Houston Man Shoots Intruder, Reloading His Pistol

[mistergus75]

I've commented on moving to Houston, big reason I got my CHL. Here's another example of why good guys need to be armed in that city.

73 year old man shoots intruder in his house, says he's going back in his house to reload his pistol, and he'll ready for the next one.


Link Removed

 

[nogods]

"because next time I might not shoot to miss"

He shot "to miss"?

He grabbed his pistol and went to see who was in his house and said he called out twice and startled the burglar.

"While he was running I told him don't run, I'll shoot you," Webb said. "He started to go out that window and when he did I shot him."

Is that allowed under Texas Castle Law?

 

[BlackieChan]

He shot "to miss"?



Is that allowed under Texas Castle Law?

I had heard that in Texas you can use deadly force on someone committing a felony, bank robbery, car jacking etc and not strictly in self defense. I don't know how the courts will see it.

 

[BlackieChan]

The bottom line on this one is, laws or not, I think that someone has taken their life into their own hands if they break into a house. I personally wouldn't want to take a life, but if the bad guy breaks in he should know that he doesn't deserve mercy.

I am really protective of people violating my property though and this is my opinion. Mostly, I just don't think that any sympathy should be given to a 'victim' who also happened to be perpetrating a crime. I think that really degrades right and wrong and leads to homeowners getting sued for protecting their property, family etc. Judges should summarily dismiss these cases but nowadays crooks strike it rich and manage to thieve from the original victim legally... but I digest.

BTW I am not accusing anyone here of anything, I am just publishing my opinion. I respect yours and your right to have it. You be generalized to whomever is reading this.

 

[mistergus75]

I hate to say this, but...I think the homeowner could be prosecuted on this one. Texas law allows deadly force to protect property, or to prevent the BG from escaping with the property, but this shooting doesn't seem to me to fall under that.

Here's the Texas law as written...


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(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; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



I think this homeowner may have shot off his mouth a bit too much. He shot the man, not to protect his property, but to prevent him from escaping without his property. Having said this, a grand jury may no-bill anyway. How could any of us react perfectly under such a stressful moment?

I think the homeowner really made a mistake by gloating about what he did. Wrong attitude to have, IMHO.

mistergus75

 

[BlackieChan]

I hate to say this, but...I think the homeowner could be prosecuted on this one. Texas law allows deadly force to protect property, or to prevent the BG from escaping with the property, but this shooting doesn't seem to me to fall under that.

Here's the Texas law as written...


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(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; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



I think this homeowner may have shot off his mouth a bit too much. He shot the man, not to protect his property, but to prevent him from escaping without his property. Having said this, a grand jury may no-bill anyway. How could any of us react perfectly under such a stressful moment?

That is unfortunate that he doesn't seem to be covered by the law on this one, but I am not prepared to say that I wouldn't have done the same thing as the home owner.

People get touchy when someone violates their home and I certainly feel no sympathy when a would-be hamburglar gets shot committing a crime. That is how it should be really, there is no just cause to steal and every just cause to protect our homes, families and communities from those who disagree.

I think the homeowner really made a mistake by gloating about what he did. Wrong attitude to have, IMHO.

mistergus75

Yes I agree. This is kind of how I feel about the beauty queen who shot the would-be rapist. She did the right thing defending her home, but the wrong thing talking about it so nonchalantly afterwards.

I think that even now we couldn't judge his actions fairly because he was probably still reacting to the stress when he spoke.

THE BEST THING WE CAN ALL DO IS REMEMBER THE FIFTH!!

 

[Hatchet]

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

i dont see the criminal able to rob or burglar any more house for a while... so he did prevent another commission...

but yea he talked to much...

 

[santa]

This one is a tough call. While I sympathize with the homeowner he violated the number 1 rule after shooting someone. The rule is say only TWO(2) things. First is "Officer I feared for my life and that is why I shot him". Second is "I WANT TO SPEAK TO A LAWYER!". The problem is many of us get 'diarrea of the mouth' when talking to leo and that may get us in trouble. Oh and his other mistake was in 'shooting to miss'. Whatever that means. I shoot at the torso because that offers the largest target and the best chance to STOP.the threat.

 

[verge]

I hate to say this, but...I think the homeowner could be prosecuted on this one. Texas law allows deadly force to protect property, or to prevent the BG from escaping with the property, but this shooting doesn't seem to me to fall under that.

Here's the Texas law as written...


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(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; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



I think this homeowner may have shot off his mouth a bit too much. He shot the man, not to protect his property, but to prevent him from escaping without his property. Having said this, a grand jury may no-bill anyway. How could any of us react perfectly under such a stressful moment?

I think the homeowner really made a mistake by gloating about what he did. Wrong attitude to have, IMHO.

mistergus75

In Texas there is ZERO chance this homeowner will be prosecuted. The criminal was burglarizing the homeowner's residence. Even if he had made it out the window he still would have been committing the offense of criminal mischief. Both of those are fatal offenses at night in Texas. The mistake Mr. Webb made was intentionally “missing”, you can still be sued for anything.