TexasCHLforum.com

the stranger made a run for it, but he chase him down (mistake one), began wrestling and shot him in the leg after he felt something in his pocket he feared was a weapon(big mistake two)

I smell a goose cooking.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 87899.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Man A gets into his vehicle and sees Man B in the back. B runs. A chases and eventually shoots B.

A might have a leg to stand on if B had stolen property, but he has a tough case to prove.

Human beings sometimes instinctually chase and assault offenders. The adrenaline gets pumping, and they forget the fine points of the law.

That neighborhood is iffy. I'm not surprised at this kind of thing happening there.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote: That neighborhood is iffy. I'm not surprised at this kind of thing happening there.

- Jim

i'm not surprised at all .
i happen to spend a lot of time in this area for my business and there's some pretty scary people there .
its actually one of the main reasons i pursued my CHL .

once (before my CHL) i found myself working late at a shop after everyone left for the day and the sun was setting quick .
that's about the time i noticed some unsavory characters watching me from a distance.

I smell a goose cooking.

I do too. Any bets on what he's going to be charged with? I say assault with a deadly weapon? Attempted murder or homicide? What ever he's charged with, he was not justified in shooting him, IMO.

but three rights do make a left.

I was just thinking how I would react seeing someone in my back seat. That would get the heart pounding. I think this guy is def in deep trouble.

How could he be charged with homicide? The guy lived. Also there is no "assault with a deadly weapon charge" just aggravated assault. If he is charged it will probably be with that. Attempted murder would be too hard to prove up and aggravated assault carries the same penalty anyway.

I don't know if he'll get charged though. We'll see.

If prosecutors want someone's butt in the wringer, any felony charge will do.

I find it interesting that the guy wasn't arrested on the spot. I just checked. There's no later report. Now it's up to the DA's office.

- Jim

Something about the story doesn't sound right to me, but assuming it happened as reported then the security guard may not be in as bad a position as you guys think. it depends on how he argues and thinks. A car burglar or thief would be in the front seat. A person who hides in the back seat is planning on a robbery or kidnapping. I would argue that I thought he was going to try to rob me and then he ran when he realized I had seen him. Preventing the robbery or escape from the robbery would change the justification for the use of force. And the fact that he wrestled with him first actually would help the case since it shows he did not shoot until he thought there would be no other way to protect himself.

Of course, he is going to need a good lawyer either way, but at least the good guy survived and the bad guy may have learned a painful lesson. The enxt victim might be a better shot.

srothstein wrote:A car burglar or thief would be in the front seat.

As you know, we don't have a crime of car theft in Texas. The definition of burglary of a vehicle is odd, now that I look at it:

PC 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.

So if I enter a vehicle with the intent of taking a nap, that is not burglary. It could be criminal trespass, but that's dubious,

There is a lot of good stuff to be found in back seats, if one is not intent upon stealing the vehicle itself or valuable parts like the steering column.

- Jim

I had not thought of possible packages in the back seat Jim. You are correct about that. But I would still use that as my defense when I got to court with it. I think most juries (and I do see this one going to a jury) would see this as the excuse they were looking for to let the good guy go. It might be just enough to create the doubt needed in the few minds needed. It looks to me lik ethe best he could hope for other than a plea bargain.

And yes, the sleeping in the back seat defense might work for the bad guy. It has been known to work for burglary of buildings also (which require the proof of the intent element). The law we are missing from most states is the Breaking and Entering charge.

On the car theft charge, Texas will either use just the Theft statute (PC 31.03) or if they are actually caught driving it, we have PC 31.07, Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. The UUMV charge gets some interesting uses when people loan a car for a specific purpose and it gets used for something else or not returned on time. They now don't have the effective consent.

The evolution of this case probably will depend upon what the mope says and what he had on is person. If he says he was taking a nap (which is not unreasonable at 2 a.m.), and the vehicle was unlocked (which is common), the security guard is in trouble.

OTOH, if the mope admits to theft and had the security guard's property or a weapon, the security guard has a better case. However, it seems unlikely the mope had property, as he had both hands free to struggle with the security guard.

Grand juries can be fickle. They might just let the defendant walk because they have no sympathy for thieves. I probably would.

- Jim