TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Su ... 710755.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see a few fails here that may get him convicted. However, I am just going from the attached article.

(1) They did not call 911 (at least the article doesn't say they did)
(2) They went in searching for an intruder instead of waiting on Police
(3) They shot the suspect as he was running away and the threat was over. The report did not say if the suspect had anything with him.
(4) It was not their property. Yes, I guess the argument could be made that it was technically under their control, but not sure a grand jury will see it that way.

In retrospect, I hope that no charges are filed and they are cleared. One BG eliminated from the gene pool.

RPBrown wrote:I see a few fails here that may get him convicted. However, I am just going from the attached article.

(1) They did not call 911 (at least the article doesn't say they did)
(2) They went in searching for an intruder instead of waiting on Police
(3) They shot the suspect as he was running away and the threat was over. The report did not say if the suspect had anything with him.
(4) It was not their property. Yes, I guess the argument could be made that it was technically under their control, but not sure a grand jury will see it that way.

In retrospect, I hope that no charges are filed and they are cleared. One BG eliminated from the gene pool.

From the article it's not at all clear they shot him while he was running away. It says he crashed into the wife and he ran, but it doesn't really say whether he was shot in that moment and ran off wounded, or afterwards, running away. On the other points, I agree.

Whatever the outcome, I predict they will wish they never entered the home.

RPBrown wrote: (1) They did not call 911 (at least the article doesn't say they did)
(2) They went in searching for an intruder instead of waiting on Police
(3) They shot the suspect as he was running away and the threat was over. The report did not say if the suspect had anything with him.
(4) It was not their property. Yes, I guess the argument could be made that it was technically under their control, but not sure a grand jury will see it that way.

Not arguing here, just new to the whole CHL world (carried for the first time just yesterday) and am not clear on some points:

1) If you suspect something funny is going on, but don't know something is amiss are you required to call 911 before checking out the odd noises from your neighbor's place? (assuming the neighbor has granted you permission to enter)

2) see #1

3) Let's assume he did, just for educational purposes. As I understand it, deadly force is indicated when the actor is making off with property and there is no other realistic way of recovering the property.

4) I thought that you could defend a helpless or absent 3rd party just as you can defend yourself.

Ears open for education.

Dave

From the article, the suspect was inside a locked bathroom. Fled from there when they opened the door, was shot, and then escaped outside where he collapsed.

Also, it's not an 'empty' house (as the headline states) if the wife was pushed into furniture. Empty homes have plenty of value in metal and fixtures to a thief.

On those scant facts, looks like no troubles for the couple to me.

I'm not a lawyer, not even on the internet.

AlgoaAggie91 wrote:

RPBrown wrote: (1) They did not call 911 (at least the article doesn't say they did)
(2) They went in searching for an intruder instead of waiting on Police
(3) They shot the suspect as he was running away and the threat was over. The report did not say if the suspect had anything with him.
(4) It was not their property. Yes, I guess the argument could be made that it was technically under their control, but not sure a grand jury will see it that way.

Not arguing here, just new to the whole CHL world (carried for the first time just yesterday) and am not clear on some points:

1) If you suspect something funny is going on, but don't know something is amiss are you required to call 911 before checking out the odd noises from your neighbor's place? (assuming the neighbor has granted you permission to enter)

2) see #1

3) Let's assume he did, just for educational purposes. As I understand it, deadly force is indicated when the actor is making off with property and there is no other realistic way of recovering the property.

4) I thought that you could defend a helpless or absent 3rd party just as you can defend yourself.

Ears open for education.

Dave

I'll do my non-expert best.

1. There is no requirement, but the first one to call is a little better off in the long run from what we've learned over the years.
2. In mine, and many others' opinions, as far as just property goes, there had better be something worth your life to go searching for a bad guy for instead of waiting for the police.
3. See the answer for #2. This will be a business decision if we're just talking about property. You may be in the right, but if you shoot someone stealing your $2k television you're probably going to spend 5-10x that amount on a lawyer and other costs to stay out of jail.
4. Pretty much, but just be prepared to be sued anyway. There are cases where a person whose life was saved sued the saver for traumatizing them.

RPBrown wrote:I see a few fails here that may get him convicted. However, I am just going from the attached article.

(1) They did not call 911 (at least the article doesn't say they did)
(2) They went in searching for an intruder instead of waiting on Police
(3) They shot the suspect as he was running away and the threat was over. The report did not say if the suspect had anything with him.
(4) It was not their property. Yes, I guess the argument could be made that it was technically under their control, but not sure a grand jury will see it that way.

In retrospect, I hope that no charges are filed and they are cleared. One BG eliminated from the gene pool.

1. Someone called 911....the cops got there; nor did the article say they did not.
2. House alarms frequently go off for reasons other than intruders. Most cities don't respond in a timely fashion even if you have an alarm permit....that's how little they trust their accuracy.
3. I don't get that from the article. The article says (verbatim): "...the suspect rushed out, knocking the woman into furniture. The woman and her husband opened fire on the suspect, who ran from the home."
Sounds like he attacked the woman, knocking her down; they fired and THEN he ran from the home. Just going by the article.
4. True, not their property...but they had permission to be there...unlike the intruder.

