Any thoughts on this? What would you have done?

[E.Marquez]

Waving a gun around just to give someone oral notice to vacate the property is a bit much,

See I agree with you... if that was what had been said.
I guess my point is, thats not what I said, and NOT what the story states.. It IS what people here have assumed happend (ANd I have assumed it may not have)..

I take that position because A: I would not ever be "Waving a gun around just to give someone oral notice to vacate the property" and B: The story did not state that either.

Dead horse though as in most regards I think a lot of us are saying the same thing.. Deadly force in the protection of ones self or property as allowed by TX law is good, "Waving a gun around just to give someone oral notice to vacate the property is a bit much"

[bayouhazard]

Call 911 and report a burglary in progress. If they're still there when the cops show up, they can explain their behavior. If they run when the cops show up, that's usually interpreted as a sign of guilt. If they start climbing in a window after you call 911, then you can blast them.

P.S. Don't chit chat with the dispatcher. Report the burglars and then put the phone down so you can concentrate on the threat.

[Kythas]

Didn't Joe Horn get no-billed for a situation similar to this? He went outside with his shotgun, while on the phone with 911, two people were robbing his neighbor's house. Two of them came into his yard and confronted him and Horn killed them.

Now, this guy didn't kill anyone but he did fire his shotgun in the air (poor decision in my opinion; if I feel warranted in pulling a trigger I'm going to be absolutely sure of my target). I could see a charge of discharge of a firearm within city limits. I can also see how he would be threatened by three teens confronting him on his own property.

Now, I am not a lawyer - I don't even play one on TV - but a quick reading of 9.41 states:

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

Also, consider:

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Therefore, wouldn't the production of a weapon in this circumstance be a threat of force? The use of force (but not deadly force) certainly seems justified in PC 9.41, therefore production of a weapon to create apprehension that he will use deadly force should also be justified according to 9.04.

However, discharging the firearm likely isn't covered and he should probably be charged with whatever city ordinance prohibits that.

[Wes]

[beefmobile]

Didn't Joe Horn get no-billed for a situation similar to this? He went outside with his shotgun, while on the phone with 911, two people were robbing his neighbor's house. Two of them came into his yard and confronted him and Horn killed them.

Now, this guy didn't kill anyone but he did fire his shotgun in the air (poor decision in my opinion; if I feel warranted in pulling a trigger I'm going to be absolutely sure of my target). I could see a charge of discharge of a firearm within city limits. I can also see how he would be threatened by three teens confronting him on his own property.

Now, I am not a lawyer - I don't even play one on TV - but a quick reading of 9.41 states:

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

Also, consider:

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Therefore, wouldn't the production of a weapon in this circumstance be a threat of force? The use of force (but not deadly force) certainly seems justified in PC 9.41, therefore production of a weapon to create apprehension that he will use deadly force should also be justified according to 9.04.

However, discharging the firearm likely isn't covered and he should probably be charged with whatever city ordinance prohibits that.

Joe Horn is exactly who came to mind when i read the OP's post. Now, there was no actual burglary involved in this story, but it has a lot of similar details. And yes, at this point of the thread, it's a dead horse. He didn't make wise decisions, but it could have gotten a lot worse. heck, he could have pulled a Joe Horn ;)

[speedsix]

I would have stuck my head out the door and politely told them they were trespassing on private property. They should know that but kids today are misinformed about many things. If they mouth off at that statement I would tell them they can explain themselves to the police because they're on the way.

...as the OP told the story...this would have been the wisest, 100% legal way to handle it....

...Joe Horn was covered because he was doing what PC9:43 requires, which means 9:41 had been met...allowing 9:42 to be a justification...those two had committed a listed felony...this incident never made it through 9:42, whereas Joe Horn was acting under 9:42(1) and (2)(A), which begins to justify deadly force...AS THE OP's LINK tells the story...I don't even feel confident that 9.41(a) would have been the right thing to do, since he had city police to do it for him without ANYONE being in danger...the only force reasonably necessary was to dial 911...nobody was in immediate danger...nothing was being stolen or vandalized...it's just a case of "OH YEAH?!!!" gone too far...
...nothing at all wrong with him having had a concealed weapon in his pocket just in case...but to challenge them with a shotgun and fire a shot...way out of the realm of reasonable...kids in the daytime just acting stupid...nope...don't even think I'd pepper spray 'em...


...I just realized what's bothering me about ANY force being used...it's in 9.41(a)..."justified in using force against another WHEN and TO THE DEGREE the actor REASONABLY BELIEVES the force is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land..." if it had been my boys(though mine were angels) the first words out of my mouth would have been that the bringing out a shotgun and shooting it was not NECESSARY nor REASONABLE...let alone being IMMEDIATEly so...he totally overreacted because he was angry...

[RockingRook]

I ave dealt with teenagers and they simply do not care. They can also be dangerous!! I have had them in my front yard and would not leave in fact
when told to leave they did.
Only to return with there dirt bikes and tore up my front lawn. When I called the police it was "He said, she said" Nothing could be
done by the LEO except to warn them. Their parents came to my house and threatened to sue me for harassing "Johnny boy!!"

