Homeowner kills 1, critically wounds another

[Paladin]

"June 27, 2005, 8:30AM

Homeowner kills 1, critically wounds another
By S.K. BARDWELL
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

A northeast Houston resident shot and killed one man and critically wounded another after reportedly catching them breaking into his house early today.

The man told police he returned to his house on Lakewood near Jensen just after 1 a.m. today and found four men trying to break in.

He opened fire on the would-be burglars, who fired back before fleeing to a house on Willie near Terrell, about a mile a way, authorities said.

One man died at the house on Willie and another man with gunshot wounds was taken to Ben Taub Hospital, where he is listed in critical condition. Neither of the victim's names has been released yet.

Police are still questioning the man who shot them."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp ... an/3242360

------------------------------------------------

Sounds like the Homeowner may have been a CHL

[stevie_d_64]

Interesting questions come to mind about this incident...

#1 Was the homeowner a CHL???

- the homeowner came home and made the discovery, meaning he probably had that firearm on him at the time...

- or if not, was carrying the firearm with him in not so legal a condition.

#2 Will the homeowner be charged with murder, because the homeowner came up on the situation, and therefore not be protected under the "self-defense" statute, his (homeowners) presense instigated the discharge of the alleged burgler(s) weapon(s) to stop the homeowner from impeading thier activities...

(sorry, my sarcasm seems to have run amok)

But seriously, this is a very likely senario that could happen to any of us...And those points seem to have failed to make the story as yet...

Just my 2 centavos...

[Paladin]

I have to say that I'd be in fear if I came home and saw four thugs breaking into my house at 1AM. We don't know if he had family inside the house.

Could be that the homeowner had a longgun or the handgun was in his trunk(maybe )

[Paladin]

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
~ ~ (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
~ ~ (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
~ (b) [added 9/1/95] The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like there's no requirement to retreat if the badguys are breaking into your house, even if you're outside the house.

[Jacob Staff]

#1 He did not have his handgun on him, he ran into the house to get it.

His wife and small children were in the house. He said this was at least the 6th time a similar incitent has happened at his home. He talks with the press in the video feed.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/062705 ... shoot.html

[ghentry]

I'm betting there's a good possibility he will get charged for muder since they were not in his house and did not present an imminent threat to him or his family as they were running away.

[gigag04]

I'm betting there's a good possibility he will get charged for muder since they were not in his house and did not present an imminent threat to him or his family as they were running away.

No sticking charges for him. Nighttime at his house. A texan has a defense to prosecution for a clean shoot on someone stealing a waterhouse after the sun has set.

Would I do it? Heck no. But...the law is the law - as long as its interepretation is not too twisted, he should be fine


-nick

[one eyed fatman]

He should have checked the rule book first. Shooting yellow bellied peckerwoods out of season may be against the law.

[ghentry]

The law doesn't say you can shoot someone on your property just because it's dark!

I didn't see anywhere where it said they took anything. Both articles state the men were outside and ran away. Of course the details here are too vague to know exactly what happened to make any real educated guess on how this will turn out.

[one eyed fatman]

First report I heard the bg's returned fire. But you know the news media, first the story than if necessary the truth.

[Chris]

Neither of the victim's names has been released yet.

how does someone armed with a firearm breaking into another person's home become a victim?

[gigag04]

The law doesn't say you can shoot someone on your property just because it's dark!

Yes it does:

§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.

(emphasis mine)

[one eyed fatman]

The law doesn't say you can shoot someone on your property just because it's dark!

I didn't see anywhere where it said they took anything. Both articles state the men were outside and ran away. Of course the details here are too vague to know exactly what happened to make any real educated guess on how this will turn out.

Beware ghentry! Reading a news story may have nothing to do with what really happened.

[txinvestigator]

The law doesn't say you can shoot someone on your property just because it's dark!

Yes it does:

§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.

(emphasis mine)

giga, you either did not read what you quoted, or you intentionally mislead.

You CANNOT use deadly force SIMPLY because someone is on your property after dark. You replied you could, then quoted a law that does not establish that. Do you really believe you can shoot someone who simply is on your property after dark?

Looking simply at what you posted, one must reasonably believe that the DF is immediately necessary to prevent the IMMINENT commission of a burglary.

How is a person running away in the imminent commission of a burglary?

Granted the article we read does not really give ANY facts, buts lets not misquote the law, and perhaps mislead someone.

[gigag04]

txinvestigator...


follow the arguments and please stop singling me out.

A northeast Houston resident shot and killed one man and critically wounded another after reportedly catching them breaking into his house early today.

The man told police he returned to his house on Lakewood near Jensen just after 1 a.m. today and found four men trying to break in.

He opened fire on the would-be burglars, who fired back before fleeing to a house on Willie near Terrell, about a mile a way, authorities said.

Then....

I'm betting there's a good possibility he will get charged for muder since they were not in his house and did not present an imminent threat to him or his family as they were running away.

I clarified by quoting the law loosely, in an example:

No sticking charges for him. Nighttime at his house. A texan has a defense to prosecution for a clean shoot on someone stealing a waterhouse after the sun has set.

Then in an apparent rebuttal (along with an exlaimation mark):

The law doesn't say you can shoot someone on your property just because it's dark!

He goes on to say that they weren't doing anything.....I will point you back up to my first quote from the chronicle.

So then I quoted the law. A misunderstanding...maybe.



Also - its not giga, as in a ghetto name...its gig ag....as in Texas Aggies.

-nick