Jan 15 - San Antonio Homeowner Shoots 2 Burglars

[rationality.rebooted]

"SAN ANTONIO -- A homeowner shot two men, killing one, when he heard someone breaking into his SUV.

It happened on Lightstone Drive near Stone Oak and Hardy Oak Boulevard shortly before 2 a.m. Police say the owner of a parked SUV heard someone attempting to break into it. That's when, according to police, he went outside and spotted someone inside his vehicle.

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Ho ... Lo1xw.cspx

[v-rog]

Good situational awareness for the home-owner. He had tough calls to make, but he carried through to the end.

[rationality.rebooted]

Good situational awareness for the home-owner. He had tough calls to make, but he carried through to the end.

Brave Rifles!

[johncanfield]

That was the lead story on KSAT (channel 12) this morning. One BG taking a dirt nap , the other in critical condition. I think they said the 25 year old GG fired 13 rounds.

[68blackbird]

I know we are not aware of all the details, but from what I learned in my CHL class, shooting the BG as he was trying to get away may put the victim in a potential hard spot "Pemberton then fired at the second man twice as he tried to get away in a Dodge Neon. The man, 37, drove a short distance before he crashed into a parked vehicle." Maybe because this happened at night it was justified? Kel

[rationality.rebooted]

I know we are not aware of all the details, but from what I learned in my CHL class, shooting the BG as he was trying to get away may put the victim in a potential hard spot "Pemberton then fired at the second man twice as he tried to get away in a Dodge Neon. The man, 37, drove a short distance before he crashed into a parked vehicle." Maybe because this happened at night it was justified? Kel

There are so few relevant details yet, but that did catch my eye as well. What helps his cause right now is the fact that he did shoot through the windshield, so the car was coming at him. If they can demonstrate that he feared that the man was using the vehicle as a weapon, it could make self-defense much easier to swallow.

[RX8er]

I know we are not aware of all the details, but from what I learned in my CHL class, shooting the BG as he was trying to get away may put the victim in a potential hard spot "Pemberton then fired at the second man twice as he tried to get away in a Dodge Neon. The man, 37, drove a short distance before he crashed into a parked vehicle." Maybe because this happened at night it was justified? Kel

IMO, he was justified.... IANAL but here you go, in the second paragraph:

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

[MikeInTX]

If he had insurance on the vehicle then in the second paragraph where it says "that the property cannot be recovered by any other means" could be bad news for him. Insurance being the "other means" that can be recovered.

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

[jerry_r60]

If he had insurance on the vehicle then in the second paragraph where it says "that the property cannot be recovered by any other means" could be bad news for him. Insurance being the "other means" that can be recovered.

It's splitting hairs but, insurance doesn't recover my property, it gives me the funds to replace it with new property. I really don't know if that matters, but was the thought that came to mind.

[JALLEN]

For a great many people, theft protection covers the bank, since what you owe is often close to what the car is worth.
For others, they own the car outright, don't carry anything but liability insurance required. No protection at all.

It is the unconsented removal from your lawful possession and control that is the gravamen of the crime, not the financial impact. What if you are a mere bailee, or agent, holding the property for someone else?

That shouldn't enter into it.

[sunny beach]

If he had insurance on the vehicle then in the second paragraph where it says "that the property cannot be recovered by any other means" could be bad news for him. Insurance being the "other means" that can be recovered.

Do you think having life insurance means you can't defend your life?

Like others said, insurance doesn't recover anything. It gives financial compensation for what is gone.

[MikeInTX]

If he had insurance on the vehicle then in the second paragraph where it says "that the property cannot be recovered by any other means" could be bad news for him. Insurance being the "other means" that can be recovered.

Do you think having life insurance means you can't defend your life?

Like others said, insurance doesn't recover anything. It gives financial compensation for what is gone.

What I think isn't what really counts, as we all know it is how the courts interpret the law. If you are willing to serve time for shooting someone and are willing to live with it when you are going to be receiving insurance money, then that will be your choice. I won't be shooting anybody and possibly taking a life over a hundred bucks insurance deductible.

Think about it.

[RX8er]

MikeInTx, that is not what is being discussed and if it was moral or if he shoulda, woulda, coulda thread discussion. It was if it was justifiable under the law. Fortunately, feelings don't come in to play in the written law. And, like other's have said insurance or not is not part of the equation. There have been too many property protection BG killings to show otherwise.

Now, on to your subject. I tend to agree that I would have not been firing at the person that was driving off. But, not because I would have felt bad. I would have been more worried about innocent by-standards that I would be going to court for. I thankfully have not been in this situation yet, but I do hope that when the time comes, I make the right one, whatever that is.

[jmorris]

I know we are not aware of all the details, but from what I learned in my CHL class, shooting the BG as he was trying to get away may put the victim in a potential hard spot "Pemberton then fired at the second man twice as he tried to get away in a Dodge Neon. The man, 37, drove a short distance before he crashed into a parked vehicle." Maybe because this happened at night it was justified? Kel

IMO, he was justified.... IANAL but here you go, in the second paragraph:

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Except that guy was in his own car, not the GG's.