Burglary suspect escapes, but resident put up fight

This is a discussion on Burglary suspect escapes, but resident put up fight within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; This isn't really a "success story," but it was interesting anyway. Beaumont, TX At 5:30 a.m. Sept. 9, Beaumont Police responded to a burglary call ...

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Burglary suspect escapes, but resident put up fight

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array lowflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    1,221

    Burglary suspect escapes, but resident put up fight

    This isn't really a "success story," but it was interesting anyway.

    Beaumont, TX

    At 5:30 a.m. Sept. 9, Beaumont Police responded to a burglary call at a residence in the 6200 block of Yaupon Street. Upon arrival, officers noticed the house appeared to have been hit by gunfire.

    According to the victim, he awoke after hearing a noise in his home. He grabbed his gun, investigated further and found an intruder in the house. When the suspect saw the victim, he ran. The victim then fired three shots in the house at the suspect.

    He missed. The suspect ran out of the house and got into a green Ford. The resident said he fired several more shots at that time, attempting to shoot out the tires. He missed. The suspect got away. The victim suffered gunshot damage to the home and the burglar got away with a purse from the residence.
    It's a good thing he didn't hit the guy. It would have been a shame to mame or kill a guy over a purse.
    Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,767
    It's interesting to note the differences in behavior and legalities from one state to another. In Texas, it's perfectly legal to shoot to protect property, certainly within the home, and (I believe) perfectly legal to continue the fight outside even when the suspect is fleeing. Try that in some areas (ie, California, Oregon, others) and you'll get a new set of state-issue day-glo orange clothing at "no charge" ...
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,741
    I don't know the area neighborhood, but trying to shoot the tires out of a fleeing vehicle seems a "little" excessive to me...
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  5. #4
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,406

    No One Hurt...

    is a good thing...but...more close fire practice is needed. I wasn't there and it wasn't my heart pumping 120 mph. I too agree, that shooting out tires is a stretch...

    Stay safe...shoot straight(er)...

    ret
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array lowflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    It's interesting to note the differences in behavior and legalities from one state to another. In Texas, it's perfectly legal to shoot to protect property, certainly within the home, and (I believe) perfectly legal to continue the fight outside even when the suspect is fleeing. Try that in some areas (ie, California, Oregon, others) and you'll get a new set of state-issue day-glo orange clothing at "no charge" ...
    I am familiar with TX law. Sometimes the law doesn't reflect what I think is right. This is one of those cases that I think makes gun owners look like crazed vigilante-wannabes to the average non-gun-owning person. Not to mention, it's fodder for the anti-gun lobby. Property can be replaced. There isn't an argument that can be made for killing someone over a purse.
    Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array USPnTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,760
    Just in case anyone wondered what Texas law says about protection of one's property:

    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.
    (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
    (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
    (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

    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.
    "Do not fear those who disagree with you; fear those that do and are too cowardly to admit it" - Napoleon

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,767
    Quote Originally Posted by lowflyer View Post
    Property can be replaced. There isn't an argument that can be made for killing someone over a purse.
    Yup. Someone's in my house? He's exiting or dropping to the ground to beg mercy. He attacks me, he's getting stopped. He exits, he gets a short competition with the telephone and local police response. I'm with you, though, about shooting after someone when one knows all he got was a purse/wallet. It's not worth a death sentence, no matter how nice the purse.

    If this was in a neighborhood, one's got to wonder about all of those missed shots. As in, where might those have ended up? Got to wonder whether there were children in the neighboring homes.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #8
    Member Array kd5nrh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    274
    If he was smart enough to shoot at the tops of the front tires, misses would just make nice, distinctive body damage, and maybe play heck with stuff under the hood.

    As far as shooting over a purse, I seriously doubt the homeowner had already taken inventory. At least where I live now, I would have few reservations about shooting to delay (12ga to the vehicle repeatedly, should slow him down long enough for a deputy to find him) someone who broke in to an occupied house and might come back with his buddies later. Of course, I only have one neighbor inside the effective range of 00 buck, so it's not exactly the suburbs here.

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member Array lowflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    1,221
    As far as shooting over a purse, I seriously doubt the homeowner had already taken inventory.
    I seriously doubt it would be hard to see a man running with a purse if you could see well enough to shoot.

    Where I live, shooting at the car would have been feloneous. Houses everywhere.

    If the guy is caught running out of your house with a TV, you should not feel a compulsion to kill or mame him. I think that may be borderline anti-social and a little psychotic. Even with the laws in TX, you may find yourself in a heap of legal troubles; both civil and criminal.

    If you catch him as he is breaking into your home and you or your family is inside, by all means shoot to kill since you don't know what his intentions are and there is a reasonableness to your fear of mortal danger.

    It's this kind of shooting that feeds the antis. They don't care about criminals shooting innocent people. It's old news, and commonplace. You shoot a Katrina refugee that is steeling your BBQ grill and the next thing you know, the news media will be doing a story on the dude's 8 starving children and how you, the man with the gun, left them fatherless. Next up, "Guns: Are they safe in the hands of homeowners?"

    73's
    Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Old Chief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southwest Tennessee
    Posts
    10,482
    Purse/ no purse the BG is in the house. Protection of life and property is paramont at that time. The rest is Monday Morning quarterbacking.
    One should never confuse good fortune with good training.
    Illegitimus Non Carborundum.
    In God we trust.

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array lowflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Chief View Post
    Purse/ no purse the BG is in the house. Protection of life and property is paramont at that time. The rest is Monday Morning quarterbacking.
    I disagree. There is no MMQB going on here. I am just raising the issue of killing over property versus killing to save innocent life. Some gun owners and CCW holders make me fear for the security of my own right to carry. Shooting someone who has not threatened one's life and who is running away is just plain wrong, in my opinion.

    Anecdote to illustrate what formed this belief in me: I was shot at by a rancher one time when, at 12 years old, I mistakenly crossed the unfenced, and unmarked corner of his property on my 3-wheeler. My dad found out later that he had recently had some trouble with people (not me) harassing his cattle. I was lucky to not have been killed. He was lucky to not have killed a 12 year-old boy; especially once belonging to my dad.
    Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,207

    changed views

    Quote Originally Posted by lowflyer View Post
    I am familiar with TX law. Sometimes the law doesn't reflect what I think is right. This is one of those cases that I think makes gun owners look like crazed vigilante-wannabes to the average non-gun-owning person. Not to mention, it's fodder for the anti-gun lobby. Property can be replaced. There isn't an argument that can be made for killing someone over a purse.
    Ok so I'm armchair QBing from a clearly NON-Legal viewpoint, but...
    I don't know. I think my views on that have changed somewhat over the years. What do you use to pay for that grocery bill every month? Without it, you don't eat - ie your right to life has been violated. Perhaps if more people stood up there wouldn't be so many of these issues in the first place? Too many aren't willing to defend what's theirs anymore. Part of what this country was founded on was the concept of personal property. [p]The only thing that concerns me is the chance of hitting an innocent bystander. That's the only thing that would give me pause to hold back.[/p]
    There is a case to be made that entire families lives have been destroyed by persons stealing from them. I just can't bring myself to have any sort of compassion for a criminal whatsoever. That's between them and God.
    [p]At what point do we draw the line? We are to use the means necessary to protect our immediate lives, but not defend the tools and means we use to secure those lives? Like it or not our society depends on the bartering system. I want your goods, I give you currency and you give me the goods in return. Without that system, for most of us, life ceases.

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array lowflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Ok so I'm armchair QBing from a clearly NON-Legal viewpoint, but...
    I don't know. I think my views on that have changed somewhat over the years. What do you use to pay for that grocery bill every month? Without it, you don't eat - ie your right to life has been violated. Perhaps if more people stood up there wouldn't be so many of these issues in the first place? Too many aren't willing to defend what's theirs anymore. Part of what this country was founded on was the concept of personal property. [p]The only thing that concerns me is the chance of hitting an innocent bystander. That's the only thing that would give me pause to hold back.[/p]
    There is a case to be made that entire families lives have been destroyed by persons stealing from them. I just can't bring myself to have any sort of compassion for a criminal whatsoever. That's between them and God.
    [p]At what point do we draw the line? We are to use the means necessary to protect our immediate lives, but not defend the tools and means we use to secure those lives? Like it or not our society depends on the bartering system. I want your goods, I give you currency and you give me the goods in return. Without that system, for most of us, life ceases.
    Good points for sure. I reckon everybody draws their own line.

    As for me, I am willing to defend my property, just not willing to end somebody's life over it; nor am I willing to risk my own life or livlihood for things that I can replace. If I shoot somebody and it is deemed unjust by a few folks, I will have lost a lot more than would have been stolen otherwise.

    Besides, there isn't anything anyone could take from me that would prevent me from supporting my family. I don't define my life by the things I own.
    Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Suspect wanted for burglary at judge's home
    By foots402 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 21st, 2010, 05:02 PM
  2. Burglary Suspect Shot by Police on Westside
    By goldshellback in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 28th, 2008, 11:15 PM
  3. Homeowner Guns Down Burglary Suspect In MWC
    By TRICKORMATE in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 12th, 2008, 01:49 AM
  4. Burglary Suspect Fatally Shot
    By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 1st, 2008, 01:36 AM
  5. Burglary Suspect Caught After Attempted Robbery
    By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 19th, 2008, 08:11 AM