WATAUGA, Texas - Home Invasion Suspect Shot

[knotquiteawake]

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/102811 ... on-Suspect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't help but wonder if dad knew that his son was having a "sleepover" that night... That would be quite the dramatic way to find out.

[Rex B]

Dad must be a sound sleeper.
Sounds like there was more to the story.

I'd sure like to have a private conversation with a Watauga LEO about that.
I'm just down the road in Keller

[RoyGBiv]

If I was doing a B&E, I certainly would not go to the guest bedroom first, unless I had a reason.
I cast my vote for "there's more to the story"

[Purplehood]

If I was doing a B&E, I certainly would not go to the guest bedroom first, unless I had a reason.
I cast my vote for "there's more to the story"

How does one conducting a B&E know what bedroom is which?

[RoyGBiv]

If I was doing a B&E, I certainly would not go to the guest bedroom first, unless I had a reason.
I cast my vote for "there's more to the story"

How does one conducting a B&E know what bedroom is which?

When you walk into a house, most any house, you don't know which door is the master BR usually?
Dunno... As I was typing, it seemed obvious... maybe I need more Sanka

[Purplehood]

If I was doing a B&E, I certainly would not go to the guest bedroom first, unless I had a reason.
I cast my vote for "there's more to the story"

How does one conducting a B&E know what bedroom is which?

When you walk into a house, most any house, you don't know which door is the master BR usually?
Dunno... As I was typing, it seemed obvious... maybe I need more Sanka

Or I need more experience at B&E!

[Rex B]

Well, it did say they had already ransacked the living area and had stolen possessions in hand.

[Anonymous123]

Theres more to it.
Homeowner possesed assault rifle of 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 caliber with criminal priors for drug possesions.
AK-47 or Mosin Nagant, possibly any other high calibered rifle.
The projectile entered through suspects chest through collar bone traveling in a sideways path and exited through right arm, blatantly showing that the suspect was standing sideways and did not turn to face the homeowner.
Son is well known drug dealer, extremely violent and dangerous.
IMO Castle law should be reamended to better suit special cases such as these, Criminal on Criminal crimes, no-one is innocent in this case.

[jmra]

Theres more to it.
Homeowner possesed assault rifle of 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 caliber with criminal priors for drug possesions.
AK-47 or Mosin Nagant, possibly any other high calibered rifle.
The projectile entered through suspects chest through collar bone traveling in a sideways path and exited through right arm, blatantly showing that the suspect was standing sideways and did not turn to face the homeowner.
Son is well known drug dealer, extremely violent and dangerous.
IMO Castle law should be reamended to better suit special cases such as these, Criminal on Criminal crimes, no-one is innocent in this case.

A very informative first post.

[MasterOfNone]

Theres more to it.
Homeowner possesed assault rifle of 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 caliber with criminal priors for drug possesions.
AK-47 or Mosin Nagant, possibly any other high calibered rifle.
The projectile entered through suspects chest through collar bone traveling in a sideways path and exited through right arm, blatantly showing that the suspect was standing sideways and did not turn to face the homeowner.
Son is well known drug dealer, extremely violent and dangerous.
IMO Castle law should be reamended to better suit special cases such as these, Criminal on Criminal crimes, no-one is innocent in this case.

Sounds like a Weaver or Chapman stance? And the homeowner could have shot while the thug was in the process of turning the gun on him.

[VMI77]

Theres more to it.
Homeowner possesed assault rifle of 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 caliber with criminal priors for drug possesions.
AK-47 or Mosin Nagant, possibly any other high calibered rifle.
The projectile entered through suspects chest through collar bone traveling in a sideways path and exited through right arm, blatantly showing that the suspect was standing sideways and did not turn to face the homeowner.
Son is well known drug dealer, extremely violent and dangerous.
IMO Castle law should be reamended to better suit special cases such as these, Criminal on Criminal crimes, no-one is innocent in this case.

