TX: Dallas man goes back to bed after shooting burglar.

[ScottDLS]

Just guessing, but it is likely that the physical evidence was inconsistent with what the man told police. This, combined with the delay in reporting, and the suggested tampering with evidence, might be enough for the investigators to doubt his story of self defense. Don’t buy the “hero” a trophy, just yet.

This.

I’d like to believe this is the case. With only the evidence reported in the article Murder is way overcharging. Even stupid leftist DA’s like Dallas County’s hate losing at trial.

[03Lightningrocks]

Maybe he went back to bed because he was simply tired and not ready to get up yet. I have done this myself. Wake up early, mess around a bit, fire off a few rounds in the back yard and then gone back to bed.

[WildBill]

Here's another twist to the story which explains more of why the suspect was charged with murder. The article also states that the homeowner was armed with a shotgun.

The wife of a Dallas man charged in the fatal shooting of someone they thought was a burglar contacted a lawyer before the husband
called 911 to report a home invasion, according to police documents. Meyer said he fired an additional shot "into the night" in the direction
of the park, even though "from the suspect's accounts, the threat of serious bodily injury against him was over when the complainant
dropped the pickax and ran off," the affidavit said.

Meyer, who said he didn't know whether he'd shot anyone, went back to bed. He got up around 7 a.m. Thursday and thought he saw "a black bag"
in the park. Upon closer inspection, he found the man's body.

https://www.wptv.com/news/national/wife ... pect-death

[narcissist]

I’m figuring this falls under the “your involved in a car accident that was not your fault, but you drive off and fail to render aid”.

The burglar’s injuries may have not been fatal, but failure to report it to the police in a timely manner, caused him to die.

I also suspect he may have said things to the police that caused him to be charged.

Render aid, didnt think you had to do that expecially if not trained. If you were to do something wrong you would be held accountable? Sued and who knows what else but I'm not sure?

[Flightmare]

I’m figuring this falls under the “your involved in a car accident that was not your fault, but you drive off and fail to render aid”.

The burglar’s injuries may have not been fatal, but failure to report it to the police in a timely manner, caused him to die.

I also suspect he may have said things to the police that caused him to be charged.

Render aid, didnt think you had to do that expecially if not trained. If you were to do something wrong you would be held accountable? Sued and who knows what else but I'm not sure?

Good Samaritan laws protect you from being held liable trying to genuinely render aid.

[ELB]

I dont' think there is a requirement to render aid to someone that threatened you and "paid" for it.

I would not be surprised if there is a legal requirement to report a felony if you are somehow involved in it.

<search>
Ah ha!

[Penal Code Chapter 38] Sec. 38.171. FAILURE TO REPORT FELONY. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted; and

(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in which:

(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported; and

(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.


Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... /PE.38.htm

[Soccerdad1995]

I dont' think there is a requirement to render aid to someone that threatened you and "paid" for it.

I would not be surprised if there is a legal requirement to report a felony if you are somehow involved in it.

<search>
Ah ha!

[Penal Code Chapter 38] Sec. 38.171. FAILURE TO REPORT FELONY. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted; and

(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in which:

(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported; and

(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.


Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... /PE.38.htm

If he thought he had missed the perp, then it seems like condition (1) above would not be met, since he would not reasonably believe that serious bodily injury or death may have resulted from the crime. Also, if the items in his shed were not very valuable (for example, say the shed was empty), then there may not have been an underlying felony at all, or the man, not being a lawyer, may not have reasonably believed that the crime rose to the level of a felony. It seems like there could be a number of defenses on the misdemeanor charge.

But, given the murder charge, I am also assuming that there is more to this than just a delay in calling 911.

[ELB]

If he didn't KNOW he missed the perp, then I think (1) is met. It says "may have resulted" in SBI or death.

But it does sound like he has bigger problems that that.

[Soccerdad1995]

If he didn't KNOW he missed the perp, then I think (1) is met. It says "may have resulted" in SBI or death.

But it does sound like he has bigger problems that that.

Good point. I was following the logic tree of A) reasonably believed he missed; then B) if he missed there is no reasonable likelihood of serious bodily injury or death. It would be an interesting question for the jury, but is probably a moot point as there should be some other actual evidence of murder here (given the charges) which would trump the Class A misdemeanor charge.

