Dallas Homeowner Shoots Intruder

[kauboy]

I think the advice that age-ranger received from the officer was meant to mean that if the guy is dead, there is only one side to the story. With no other witnesses, who is to be believed? Is a full crime lab investigation going to be done for a person who wrongfully intruded on another's property, and was killed? Would charges even be filed if the officer has no reason to believe that anything foul took place?(I know its up to a Grand Jury, but they will be using the officer's report just as much as the evidence.)
True, we don't shoot to kill. We shoot to stop, but I can definitely see the officer's point.

[txinvestigator]

I think the advice that age-ranger received from the officer was meant to mean that if the guy is dead, there is only one side to the story. With no other witnesses, who is to be believed? Is a full crime lab investigation going to be done for a person who wrongfully intruded on another's property, and was killed? Would charges even be filed if the officer has no reason to believe that anything foul took place?(I know its up to a Grand Jury, but they will be using the officer's report just as much as the evidence.)
True, we don't shoot to kill. We shoot to stop, but I can definitely see the officer's point.

There are ALWAYS 2 sides to the story, and forensic evidence is much more reliable than witnesses.

If a person killed someone so that "there is only one side to the story" the evidence will point it out.

In a homicide the officer's report is but a small part of what the DA can present.

[HankB]

Sounds like they knew each other.

Why? From the original story:

The homeowner says he was watching TV in his reclining chair when the stranger simply walked through the unlocked front door.

I suppose the homeowner could be lying, but for now I'll take the story at face value.

As far as using a bigger gun, note this line in the original post:

The suspect then ran to a post office a few blocks away and collapsed at the back door.

If a perp is able to run "a few blocks" after being shot twice, then it seems that either the cartidge or the shot placement (maybe both) were lacking. This time, the homeowner was lucky, but the next time the perp may become enraged and press an attack.

As far as the LEO's comment about shooting to kill . . . LEOs have told me that, assuming it's a good shoot, it's harder for the next of kin of a deceased bad guy to successfully sue you than it is for the bad guy himself, especially if he appears in court in a wheel chair, neck brace, or whatever.

Note the caveat - assuming it's a good shoot. Tampering with evidence or administering an unnecessary coup de grace after the threat is ended will land you in very hot water.

As I recently read on another forum, if during the forensic examination it's discovered that the fatal entry and exit wounds in the perp and the hole in the floor are all on the same vertical axis, you're likely to get some unwanted attention from the DA.

[txinvestigator]

As far as using a bigger gun, note this line in the original post:

The suspect then ran to a post office a few blocks away and collapsed at the back door.

If a perp is able to run "a few blocks" after being shot twice, then it seems that either the cartidge or the shot placement (maybe both) were lacking. This time, the homeowner was lucky, but the next time the perp may become enraged and press an attack.

This is common of handguns. Besides, the shot did what is was supposed to do; stop the attack/intrusion

[kauboy]

As I recently read on another forum, if during the forensic examination it's discovered that the fatal entry and exit wounds in the perp and the hole in the floor are all on the same vertical axis, you're likely to get some unwanted attention from the DA.

Yes, this would be totally uncalled for and deserving of conviction and a heavy book being thrown. Obviously, this is not what any officer would advise.
We know not to shoot excessively. Trajectories speak volumes. If the attacker is down or running, STOP tripping the bang switch. However, if the perp dies due to well placed shots, he can't sue you.

[age_ranger]

The basic communication was that a corpse cannot sue you or argue your side of the story. It was taken at face value and in no way taken as a "You better finish him off....." In the years I was in the military, we were told to shoot until the threat was eliminated or they lost the will to fight. This holds true today and in no way would I condone the excessive use of force to avoid prosecution. Sorry if it came across like that. I simply wonder sometimes if there will be charges drummed up by the family of the perp whose ticket I just punched or by a perp who lived to get a lawyer. I guess that CHL insurance isn't a bad idea for $500 a year if you need it. Then again, if I knew when I'd need it, I'd only carry my pistol and sign up when I needed it. I've always been taught and believe that if my pistol clears its holster, it's because I'm in danger for my life or my family's lives and that when I shoot chances are high that someone will die.

I'm not 100% sure why it would be though that if you're shooting for self defense, you shouldn't shoot to kill. Why else would your gun go bang at someone? Because if you're aiming COM, you're aiming to kill, right? The pistol and ammo you're carrying is designed to kill people. Maybe I should carry a BB gun if I'm supposed to make it sting just a little? I believe that each situation has it's own circumstances and that each should be handled differently..........

If you own a pistol for defense, you should also own a less lethal or non-lethal means of self defense since not all situations will require the use of deadly force. Right? I bet the guy in this case could have benifitted in having a little can of 10% handy.