Why? I don't see the logic in that. Are you saying if someone is a criminal and another criminal breaks into his home, he should have to let the criminal breaking in kill him, his family members, or visitors? Why should the criminal breaking in have more rights than the criminal living in the home? Furthermore, why should anyone else who happens to be in the home lose their right to self-defense because the resident is a "criminal?" He shouldn't be able to shoot someone who breaks in and may kill his child, or a neighbor? How are neighbors supposed to know the guy is a criminal? Are you saying that if I happen to be visiting a neighbor and I don't know he's a criminal I can be shot with impunity?

If the son is a known drug dealer who is extremely violent, why isn't he in prison? Also, if this guy is a criminal --convicted felon-- he can't legally possess a firearm --is he being charged for this? And if he's not a convicted felon, on what basis are you going to amend Castle Doctrine to exclude "criminals" from the right of self-defense? You going to include misdemeanors, arrests, charges, or suspicion, to define who is a criminal?

[MasterOfNone]

Theres more to it.
Homeowner possesed assault rifle of 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 caliber with criminal priors for drug possesions.
AK-47 or Mosin Nagant, possibly any other high calibered rifle.
The projectile entered through suspects chest through collar bone traveling in a sideways path and exited through right arm, blatantly showing that the suspect was standing sideways and did not turn to face the homeowner.
Son is well known drug dealer, extremely violent and dangerous.
IMO Castle law should be reamended to better suit special cases such as these, Criminal on Criminal crimes, no-one is innocent in this case.

Why? I don't see the logic in that. Are you saying if someone is a criminal and another criminal breaks into his home, he should have to let the criminal breaking in kill him, his family members, or visitors? Why should the criminal breaking in have more rights than the criminal living in the home? Furthermore, why should anyone else who happens to be in the home lose their right to self-defense because the resident is a "criminal?" He shouldn't be able to shoot someone who breaks in and may kill his child, or a neighbor? How are neighbors supposed to know the guy is a criminal? Are you saying that if I happen to be visiting a neighbor and I don't know he's a criminal I can be shot with impunity?

If the son is a known drug dealer who is extremely violent, why isn't he in prison? Also, if this guy is a criminal --convicted felon-- he can't legally possess a firearm --is he being charged for this? And if he's not a convicted felon, on what basis are you going to amend Castle Doctrine to exclude "criminals" from the right of self-defense? You going to include misdemeanors, arrests, charges, or suspicion, to define who is a criminal?

California-style "may issue" self-defense permits.

[VMI77]

Theres more to it.
Homeowner possesed assault rifle of 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 caliber with criminal priors for drug possesions.
AK-47 or Mosin Nagant, possibly any other high calibered rifle.
The projectile entered through suspects chest through collar bone traveling in a sideways path and exited through right arm, blatantly showing that the suspect was standing sideways and did not turn to face the homeowner.
Son is well known drug dealer, extremely violent and dangerous.
IMO Castle law should be reamended to better suit special cases such as these, Criminal on Criminal crimes, no-one is innocent in this case.

Why? I don't see the logic in that. Are you saying if someone is a criminal and another criminal breaks into his home, he should have to let the criminal breaking in kill him, his family members, or visitors? Why should the criminal breaking in have more rights than the criminal living in the home? Furthermore, why should anyone else who happens to be in the home lose their right to self-defense because the resident is a "criminal?" He shouldn't be able to shoot someone who breaks in and may kill his child, or a neighbor? How are neighbors supposed to know the guy is a criminal? Are you saying that if I happen to be visiting a neighbor and I don't know he's a criminal I can be shot with impunity?

If the son is a known drug dealer who is extremely violent, why isn't he in prison? Also, if this guy is a criminal --convicted felon-- he can't legally possess a firearm --is he being charged for this? And if he's not a convicted felon, on what basis are you going to amend Castle Doctrine to exclude "criminals" from the right of self-defense? You going to include misdemeanors, arrests, charges, or suspicion, to define who is a criminal?

California-style "may issue" self-defense permits.

