TX: Self defense, or not?

This is a discussion on TX: Self defense, or not? within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; This is an odd one for In the News .. maybe it doesn't belong here... maybe it does. People riding around a neighborhood shooting "up ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: TX: Self defense, or not?

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,335

    TX: Self defense, or not?

    This is an odd one for In the News.. maybe it doesn't belong here... maybe it does.

    People riding around a neighborhood shooting "up into the air."
    Homeowner/resident steps out of his house, armed; he sees the shooter's car, and a window of the car rolls down. He fires his weapon and wounds three in the car... "Fearing" he was a target.

    Justified, or not?

    Homeowner/resident has been charged. No word on the charges against the driving shooters... if any.

    Story here
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array StormRhydr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Music City, USA
    Posts
    3,066
    The key to most such things, in the law, are "the reasonableness" of the actions. I dont think we have enough info to make that call now.

    I can make arguments both ways, but I doubt that the story is right. Im sure the idiots in the car said that they were just "shooting in the air". To me that says no one got shot, but that doesnt mean that they were "shooting in the air", it could mean that cars, windows, sides of buildings will later be discovered to have bullet holes in them, thus demonstrating that they were not simply "merry makers" out on a lark. If so, the defendant comes out better.

    Actually, I think a TX jury is going to have a hard time convicting a home owner who was correct that these people were recklessly endangering him & the neighborhood, and took action to safeguard himself and others in that neighborhood. Btw, Im not saying it should or should not work out that way, just saying that the car load of shooters should also have been charged with reckless endangerment, at the very least, as well.
    hienykins, Sarge65, baren and 2 others like this.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Stoveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    PRM
    Posts
    2,743
    If the resident had simply stepped back into the house and called the police while keeping an eye on the vehicle his life would certainly be a lot different than it is now...
    Hopyard likes this.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Stevew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    3,400
    Based on the information provided I would say the home owner was justified.

    It should be pretty easy to demonstrate that the folks shooting from the car were a danger.

    Now if they provide more evidence I might change my mind.
    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws. Plato

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoveman View Post
    If the resident had simply stepped back into the house and called the police while keeping an eye on the vehicle his life would certainly be a lot different than it is now...
    Yes it would, if he had a life... He could just as easily suffered gunshot wounds through the door/walls/windows of the house while "keeping an eye on the vehicle" ...
    baren likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,200
    Blame all around on this one. Guys shooting in the air shouldn't have been; guy in house should have stay in house. Leave it to the courts to decide the case.
    molleur likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array ep1953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kodak TN
    Posts
    1,151
    He was justified. I have read several news reports of people INSIDE a house being shot by a drive in the past few years, including children sleeping in their beds or on the living room couch.

  9. #8
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,371
    I think Gunny Hartman would say "Outstanding! The homeowner scored three hits on a moving target with just a handgun!"

    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array Longstreet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    741
    As with nearly all such posts like this, we don't begin to have enough details to make an informed call. We don't know. Any news source is going to flavor their reporting to make money and advance their agenda.
    msgt/ret likes this.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array NC Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC Foothills
    Posts
    2,542
    That's the great thing about the American legal system.

    There doesn't HAVE to be an innocent party in a criminal altercation. All parties involved can be the recipient of charges.

    This is one that would be interesting one to sit in court and listen to but not as a jury member.
    North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit Instructor
    NRA Personal Protection and Basic Pistol Instructor

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array KyBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    513
    I have no idea about the legality. But if they were within line of sight of his gun, they were endangering his life. Unless he lives in a bulletproof house taking out the shooter(s) seems prudent.

  13. #12
    Member Array BMcPhe44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Texas South Plains
    Posts
    273
    If it happened here the way the story read I'm guessing a grand jury no-bills. San Antonio who knows. Not as liberal as Austin but pretty liberal compared to the rest of the State. A convincing argument could be made that he was afraid for his or his neighbor's life if it happened as the article said. San Antonio is getting a pretty bad rep for gang violence. Not saying it is true but that is the perception in the area I live.

    Also depends on his criminal history--if any---I would think.

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Stupid and more stupid.

    There's probably room enough in a nice special place for all involved.

    I don't know quite whether to admire the homeowner for the guts to go outside, or to condemn him for the stupidity
    of going outside. As for "reasonable fear," well he moved himself from a place of relative safety to an exposed
    location. I think that about kills off his SD argument.

    Me, I'd be prone on the ground in the backyard using the house
    for maximum cover. 'nough said.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #14
    Senior Member Array patri0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Retired to the Heartland
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1953 View Post
    He was justified. I have read several news reports of people INSIDE a house being shot by a drive in the past few years, including children sleeping in their beds or on the living room couch.
    The law is based on the "Assumptions of a reasonable man"... hearing gunfire from a MV outside your residence and seeing the window rolling down might be "reasonable" to assume he was the target of a "Drive-By".
    Also, "Warning Shots" are legally considered "misses"... Perhaps the resident believed the ''shooters" were just shooting at him but 'missing'.

    Or the definition of self-defense:
    Did the resident "reasonably" believe "he or other innocents were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury"?

    Or in reverse: Did the resident have ANY reason to believe the "shooters" were engaged in any form of legal activity, that would "reasonably" lead him to another conclusion?

    Poor reporting with very few facts, but the police, who were there, chose to arrest only the resident, or is that just because he is the only person to hit anyone?

    If I drove around my city, shooting a repeatedly shooting a firearm... I'd be arrested with all kinds of charges on me, for sure!!!!
    Retired State Trooper (40 long years) 8 years State Range Instructor - BS Degree- Justice, MS Degree- Criminology
    All forms of Gun Control are Unconstitutional / Illegal and beyond the scope of the US. Supreme Court.
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"- Luke 22:36

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,273
    To little in the report, like the Fl theater shooting this one needs to wait until trial.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •