TexasCHLforum.com

3dfxMM wrote:

The female resident was on the phone with 911.

The article clearly indicates that the man who was shot was the one on the phone with 911. Since he sincerely believed it was his house he was probably seeking help to get rid of the "tenant".

You are right. I'm sorry.

It says, "Police said Pennington was on the phone with a 911 operator when Kelly confronted him. 'The female came out of the house, cursing,' Dallas police Senior Cpl. Janice Crowther said. 'She fired three shots.'"

PRO wrote:It seems to me the system failed everybody involved here.

I don't know about y'all - but in a high-adrenaline situation it would seem pretty normal, at least to me, for some profane words to come out, no matter how saintly we are. I've heard folks who I *know* are saints say some things I didn't know they knew how to say in a high-adrenaline situation...I can assure you that I'd probably make a sailor blush if I was defending my home...I really don't see how the "cursing" has anything to do with it, maybe it's just my simple mind?

PRO wrote:It seems to me the system failed everybody involved here.

There are few resources for people who are seriously mentally ill but not violent.

I had a revelation some years ago when I saw an older man who had a beard literally a foot long wearing no shirt on a 40° day, waving his hands and talking to nobody.

They can either live in a cardboard box or go to jail. There is no in between. And BTW, the state spends a monstrous amount of money housing mentally ill people in jail.

The jury will have to decide whether this guy needed to be shot in this case.

PUCKER wrote:I don't know about y'all - but in a high-adrenaline situation it would seem pretty normal, at least to me, for some profane words to come out, ...

I agree.

In fact, I would be an ideal juror in favor of the defense in a case like this. When a person is confronted with a threatening situation such as home invasion, fight-or-flight kicks in, and rational judgment is pretty much out of the picture.

- Jim

I guess I’m reading the article wrong. A man standing by, on the phone with the police while a locksmith is changing the locks. This just doesn’t sound like a high adrenaline, fight or flight situation to me.

seamusTX wrote:

PRO wrote:They can either live in a cardboard box or go to jail. There is no in between. And BTW, the state spends a monstrous amount of money housing mentally ill people in jail.

There are actually homes, schools, and institutions provided by the state. However, if a mentally ill person can be brought to a functional level with medication, he's usually then kicked out because he's "met his goals." Due to the mental illness, the person doesn't continue taking the medication, though, and is right back where he started. So in practicality, you are correct that it often boils down to the street or jail for the mentally ill. I just want to clarify that there are theoretical in-betweens.

PRO wrote:I guess I’m reading the article wrong. A man standing by, on the phone with the police while a locksmith is changing the locks. This just doesn’t sound like a high adrenaline, fight or flight situation to me.

How about having your door locks drilled out while a guy that you know is nuts is standing outside?

I'd have some adrenaline going.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

PRO wrote:I guess I’m reading the article wrong. A man standing by, on the phone with the police while a locksmith is changing the locks. This just doesn’t sound like a high adrenaline, fight or flight situation to me.

How about having your door locks drilled out while a guy that you know is nuts is standing outside?

I'd have some adrenaline going.

- Jim

I'd be damn mad. No doubt about it but if I was mad enough to shoot someone who's just standing outside on the phone then I'm the one who's nuts.

PRO wrote:I'd be darn mad. No doubt about it but if I was mad enough to shoot someone who's just standing outside on the phone then I'm the one who's nuts.

It gets back to the question of when the defense starts. The DA seems to agree with you, and this woman is charged with murder.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Did I read the article correctly? It seemed like she came out of the house while the old guy trying to get into the house was on the phone with 911. Why was he talking to 911?

If, as reported, he was mentally ill, you can't expect his actions to make sense.

My mother was in the hospital in the same room with a woman who had some kind of delusional or dementia problem. The woman thought she was in her home. Every time we walked in to visit our mother, the other woman started yelling about strangers being in her home and calling the police. Whatever was wrong with her, she could not manage to dial a number on the phone.

That was before 911 was invented. You had to dial some number like 555-1212 for the police.

As for the resident coming out to confront the intruder, we have that age-old debate about where to initiate your defense. My house has a fatal funnel built into it, and I ain't goin' out.

- Jim

Nut-case or not, the guy thought something was wrong and was trying to get the police to intervene. We hear legal terms such as "intent" brought up not only as a defense but actually spelled out in law.
The guy genuinely thought it was his house. The lady inside knew he was nutso. How does walking out the door and taking shots at a guy on the phone show up as justification for the use of deadly force?

Based on the limited info we have thus far:

-The failure of the local authorities to take any action to stop this guys behavior directly led to the death of a mentally-ill person. He was not a homicidal mentally-ill person from what I can gather.

-The woman let her emotions take over. Yes, I would be disgusted with the police, mental-health authorities and anyone else that I can think of. But in no circumstances does that justify one taking a shot at someone that is not threatening you with harm. This just plays into the hands of the hand-wringing anti-gun people that believe that simply having a gun in hand compels one to use it (wow, I got "hand" into a single sentence 3 times...my English teacher from 4th grade is probably going nuts).

-Would this woman have taken the same action if it was her mentally-ill relative trying to get in the house, or would she have tried to come up with a less lethal solution?

I cannot by default excuse all "self-defense" shootings.

Purplehood, I can't disagree with you on any factual basis. We weren't there. We don't know. But ...

The woman let her emotions take over. Yes, I would be disgusted with the police, mental-health authorities and anyone else that I can think of. But in no circumstances does that justify one taking a shot at someone that is not threatening you with harm.

If the cops won't intervene, what was she supposed to do? Let the guy take over the master bedroom? It was a no-win situation.

- Jim

If this guy was foreclosed on then there would be paper work on it. This then falls under trespass laws. The PD where I live, according to their blotters, issues a trespass warning and the next time they catch the person trespassing, they arrest them.

There is also an issue with criminal mischief in the destruction of private property in the loss of the owner’s locks. This is also enforceable.

My point is this. He was a guy standing outside on the porch with a phone in his hand. The woman might have had more justification for shooting the locksmith at the time than she might have had shooting the coo-coo guy.

Purplehood wrote:My point is this. He was a guy standing outside on the porch with a phone in his hand. The woman might have had more justification for shooting the locksmith at the time than she might have had shooting the coo-coo guy.

Your other point was good too. An unjustified shooting of a mentally handicapped person IS the kind of thing that brings the anti’s out of the woodwork.

It's absolutely disgusting that the people who refused to defend her from a mentally unstable stalker, turned around and arrested her for defending herself.