Except he was referring to the Castle Doctrine, not concealed carry. To say you can't carry a weapon in public is one thing, to say you can't defend yourself, family members, or guests, in your own home is another. And in the case referred to, the poster referred to those living in the home as "criminals." He said the son is a known drug dealer and extremely violent. Well, if someone is a convicted felon, the distinction is easily made, but since neither is in jail, and since there are apparently no charges for illegal possession of a firearm, the shooter is apparently not a convicted felon. It's not clear from his post whether or not the son is a convicted felon. Therefore, to seek an amendment to the Castle Doctrine for a case like the one at issue would require some other definition of "criminal" than convicted felon --or it sounds that way based on the information provided.

Also, if one criminal kills another criminal, that doesn't really seem like a social problem that needs fixing to me....especially when the killing is in a private residence, not in public, and the fix may impair the ability of people who aren't criminals to defend themselves.

[Anonymous123]

On the topic of the stance, The news report says that, the suspect TURNED facing, and ill say it again, facing the homeowner, and by then he had chosen to shoot,.
Why I had brought this up is because, why does the owner feel the need to falsify this claim, trying to justify his right for self-defense, when he has it regardless according to castle doctrine.
Meaning the homeowner more than likely did not shout a warning, prior to releasing the first shot.
Being said, makes the situation more suspicious as to what information or details the homeowner is guarding
Felony/Drug Charges = No gun in Texas. He should not even possess a firearm,. Neither condone the selling of drugs out of his residence, HE IS AWARE, of what his son is doing.
The point of all this is, There is no SET bad guy, both partys are in the wrong, 16 year old with a handgun is someones home is wrong regardless, but why let the drug dealer duo son and father get the justice and glorification of self-defense in this story. I strongly believe that this was a drug deal gone wrong, I have clarified the information from a LEO that there was no sign of forced entry to the home. So the Castle Doctrine can justify the shooting/killing of anybody just if they're on your property? Especially if you're a drug dealer? That is a very illegitimate claim and the law should be discluded if you're conducting illegal activities KNOWING that what you're doing and you are AWARE that you're family is in danger at all times due to criminal conduct. So now due to The State of Texas, the 16 year old is going to face 2-99 prison time, for more than likely a mutual agreement gone sour, while the drug dealer and home owner will continue to orchestrate such events. Justice 0, Morality 0, Criminals 1. I'm 17 years old by the way

[Keith B]

On the topic of the stance, The news report says that, the suspect TURNED facing, and ill say it again, facing the homeowner, and by then he had chosen to shoot,.
Why I had brought this up is because, why does the owner feel the need to falsify this claim, trying to justify his right for self-defense, when he has it regardless according to castle doctrine.
Meaning the homeowner more than likely did not shout a warning, prior to releasing the first shot.
Being said, makes the situation more suspicious as to what information or details the homeowner is guarding
Felony/Drug Charges = No gun in Texas. He should not even possess a firearm,. Neither condone the selling of drugs out of his residence, HE IS AWARE, of what his son is doing.
The point of all this is, There is no SET bad guy, both partys are in the wrong, 16 year old with a handgun is someones home is wrong regardless, but why let the drug dealer duo son and father get the justice and glorification of self-defense in this story. I strongly believe that this was a drug deal gone wrong, I have clarified the information from a LEO that there was no sign of forced entry to the home. So the Castle Doctrine can justify the shooting/killing of anybody just if they're on your property? Especially if you're a drug dealer? That is a very illegitimate claim and the law should be discluded if you're conducting illegal activities KNOWING that what you're doing and you are AWARE that you're family is in danger at all times due to criminal conduct. So now due to The State of Texas, the 16 year old is going to face 2-99 prison time, for more than likely a mutual agreement gone sour, while the drug dealer and home owner will continue to orchestrate such events. Justice 0, Morality 0, Criminals 1. I'm 17 years old by the way

So, which of your friends or relatives was this that got shot? You seem to have an awfully lot of information on this event. The homeowner was never charged with anything, so apprently they legally possesed the rifle.

Bottom line, if you break into someone's home to commit a crime, then they have the right to defend themselves. Period. No matter what their past history.