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

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

So if the homeowner knew that the items in his shed were worth less than $1,500 the failure to report statute might not apply (no underlying felony offense).

Still seems like a bad idea to go back to bed instead of immediately calling 911, IMHO.

[LeonCarr]

I updated my previous post.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[narcissist]

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

Good to know it's $1500.00, could of sworn it was over $500 maybe I was thinking about fraud with checks?? I agree he should have called 911, no doubt about it.

[DynamicDan]

Well, firing a shot where you don't know where it went could be a problem if it hit an innocent person.

[ELB]

...
So if the homeowner knew that the items in his shed were worth less than $1,500 the failure to report statute might not apply (no underlying felony offense).

But if the stuff in his shed was less than the felony level of $1500 then shooting at the burglar could not be justified even if all the other elements are there. And using deadly force against someone is more than the Class A misdemeanor the failure to report violation would get him.

[Mike S]

...
So if the homeowner knew that the items in his shed were worth less than $1,500 the failure to report statute might not apply (no underlying felony offense).

But if the stuff in his shed was less than the felony level of $1500 then shooting at the burglar could not be justified even if all the other elements are there. And using deadly force against someone is more than the Class A misdemeanor the failure to report violation would get him.

TPC 9.42 has no requirement for any dollar amount of potential loss to theft at night, or burglary.

[oljames3]

Attorney Andrew Branca shares his thoughts on this case:
https://lawofselfdefense.com/murder-man ... ing-thief/
< Paywalled after 3 days >

While Meyer going back to bed is bizarre behavior that leads every headline on this story, is it the major evidence supporting a murder charge? Are there other facts in this case that undermine his claim of lawful self-defense and (likely in Texas) deadly force defense of property?

[Terry]

...
So if the homeowner knew that the items in his shed were worth less than $1,500 the failure to report statute might not apply (no underlying felony offense).

But if the stuff in his shed was less than the felony level of $1500 then shooting at the burglar could not be justified even if all the other elements are there. And using deadly force against someone is more than the Class A misdemeanor the failure to report violation would get him.

TPC 9.42 has no requirement for any dollar amount of potential loss to theft at night, or burglary.

Maybe the whole went back to bed is made up then? He shot the guy at 7 am when it wasn't nighttime, called 911 and said that he shot him 2 hours prior thinking this would give him the nighttime defense...

[03Lightningrocks]

If he did fire one last parting shot into the darkness after the bad guy ran, that would be the shot that got him charged with murder.

[WildBill]

If he did fire one last parting shot into the darkness after the bad guy ran, that would be the shot that got him charged with murder.

There are different accounts I have read that the burglar dropped the pickax before the first shot and ran away - that would
mean the threat was gone. No property was taken so the shooting was not justified. Definitely the second shot was after the burglar
was unarmed and running away, he not a threat. I also read that at around 7AM the homeowner saw something [dead body] in a field
behind the house. I also read another account where they said the body was in his backyard. Also read that he had a shotgun and other
story that he had a pistol. Very confusing.

I saw a couple interviews with the neighbors - one of them said they had been robbed three times and had to put a metal fence around the house.
Probably the homeowner was tired having so much crime in the neighborhood.

[K.Mooneyham]

If he did fire one last parting shot into the darkness after the bad guy ran, that would be the shot that got him charged with murder.

There are different accounts I have read that the burglar dropped the pickax before the first shot and ran away - that would
mean the threat was gone. No property was taken so the shooting was not justified. Definitely the second shot was after the burglar
was unarmed and running away, he not a threat. I also read that at around 7AM the homeowner saw something [dead body] in a field
behind the house. I also read another account where they said the body was in his backyard. Also read that he had a shotgun and other
story that he had a pistol. Very confusing.

I saw a couple interviews with the neighbors - one of them said they had been robbed three times and had to put a metal fence around the house.
Probably the homeowner was tired having so much crime in the neighborhood.

For anyone who reads this, I am not condoning the actions of the homeowner with my next statement. However, IMHO, if crime rates rise, and people feel that law enforcement and the legal system aren't doing enough to create a secure society, and indeed, create conditions favorable for criminals,some of those people begin to resort to "handling things themselves". I do NOT intend that as a dig against police, either, but merely as an observation. I am reminded of Bernie Goetz.

[03Lightningrocks]

If he did fire one last parting shot into the darkness after the bad guy ran, that would be the shot that got him charged with murder.

There are different accounts I have read that the burglar dropped the pickax before the first shot and ran away - that would
mean the threat was gone. No property was taken so the shooting was not justified. Definitely the second shot was after the burglar
was unarmed and running away, he not a threat. I also read that at around 7AM the homeowner saw something [dead body] in a field
behind the house. I also read another account where they said the body was in his backyard. Also read that he had a shotgun and other
story that he had a pistol. Very confusing.

I saw a couple interviews with the neighbors - one of them said they had been robbed three times and had to put a metal fence around the house.
Probably the homeowner was tired having so much crime in the neighborhood.

For anyone who reads this, I am not condoning the actions of the homeowner with my next statement. However, IMHO, if crime rates rise, and people feel that law enforcement and the legal system aren't doing enough to create a secure society, and indeed, create conditions favorable for criminals,some of those people begin to resort to "handling things themselves". I do NOT intend that as a dig against police, either, but merely as an observation. I am reminded of Bernie Goetz.

I can understand this as well. We have had one rash of car burglaries in the 25 plus years of living here and I spent three months after that scoping the hood every night. I can only imagine the frustration of living in a neighborhood that has out of control thefts. I might consider shooting a thief myself in that situation. His only mistake in my mind was not calling the cops and reporting he had shot to defend his property as soon as it happened. Many of these young thugs have no value for life. The thought of the thug coming back for revenge might just cross my mind as he ran into the dark. This particular thug won't be coming back for revenge. That is a good thing.

[oljames3]

Attorney Andrew Branca discusses this incident. Join his blog at the FREE Bronze level to view. 10/2/19 is the last day to view for free.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/murder-man ... ing-thief/

It’s this second shot that profoundly undermines his justification defense. It cannot be justified as self-defense, because the thief had dropped his weapon and was in flight from the scene. There was no longer an imminent deadly force threat against Meyer, and he should have recognized as much.

It also cannot be justified under §9.42. In order to do so the second shot must meet the conditions of either paragraph (2)(a) or (2)(b).

[03Lightningrocks]

Attorney Andrew Branca discusses this incident. Join his blog at the FREE Bronze level to view. 10/2/19 is the last day to view for free.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/murder-man ... ing-thief/

It’s this second shot that profoundly undermines his justification defense. It cannot be justified as self-defense, because the thief had dropped his weapon and was in flight from the scene. There was no longer an imminent deadly force threat against Meyer, and he should have recognized as much.

It also cannot be justified under §9.42. In order to do so the second shot must meet the conditions of either paragraph (2)(a) or (2)(b).

I figured that was the reason for the murder charges.