TexasCHLforum.com

Here is a story from today's news, where the victim of a home invasion decides to chase the evildoers out into the street with his shotgun.

Granted the details are weak, but is this negligence? I would think so. I would think the DA could rightfully prosecute the victim as well in this case, since the robbers had left and there was no longer threat to life.



Posted: Thursday, 23 August 2007 4:03PM

Dallas Shoot Out Resulted From Home Invasion

A home invasion robbery at a northeast Dallas apartment complex, near Skillman and LBJ, turned into a shootout in the parking lot. Dallas Police Sgt. Gil Cerda tells 1080 KRLD about 2:30 this morning, two armed men burst into an apartment and made off with a thousand dollars.
The complainant got his shotgun out and they had a shootout where at least 12 shots where fired, according to reports from the scene. One bullet hit the apartment resident. Another went through the wall of a nearby apartment and hit a 17 year old in the leg.
Both are going to be OK. Police are looking for the two gunmen.

The victim was unwise, but I'd hate to see him prosecuted.
I imagine many people are getting fed up with the crime in their neighborhoods.

A person can be justified in using deadly force to prevent another from fleeing with property immediately after committing a burglary if he reasonably believes there was no other means to recover the property, or if he reasonably believes that using force less than deadly force would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

It COULD be a justified shooting. I bet this was drug related though.

And the injury to the 17 year could be charged to the victim if he recklessly injured the 17 year old.

Reckless is defined in the penal code;

"(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his
conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or
the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the
circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."


The article is too vague to know, or really even discuss it intelligently.

.
.
.

jason wrote:...about 2:30 this morning, two armed men burst into an apartment and made off with a thousand dollars.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
...(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property;and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means;...

...The complainant got his shotgun out and they had a shootout where at least 12 shots where fired, according to reports from the scene. One bullet hit the apartment resident. Another went through the wall of a nearby apartment and hit a 17 year old in the leg.

PC §9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.
Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or
using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly
injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded
by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or
killing of the innocent third person.

The question is, who shot the round that hit the 17 year old?
Bottom line - yes, he was justified in using deadly force. But, no, probably not wise.

It seems likely to me that the stray bullets were fired by the intruders (BACK at him coming out of the apartment) probably with a pistol. The defender was shooting a shotgun, which shouldn't have the same penetration problem. Who gets shot by ONE shotgun pellet anyway?

It does sound drug related to me, but I hope not. I look forward to hearing the outcome of this case.

CHLSteve wrote:It seems likely to me that the stray bullets were fired by the intruders (BACK at him coming out of the apartment) probably with a pistol. The defender was shooting a shotgun, which shouldn't have the same penetration problem. Who gets shot by ONE shotgun pellet anyway?

It does sound drug related to me, but I hope not. I look forward to hearing the outcome of this case.

Those are shotgun myths. 00 buck is nine .32 caliber pellets at about 1100-1200 feet per second and penetrate like crazy.

With the spread of shot at distance, one pellet hits are understandable.

But with this limited info, who knows.

Since it is legal and perfectly justifiable, I am willing to give the victim of armed robbery the benefit of the doubt, until more info.

A perspective...

I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation to why someone would keep $1000 +/- in their apartment, easily accessable, possibly known by others that might be interested in pinching that from the apartment resident...

llwatson wrote:
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
...(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property;and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means;...

If I were on a jury, I would want clarification of the term "fleeing immediately." The word immediately seems to add a time factor, after which deadly force would no longer be authorized. At what point does the intruder move from fleeing immediately to fleeing, and finally to fled?

If immediate refers more to the immediate location of the crime, is that then the apartment, the parking lot? Where is the imaginary line?

Personally, I don't think crime should pay, and a shotgun blast me be the best deterrent for the next time. But I also don't think anyone's life is worth taking over $1000. Also, if you weigh the money stolen against the potential time, aggravation, court costs, and other legal problems resulting from such a shooting, I am not sure it is worth the risk.

So, perhaps negligence was not the true issue here, but wisdom, like you say.

Basing my opinion solely on the postings here, and not guessing about possible drug involvement, etc., . . .

This is one of those cases where, though I might not follow the same course of action as the resident, I would not convict him of anything were I a juror at his trial.

jason wrote:

llwatson wrote:
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
...(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property;and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means;...

If I were on a jury, I would want clarification of the term "fleeing immediately." The word immediately seems to add a time factor, after which deadly force would no longer be authorized. At what point does the intruder move from fleeing immediately to fleeing, and finally to fled?

If immediate refers more to the immediate location of the crime, is that then the apartment, the parking lot? Where is the imaginary line?

"Fleeing Immediately After" does not indicate distance. It means immediately. He is fleeing with your property and you pursue right then, as he leaves your place. You cannot get into your car and drive around, see the guy 10 minutes later, and use deadly force.

Does any one remember Katrina or Rita??
A $1,000 dollar stash is not an unreasonable precaution to take. Cash is King in uncertain times. Ask the poor souls who bugged out of Houston and found every ATM machine from here to Dallas empty.

Just a thought.

Hamourkiller wrote:Does any one remember Katrina or Rita??
A $1,000 dollar stash is not an unreasonable precaution to take. Cash is King in uncertain times. Ask the poor souls who bugged out of Houston and found every ATM machine from here to Dallas empty.

Just a thought.

Well, I think you have a very good point there...But I knew way before the day 2 million folks decided to hit the road, to get a few hundred dollars out, and bugged out a day before the real maddness began...Good thing we did...

So timing is just as critical...

This situation doesn't pass the smell test...But then again it'll never be updated, nor will we hear additional details about the case...

This is the troubling aspect of concealed carry. Imagine the possible result of one guy opening fire in a cafeteria and everybody is packing. There is going to be some collateral damage exclusive of the perp and his actions. How to deal with it legally and morally?