[DocV]

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/09/29/pol ... d-burglar/

When officers responded to Meyer’s call in the 5400 block of Philip Avenue, they found the unidentified suspect in the backyard, face down on the ground with a gunshot wound to the back of his neck. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Hmmmm....

[ELB]

Slightly OT, and I've argued this before- Good Samaritian is not legal protection if you are involved in the causing of the injury (-ies). If you shoot them, the minute you touch them to "render aid", you are in the position of being required to prove that what you do after that point does not result in the subsequent SBI/Death. Tough enough to do in a malpractice case, without being cast as having a "vested interest" in making sure there is only one version of events. It very much goes along with notifying the authorities as soon as reasonably possible.

That's an interesting point.

[Caliber]

Slightly OT, and I've argued this before- Good Samaritian is not legal protection if you are involved in the causing of the injury (-ies). If you shoot them, the minute you touch them to "render aid", you are in the position of being required to prove that what you do after that point does not result in the subsequent SBI/Death. Tough enough to do in a malpractice case, without being cast as having a "vested interest" in making sure there is only one version of events. It very much goes along with notifying the authorities as soon as reasonably possible.

I think your example needs some clarification. Here's the section you're referring to:

(e) Except as provided by this subsection, this section does not apply to a person whose negligent act or omission was a producing cause of the emergency for which care is being administered. This subsection does not apply to liability of a school district or district school officer or employee arising from an act or omission under a program or practice or procedure developed under Subchapter G, Chapter 38, Education Code, other than liability arising from wilful or intentional misconduct.

I would not consider a justified self defense shooting a "negligent act or omission" and it would have to be for the section above to apply. However, a negligent discharge that caused injury would be subject to the section above. Agree....disagree?

[Soccerdad1995]

Slightly OT, and I've argued this before- Good Samaritian is not legal protection if you are involved in the causing of the injury (-ies). If you shoot them, the minute you touch them to "render aid", you are in the position of being required to prove that what you do after that point does not result in the subsequent SBI/Death. Tough enough to do in a malpractice case, without being cast as having a "vested interest" in making sure there is only one version of events. It very much goes along with notifying the authorities as soon as reasonably possible.

I think your example needs some clarification. Here's the section you're referring to:

(e) Except as provided by this subsection, this section does not apply to a person whose negligent act or omission was a producing cause of the emergency for which care is being administered. This subsection does not apply to liability of a school district or district school officer or employee arising from an act or omission under a program or practice or procedure developed under Subchapter G, Chapter 38, Education Code, other than liability arising from wilful or intentional misconduct.

I would not consider a justified self defense shooting a "negligent act or omission" and it would have to be for the section above to apply. However, a negligent discharge that caused injury would be subject to the section above. Agree....disagree?

That's a pretty huge exception, IMHO. Consider the fairly common situation of a traffic accident. If only two vehicles are involved and you are not in an urban area, the only one available to render aid might be the other driver. And if he/she is at fault for the accident, it seems like they would not be covered by this law.

[LeonCarr]

Truthfully I think he should have called cops at the moment he saw someone fiddling with his shed lock & stayed in the house. Having a weapon is no reason to get out of the house & confront. I’ve heard of courage in a bottle but there is also courage in a barrel. Shoot over what? A lawn mower? A car? All that stuff will end up in a junk yard one day. Why kill over that? Why take a human life over some property? Just because the law allows it doesn’t make it right. Stay inside, and protect yourself if the person attempts to intrude your home. Some people need to consider what the firearm is for. It’s for the protection of life.

In no way or shape or form do I agree with you at all. If some/anyone is on my property trying to break into something and has a weapon, im going to take my best Defense Weapon and if need be put it to use.

A lawn mover is most the time worth over 500 dollars aka: felony amout of theft and he had a deadly weapon, you dont know if the guy had other smaller safes/cheap ones that the guy could of got ahold of. The circumstances of "whats" in that shed could of made it even worse but who knows.

Guns are also for protection of property also bye the way. As [ 03Lightningrocks ] said this guy needs a award. I'm thinking of buying him one, something like the world cup but not in pure silver im to cheep. Or maybe comisari if he is convicted.

Felony Theft starts at 1500 dollars. The offense occurred before sunrise so 9.42(2)(A) applies:

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.

He still should have called 911.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr