Burglar Shot in Flower Mound, TX
This story has a twist, however.
A teen, and in fact a prior employee, in the DFW area car dealership was in the building at night. Another employee who was a mechanic with the dealership was asked to play "security guard" for the evening. When the "guard" saw the individual in the dealership, he apparently took matters in his own hands and shot the teen.
The teen was shot in the back twice and was found just outside the building.
The "guard" told the police the teen was stealing money from the cash register.
In fact, there is no cash in the register, as all employees are aware. The teen had no money on him or any weapons.
According to friends, the teen was carrying out a prank. There is a door at the dealership that doesn't lock and that how he got in. Apparently all the employees know of this door. The prank had something to do with snack food (taking it?). The snack food was found in the teen's bag.
While I agree the teen was in the wrong and committed a crime, it is apparent that the "guard" was an inexperienced and ill-trained individual.
This is likely to be a perfect case for anti-gun folks to throw about.
It saddens me to see stories like this. An individual lost his life because of the poor training of someone with a gun.
Gun ownership is a responsibility and like most people on this board, I take it seriously. I'm glad there are forums out there like this one to help new CCW holders. I cannot stress enough how important it is to train in marksmanship, scenarios, and critical thinking skills.
...simple trespass, without weapon, without threats???
Sorry ccw9mm - this is NOT simple trespass... Under Texas State law this is Burglary. It does not matter whether a weapon was present nor if there is a motive nor if there were any threats. Notice the absence of a Culpable Mental State in the P.C. stated below.
REMEMBER - there is NO such thing as Attempted Burglary (not in Texas anyway...)
Texas Penal Code
TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS
Sec. 30.02. Burglary.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
For all of you out there jumping to conclusions, a couple of points need to be cleared up...
IN TEXAS, Private Property owners can give effective consent to another (not necessarily a Security Guard) to protects ones property in ones absence, and will be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as the Owner. This includes the use of Deadly force in defense of ones property (including that of another party) at night.
If the discovered truth and facts surrounding this case are close to those being reported, as a licensed investigator in the State of Texas, I believe this to be a good shoot for several reasons.
cw9mm - you lay out a couple of the very well.
I too am not saying that I agree with the Use-of-deadly-force-for-property exchange... That, even though it is State law, is not the question in this case.
Sorry P95Carry - I respectfully submit here that you are incorrect in your summation. A LETHAL THREAT is NOT a requirement to exercise Defense of Ones Property At Night in Texas. Use yourself and your property as a personal example. Someone burglarizes your home with you inside - do you wait for the definitive signs of a lethal Threat before taking action?
Originally Posted by P95Carry
Additionally - the guy was not executed - he was STOPPED. Period.
If he WAS given verbal commands to stop - and ignored them - he should have listened and voluntarily complied. *The question of whether or not he was given commands to stop is irrelevant in this case. In defense of Ones Property - In TEXAS - there is NO requirement to issue STOP commands to an intruder. The Assumption under the law is that a burglar is there to do you harm. Period.
On the surface - I agree this is an unfortunate situation.
But PLEASE quit blaming the property owner and the third person protecting the property owners interest for this event. The blame and responsibility and culpability for this event rests squarely on the shoulders of the person committing the crime.
NO NO NO NO NO!!! No Jason!
No Jason - someone lost his life because he was stupid and acting in a criminal manner.
Originally Posted by Jason
Based on the facts as they have been revealed in the media, I would suggest to you that the fellow with the gun was actually Well Trained. He performed his mission - to LEGALLY protect to interests of another - quite well.
It is unfortunate - I agree...
...It is unfortunate that stupid individuals will resort to felonious acts and try to pass them off as 'pranks'.
...It is unfortunate that the shooter - acting in legal defense of self and/or property - was put in this situation by the criminal.
...It is unfortunate that individuals will try to indict a person for legally defending that which is defensible under the law, while - at the same time - trying to justify and rationalize the criminal behavior of an individual perpetrator and portraying him as a 'victim'.
A person who commits a Criminal Act should be held accountable.
A person who justifiably acts under the code of law should be exonerated.