Texas Dad Shoots Peeping Tom

[jerry_r60]

Here is a new Texas case with several interesting components.
Peeping Tom
LTC Parents try to detain him but he doesn't comply and walks across the street to a gas station
LTC Mom and Dad follow and try to detain him there at gunpoint.
Guy takes gun from Mom.
Dad shoots him.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-dad-sh ... ter-window

[RSX11]

Well, I'm pretty sure we'll all agree - don't talk to the TV news team if you're ever involved in a shooting.

[carlson1]

When he left my property I would not have perused.

[philip964]

I have been told Peeping Tom gets the police there faster. I was told it’s like a secret code word.

I’m not sure I would detain someone inside my house if he wasn’t already wounded. Sounds really dangerous as this wife found out.

[cirus]

Its a shame he's still breathing and that the parents will probably do time.

[Middle Age Russ]

Outrage unfortunately sometimes leads to bad decisions and outcomes. In this case, it led to force escalation by the parents which may end up with very negative results.

[chamberc]

Outrage unfortunately sometimes leads to bad decisions and outcomes. In this case, it led to force escalation by the parents which may end up with very negative results.

Yep... morally they're right, but the pursuit resulted in the confrontation...

[ELB]

Among many other lessons: guns are distance weapons. Don't stand close if you don't really really have to.

[Mike S]

There's a "what would I do in this circumstance" element, of which each individual can say what they may or may not have done in response to someone sexually gratifying themselves outside of their 10 y.o. daughter's window.

However, regarding what the Texas Penal Code says may be allowed would need to be broken down into different categories:

Peeping Tom masturbating outside 10 y.o. girls window = Texas State Jail Felony. The sexual gratification element & victim under age of 14 y.o. elevates the Voyeurism charge from a Class C Misdemeanor up to a State Jail Felony (1). TPC allows for a citizens arrest when a felony or 'breach of the peace' is committed in a citizen's presence (2) (3). So, I would opine the parents had legal justification to apprehend this morally/mentally sick person until law enforcement arrived. Had the parents broke contact with the perp, then regained contact, this may had not been the case when he crossed the street to the Valero gas station. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have relevant case law & research assistants at my disposal.

(Deadly Force wouldn't have been necessarily justified at this point, unless to prevent a sexual assault, or if he had attempted to unlawfully and with force enter the home / remove the daughter from the home, or any of the other justifications covered under Chapter 9 of the TPC for self defense/defense of others/defense of property. However, the parents presentation of handguns may have been allowed as justifiable use of force under TPC 9.04, and not legally viewed as 'deadly force' (4).

If the parents still had legal justification to detain the sexual deviant at the gas station while waiting for police to arrive, I don't see the deviant having a legal justification for disarming the mother & pointing the gun at her. At this point, I see the father's use of deadly force fully justified under TPC 9.32/9.33.

But again, I'm not a lawyer, and the Harris Co prosecutor may have a different view on parents vs sexual predators.

Tactically, I would say there may be lessons to be learned. However, I'm not going to throw stones. The end state was successful in protection of the child, & apprehension of the perp.


(1). https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code ... 21-17.html

(2). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... /CR.14.htm

(3). https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code ... -9-51.html

(4). https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code ... -9-04.html

[jerry_r60]

It seems the DA applied some reason. The peeping Tom is the one who has been charged with "aggravated assult with a deadly weapon along with indecency with a child by exposer".

Another quote from the article: "The Fox 26 report said Ramos allegedly tried to pull the trigger on the wife, but the gun was on safety."

No mention of any charges against the parents.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/peeping-tom- ... ged-report

[C-dub]

If the parents are not charged they should consider themselves very lucky I think. Maybe rightfully so, but still lucky. They really messed up by following him. I can understand the emotions.

[Beiruty]

If the parents are not charged they should consider themselves very lucky I think. Maybe rightfully so, but still lucky. They really messed up by following him. I can understand the emotions.

Not necessary. The above analysis by Mike S is valid.

Note: A few years back, a father and son followed a person who threw bricks at their house and shot him dead outside their house and they were acquitted. They had a very good lawyer who argued Castle Doctrine and the possibility the attacker could return with deadly weapons.
Not advisable at all.