Then the teens were even more emboldened and started tossing rocks at my house. It was not only me it was a few other neighbors
beside myself that were taunted by these same animals.

Now, if they went over my fence and were in my back yard then I would definitely fear for my life and my wife's as well.

LEOs are not the answer. They cannot do anything unless you actually catch one of these kids on your property [especially fenced property].

How do you catch them? I would definitely go out back and confront them at gun point. Not in my front yard but in my back yard
definitely. Hopefully they will stay put until the LEO arrive. If they came at me then I may have to defend myself but if they stayed put
I would let the LEO take care of them.

In some of the postings above I hear some saying "The poor kids do not know right from wrong." Believe me they do and look at you and I
as a victory once they destroy something. Teens today think they can get away with anything and they are above the law because they are minors.

I will be 70 this year and there was a time I could take care of myself without thinking I needed a gun but now I am not so sure.

Chuck

[CEOofEVIL]

I live in the Northeast, so I'm close by the street this happened on, about 2-3 minutes away, (in fact, my sister lives one street over from the street it happened on), and regularly drive through the area. I wouldn't say it's a horrible or unsafe area or part of town at all, nor more apt to violence than my neighborhood is, granted I Don't spend THAT Much time in that particular neighborhood.

Come to think of it, I did hear a lot of sirens yesterday around that time, perhaps I heard the officers responding? Crazy!

Anyway, I don't think the gentleman pulling out his Shotgun and firing into the air was the wisest move on his part (understatement, ). If I found someone in my backyard, that means they had to hop a very tall chainlink/rockwall fence to get there and that tells me that they aren't there for a social call - if if the situation seemed safe enough I would definitely confront them in the backyard (along with my two dogs, whom probably would have beat me to the punch anyway). Confronting them in the front yard of my house though? I suppose it would depend on if my front yard was fenced or not, and what they were doing. If someone is loitering around my yard or driveway, sure, I'd step out and ask them what they were up to, and call the police if it turned out they didn't have a legit reason for being there (Meterman, etc.). I certainly wouldn't pull a Gran Torino style stunt like this guy did though.

I liked this part of the article

At that time, several police officers responded to a call about a man with a gun.

. That is one of the MAIN reasons I would not have stepped out of my house and fired a shot like he did. Considering the fact that he was close to a School and a Park (Veterans park is just down the road and it's busiest in the later afternoon/evenings), that generally means there is a great deal of foot traffic during that time of day, meaning someone would more than likely be around to witness "a crazy man waving and firing his gun into the air" (We know how bystanders can embellish 911 calls). The following thoughts occur to me:

1) Did he call the Police before he confronted them with his gun?
2) Did he attempt to call the police at all?

Generally, I've always figured the old saying "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" is a gem of a piece of life advice. I hope we hear more info on what happened, just out of curiosities sake.

EDIT: Also... If I recall correctly, the schools let out about 3PM, So that means even more traffic in the area.

[bizarrenormality]

How do you catch them?

How about a bear trap?

[tommyg]

I would have stayed in the house and called the cops.
If they tried to force their way into the house I would have used the shot gun.

From what I can tell from the article he would not be justifed in using deadly force
under the circumstances. Firing a shot was not a good idea I see why he did it he should not
have done it. Bad handeling of a situation that was not serious

[tommyg]

I would have stayed in the house and called the cops.
If they tried to force their way into the house I would have used the shot gun.

From what I can tell from the article he would not be justifed in using deadly force
under the circumstances. Firing a shot was not a good idea I see why he did it he should not
have done it. Bad handeling of a situation that was not serious

[texas-sig]

In the past few months it's been getting out of control with the young kids around here. The civilian doesn't see or hear what really goes on in the city only what the paper or local news reports. Both municipal and deputies are way under staffed. Here's some more just in this week.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_19876241? ... rss_viewed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_19882345" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Excaliber]

69 years old? Three teens in my back hard, then coming to my front? Told to leave.. If the dogs did not drive them away and back over my fence (not sure if there is a fence in the story in question) then yup, I would be fearful for my life,,,LEO gets called, and the aggressors can leave, stay put and deal with LEO, or step forward in any threatening manner, in which case I would assess a direct threat to my life and drop the one I observed to be the leader. The others can leave, stay put and deal with LEO, or step forward in any threatening manner, in which case in would assess a direct threat to my life and drop the closest one. Repeat until all threat has ceased and or LEO is on sight to take over.

Explaining why you think it's a good idea to respond to a trespass with a homicide is a pretty tough case to make under the law. As Speedsix pointed out, you'd find no justification for those actions under the penal code.

You might say you weren't responding to the trespass, but to the trespasser's step toward you after you unnecessarily escalated the situation by going outside with a gun.

The boys in blue wouldn't be buying it. They'd hook you and book you - you can count on it.

I suppose I understand your reply, and knew it was coming.. as you have no way of reading my mind and knowing what assumptions I was making mentally when I wrote that.

My reply was not in response to trespass.

