind of the criminal, but wouldn't it be irrelevant from the standpoint of the homeowner since, while they may suspect something, they wouldn't really have any way of knowing that the person was hopped up on drugs or anything else?

I'm wondering about this from something else I think I remember from a jogger or hiker shooting someone else in self defense and having to defend themselves in court. They argued that the attacker had just killed someone else and came after them, but the defense argued that the shooter didn't have any way of knowing the prior record or act of the person they shot. Sketchy details, sorry. I'll see if I can find the incident I'm referring to.

[C-dub]

The Harold Fish case. Both of these shootings were justifiable, but I'm just curious about the significance of the aggressor being on PCP with regards to the defense of the homeowner for his actions.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The Harold Fish case. Both of these shootings were justifiable, but I'm just curious about the significance of the aggressor being on PCP with regards to the defense of the homeowner for his actions.

First, the homeowner is golden because of the TPC §9.32(b) presumption.

I mentioned the PCP issue only because someone on PCP is not going to comply with instructions, they are aggressive and they have superhuman strength. The homeowner didn't know he was on PCP, but that doesn't matter. PCP helps to explain why the burglar ignored the homeowner's instructions even when facing a gun. It bolsters the homeowner's statement of events.

While not relevant to this case, PCP like a prior history of violence could be an issue for defense, if one of the issues in trial is who was the aggressor. For example, if someone shoots another person on the street claiming it was self-defense, the fact that the attacker has a history of violence would be relevant, thus admissible, under two circumstances. First, if the shooter knew of their violent past, then it would be a factor in his reasonable belief that deadly force was immediately necessary. If the shooter/intended victim didn't know of the history of violence, it would not be admissible at trial to support the shooter's reasonable belief of immediately necessity. However, if one of the issues in trial is "who was the aggressor," then the issue of a past history of violence would be relevant and admissible.

Chas.

[C-dub]

The Harold Fish case. Both of these shootings were justifiable, but I'm just curious about the significance of the aggressor being on PCP with regards to the defense of the homeowner for his actions.

First, the homeowner is golden because of the TPC §9.32(b) presumption.

I mentioned the PCP issue only because someone on PCP is not going to comply with instructions, they are aggressive and they have superhuman strength. The homeowner didn't know he was on PCP, but that doesn't matter. PCP helps to explain why the burglar ignored the homeowner's instructions even when facing a gun. It bolsters the homeowner's statement of events.

While not relevant to this case, PCP like a prior history of violence could be an issue for defense, if one of the issues in trial is who was the aggressor. For example, if someone shoots another person on the street claiming it was self-defense, the fact that the attacker has a history of violence would be relevant, thus admissible, under two circumstances. First, if the shooter knew of their violent past, then it would be a factor in his reasonable belief that deadly force was immediately necessary. If the shooter/intended victim didn't know of the history of violence, it would not be admissible at trial to support the shooter's reasonable belief of immediately necessity. However, if one of the issues in trial is "who was the aggressor," then the issue of a past history of violence would be relevant and admissible.

Chas.

I see and that's what I was hoping. Thanks!

[carlson1]

On the PCP note...someone who uses PCP today can have an episode ten years from now.