[kauboy]

As I recently read on another forum, if during the forensic examination it's discovered that the fatal entry and exit wounds in the perp and the hole in the floor are all on the same vertical axis, you're likely to get some unwanted attention from the DA.

Yes, this would be totally uncalled for and deserving of conviction and a heavy book being thrown. Obviously, this is not what any officer would advise.
We know not to shoot excessively. Trajectories speak volumes. If the attacker is down or running, STOP tripping the bang switch. However, if the perp dies due to well placed shots, he can't sue you.

I think I should retract this. I found this:
CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE
CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
§ 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Section 9.32, Penal Code, against a person who at the time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant.

So I guess you can't loose a civil lawsuit, even if the guy lives.

[seamusTX]

I want to address two points above:

if during the forensic examination it's discovered that the fatal entry and exit wounds in the perp and the hole in the floor are all on the same vertical axis, you're likely to get some unwanted attention from the DA.

You probably will, but someone who is lying flat can still shoot you, and you can lawfully defend yourself in that situation.

So I guess you can't loose a civil lawsuit, even if the guy lives.

You can always lose a civil suit. It's a defense, not immunity.

You can "lose" even if you win, because of the cost.

However, if the incident is in your home, your insurance company will be defending you.

- Jim

[Venus Pax]

My parents always told me that if someone broke into the house, they weren't there for iced tea and biscuits.
Unlike this character in the article, I actually keep my doors locked. If you approach my door, turn the knob, and find it to be locked that's a fairly good indicator that I do not want you walking in. If you choose to disregard that indicator, I will assume that you are in my house with inappropriate intentions, and begin shooting to stop you.

If I have to make a large pay-out in court, so be it. But at some point, you've got to stand for something.

[Stupid]

If you haven't noticed, "unlocked door"!!!!

I would go a step further. Change all doors to close and lock automatically. Probably even put fingerprint locks on them so that they are easier for owners to access.

If somebody still try to break in, they better wear rifle plates if they want to stay alive.

[casselthief]

but won't you be in the bedroom, hunkered down!?!?

sorry, had to...

[txinvestigator]

I'm not 100% sure why it would be though that if you're shooting for self defense, you shouldn't shoot to kill. Why else would your gun go bang at someone? Because if you're aiming COM, you're aiming to kill, right?

No, you're shooting to stop the threat. As has been mentioned many times shooting to kill implies intent to kill a person not simply stop them. Again, if my goal is to shoot to kill if the first shot doesn't kill, even though he is incapacitated I should continue shooting. Intent to kill is not justified in the Penal Code, use of deadly force is.

If you own a pistol for defense, you should also own a less lethal or non-lethal means of self defense since not all situations will require the use of deadly force. Right? I bet the guy in this case could have benifitted in having a little can of 10% handy.

Agree 100%

[txinvestigator]

My parents always told me that if someone broke into the house, they weren't there for iced tea and biscuits.
Unlike this character in the article, I actually keep my doors locked. If you approach my door, turn the knob, and find it to be locked that's a fairly good indicator that I do not want you walking in. If you choose to disregard that indicator, I will assume that you are in my house with inappropriate intentions, and begin shooting to stop you.

If I have to make a large pay-out in court, so be it. But at some point, you've got to stand for something.

Deadly force is not justified in the response to "inappropriate intentions."

[kauboy]

It's a defense, not immunity.

No, its an "affirmative defense". And if you can't prove it, then you had no reason to pull the trigger in the first place.(or your lawyer is incompetent)

You can "lose" even if you win, because of the cost.

However, if the incident is in your home, your insurance company will be defending you.

This is the exact reason that our "Castle Doctrine" law needs to be past A.S.A.P.!!!
It allows for the recovery of such costs.

[HankB]

. . . I'm not 100% sure why it would be though that if you're shooting for self defense, you shouldn't shoot to kill.

I think the whole idea of "shooting to stop" rather than "shooting to kill" came about because in this sue-happy society, it's a reasonable defense tactic in the legal stuff that may very well come after a rightous shooting. (The "stuff" mentioned includes mindset, intentions, and other stuff that matters to armchair quarterbacks, greatly removed from the situation, who make a living second-guessing the person who was there.)

. . . I will assume that you are in my house with inappropriate intentions . . .

Don't "assume" . . . that implies a degree of uncertainty. You conclude by the shootee's action that he poses a real and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death to you and/or your family.

"Self-defense" doesn't end once the BG is neutralized - bullets may have ended the physical threat, but words (as few as possible!!) and a lawyer can be vitally important later.