My reply was written in that a criminal trespass had taken place twice, crossed a physically barrier (fence), I mention my dogs being involved (that’s not in the OP’s story), the criminals being warned to depart the property (both my version and the OP’s story), and that the aggressors moved toward me in a threatening manner. Going outside your home armed is not a crime. In that a criminal takes your legal act as threatening and attacks you is where I answered from.. Not three teens TP’ing my front yard tree and I run outside with a shotgun yelling “GET OFF MY LAWN”

Being on the property, front yard and back, .. Being verbally aggressive, failing to get off the property when directed to do so, told the LAW was on the way, still refusing to leave AND THEY THEN moved toward me in a threatening manner .. THAT was the scenario I set up and replied to.

That scene taken out of context and or changed to something else of course makes my response seem inappropriate.
I should not have added to the OP’s story scenario, I see how that confused the answer and position I was taking.

Strictly in response to the question posed to the story as written, with no other info.
Call the LAW, maintain visual of the criminals (trespass), remain armed, but behind cover (inside the house) await the police or the criminals further threatening action. Allow the LAW to deal with criminals so long as they did not make a threatening move toward me, or attempt to gain entrance to the house or any attached structure (garage)

I confused the question and response by adding a more likely scenario of which I would encounter in real live at my home.. vice what I read about in a internet news story.

69 years old? Three teens in my back hard, then coming to my front? Told to leave.. If the dogs did not drive them away and back over my fence (not sure if there is a fence in the story in question) then yup, I would be fearful for my life,,,LEO gets called, and the aggressors can leave, stay put and deal with LEO, or step forward in any threatening manner, in which case I would assess a direct threat to my life and drop the one I observed to be the leader. The others can leave, stay put and deal with LEO, or step forward in any threatening manner, in which case in would assess a direct threat to my life and drop the closest one. Repeat until all threat has ceased and or LEO is on sight to take over.

Explaining why you think it's a good idea to respond to a trespass with a homicide is a pretty tough case to make under the law. As Speedsix pointed out, you'd find no justification for those actions under the penal code.

You might say you weren't responding to the trespass, but to the trespasser's step toward you after you unnecessarily escalated the situation by going outside with a gun.

The boys in blue wouldn't be buying it. They'd hook you and book you - you can count on it.

I suppose I understand your reply, and knew it was coming.. as you have no way of reading my mind and knowing what assumptions I was making mentally when I wrote that.

My reply was not in response to trespass.

My reply was written in that a criminal trespass had taken place twice, crossed a physically barrier (fence), I mention my dogs being involved (that’s not in the OP’s story), the criminals being warned to depart the property (both my version and the OP’s story), and that the aggressors moved toward me in a threatening manner. Going outside your home armed is not a crime. In that a criminal takes your legal act as threatening and attacks you is where I answered from.. Not three teens TP’ing my front yard tree and I run outside with a shotgun yelling “GET OFF MY LAWN”

Being on the property, front yard and back, .. Being verbally aggressive, failing to get off the property when directed to do so, told the LAW was on the way, still refusing to leave AND THEY THEN moved toward me in a threatening manner .. THAT was the scenario I set up and replied to.

That scene taken out of context and or changed to something else of course makes my response seem inappropriate.
I should not have added to the OP’s story scenario, I see how that confused the answer and position I was taking.

Strictly in response to the question posed to the story as written, with no other info.
Call the LAW, maintain visual of the criminals (trespass), remain armed, but behind cover (inside the house) await the police or the criminals further threatening action. Allow the LAW to deal with criminals so long as they did not make a threatening move toward me, or attempt to gain entrance to the house or any attached structure (garage)

I confused the question and response by adding a more likely scenario of which I would encounter in real live at my home.. vice what I read about in a internet news story.

You make a good point that adding elements to the original situation confuses the discussion.

I did notice the changes. However, in my analysis the "move toward you in a threatening manner" was way too vague to justify use of deadly force. The distance was not specified, and what constituted a "threatening manner" was not made clear. The "move" was also not described. Was it one step forward by one individual, or a sudden lunge by the group?

If this was the story told to investigating officers who found a bloody teenage body on the ground, two others across the street screaming you shot the kid after yelling unrepeatable prejudicial things at them (you can count on this happening), and without clear elements of ability, intent, and jeopardy described in detail, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the person who explained use of deadly force in that manner would be going straight to jail.

[E.Marquez]

If this was the story told to investigating officers who found a bloody teenage body on the ground, two others across the street screaming you shot the kid after yelling unrepeatable prejudicial things at them (you can count on this happening), and without clear elements of ability, intent, and jeopardy described in detail, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the person who explained use of deadly force in that manner would be going straight to jail.

So your advice is to shoot the other two as well in order to remove conflicting reports. So noted

[Excaliber]

If this was the story told to investigating officers who found a bloody teenage body on the ground, two others across the street screaming you shot the kid after yelling unrepeatable prejudicial things at them (you can count on this happening), and without clear elements of ability, intent, and jeopardy described in detail, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the person who explained use of deadly force in that manner would be going straight to jail.

So your advice is to shoot the other two as well in order to remove conflicting reports. So noted

That's not exactly what I had in mind......