If true, I suspect no indictment...but stranger thing have happened. New information may come out later.

LabRat

The report on the radio made it sound like he was cowering in the bathroom and they opened fire killing him. I hope that is not the case.

It was at night, that is helpful to the couple.

If he ran out of the bathroom and made physical contact with the wife, that is helpful to the couple.

But if he has no goods with him, to me is questionable, especially, if all the shots are into his back.

Call 911. Wait for the police.

I would say they will spend some hard earned money with lawyers.

RPBrown wrote:I see a few fails here that may get him convicted. However, I am just going from the attached article.

(1) They did not call 911 (at least the article doesn't say they did)
(2) They went in searching for an intruder instead of waiting on Police
(3) They shot the suspect as he was running away and the threat was over. The report did not say if the suspect had anything with him.
(4) It was not their property. Yes, I guess the argument could be made that it was technically under their control, but not sure a grand jury will see it that way.

In retrospect, I hope that no charges are filed and they are cleared. One BG eliminated from the gene pool.

If it were me, and I do watch neighbors homes as they do mine from time to time, I would do the following:
(1) Call 911. This is a must even if the alarm is going off.
(2) If both me and my wife are there and armed, go to front and back of house OUTSIDE and wait on either police to arrive of BG to try and leave.
(3) If he comes out with stuff, then I may shoot if he doesn't stop. If he is empty handed, then probably not. I would however detain him.
(4) See 1-3 above.

RPBrown wrote:

RPBrown wrote:I see a few fails here that may get him convicted. However, I am just going from the attached article.

(1) They did not call 911 (at least the article doesn't say they did)
(2) They went in searching for an intruder instead of waiting on Police
(3) They shot the suspect as he was running away and the threat was over. The report did not say if the suspect had anything with him.
(4) It was not their property. Yes, I guess the argument could be made that it was technically under their control, but not sure a grand jury will see it that way.

In retrospect, I hope that no charges are filed and they are cleared. One BG eliminated from the gene pool.

If it were me, and I do watch neighbors homes as they do mine from time to time, I would do the following:
(1) Call 911. This is a must even if the alarm is going off.
(2) If both me and my wife are there and armed, go to front and back of house OUTSIDE and wait on either police to arrive of BG to try and leave.
(3) If he comes out with stuff, then I may shoot if he doesn't stop. If he is empty handed, then probably not. I would however detain him.
(4) See 1-3 above.

My thoughts are more or less the same. Call police, wait outside and cover exits until police arrive or until he attempts to leave. If he attempts to leave before the police show up I don't know if I'd even shoot him with handfuls of stuff. It's not my stuff, depends is he running at me or away from me? Parallel to me? What stuff is in his hands? I'd probably order him to the ground at gunpoint though. I hate thieves and prior to my CCW course I'd probably have said I'd have shot him even if he was holding a pack of Bubblicious I didn't believe belonged to him. However, after finding out that all gun charges in TX go to grand jury and grand jury costs $10k minimum, I've changed my tune.

C-dub wrote:

AlgoaAggie91 wrote:

RPBrown wrote: (1) They did not call 911 (at least the article doesn't say they did)
(2) They went in searching for an intruder instead of waiting on Police
(3) They shot the suspect as he was running away and the threat was over. The report did not say if the suspect had anything with him.
(4) It was not their property. Yes, I guess the argument could be made that it was technically under their control, but not sure a grand jury will see it that way.

Not arguing here, just new to the whole CHL world (carried for the first time just yesterday) and am not clear on some points:

1) If you suspect something funny is going on, but don't know something is amiss are you required to call 911 before checking out the odd noises from your neighbor's place? (assuming the neighbor has granted you permission to enter)

2) see #1

3) Let's assume he did, just for educational purposes. As I understand it, deadly force is indicated when the actor is making off with property and there is no other realistic way of recovering the property.

4) I thought that you could defend a helpless or absent 3rd party just as you can defend yourself.

Ears open for education.

Dave

I'll do my non-expert best.

1. There is no requirement, but the first one to call is a little better off in the long run from what we've learned over the years.
2. In mine, and many others' opinions, as far as just property goes, there had better be something worth your life to go searching for a bad guy for instead of waiting for the police.
3. See the answer for #2. This will be a business decision if we're just talking about property. You may be in the right, but if you shoot someone stealing your $2k television you're probably going to spend 5-10x that amount on a lawyer and other costs to stay out of jail.
4. Pretty much, but just be prepared to be sued anyway. There are cases where a person whose life was saved sued the saver for traumatizing them.

Outside running away? Yeah. Stealing your neighbors property? Yeah. Inside MY HOME, all bets are off, no matter what he's doing.

Still inside does change/complicate things. I'd probably shoot too.

I doubt charges will be filled, good shoot.

Having/not having a CHL is irrelevant in this case, no? They were on property they were in control of & could carry a weapon openly if they wanted.