Argument escalates

[CT-Mike]

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?B...852&PAG=461&rf

MONTGOMERY - An argument between neighbors ended with gunfire Sunday night, leaving one man dead and another with questions to answer.

The shooting occurred around 9:30 p.m. in the 4000 block of Pamela Way in Old Oak Estates, located off Texas 105 near Montgomery.
The deceased was identified as 43-year-old Clark Dennis.
Lt. Dan Norris, of the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, said deputies arrived to find Clark was shot once in the abdomen while on a neighbor's property.
"The shooting incident occurred after Clark Dennis went to a neighbor's home, where an argument escalated from verbal to physical," Norris said. "The homeowner told investigators that Clark Dennis had been told repeatedly to leave, and when Clark Dennis came toward the homeowner in an aggressive manner, the homeowner shot Clark one time."
Dennis was transported to Conroe Regional Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Steve Kelley, who lives next door to the home where the shooting occurred, said he was surprised Monday morning when he heard about the shooting from his daughter-in-law, who also lives nearby.
"We didn't hear anything," Kelley said.
He and his wife, Joyce, knew of Clark, but did not know him personally.
Homes in the subdivision are scattered on large pieces of land in what Kelley says is a quiet neighborhood.

No charges have been filed against the homeowner, and the MCSO has not released his name.
Texans gained greater rights to use deadly force in self-defense, without retreat, when Senate Bill 378 went into effect Sept. 1. Gov. Rick Perry issued a statement on March 27, after signing the bill, praising it and thanking its authors for "their dedication to ensuring Texans' rights to self-defense."
"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature," Perry wrote. "Today, I am proud to sign the "Castle Law" which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force."

A 1973 statute required a person to first attempt to retreat in a criminal attack. That was amended in 1995 to allow a person to use deadly force without attempting to retreat "if an intruder unlawfully entered their home."
Senate Bill 378 widened the parameters of that law to extend them to vehicles and workplaces.
From the beginning, the bill was controversial, but debate increased dramatically following a Nov. 15 incident in Pasadena, when a homeowner, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, fatally shot two men burglarizing his neighbor's residence, while talking to a 9-1-1 operator.

The 61-year-old man claimed the "Castle Law" justified his actions.
The MCSO has not referred to the "Castle Law" in this case, which is still being investigated.
"The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office Criminal Investigations Division is completing its investigation and will forward all information, evidence and reports to the District Attorney's Office when completed," Norris said.

Sounds like this was a good shoot (on the surface), and you gotta like the media not releasing the victims name or address.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[peacefuljeffrey]

I like the fact that the report calls the home-intruder "the deceased" (not "the victim") and you also refer to the guy who was forced to shoot as "the victim".

Often the guy who was shot is called "the shooting victim" even though he was initially the attacker.

[Supertac45]

Sounds like a good shoot.

[digitalexplr]

The deceased was on the property uninvited. He was asked to leave several times. But rather than leaving he approached the home owner in an aggressive manner. On the surface sounds like a good, though unfortunate shoot.

[jofrdo]

There is no indication in the story that the deceased was armed with a weapon of any sort. This would have bee a good time for a less-than-lethal method of defense as a first resort.

[SleepingZ]

There is no indication in the story that the deceased was armed with a weapon of any sort. This would have bee a good time for a less-than-lethal method of defense as a first resort.

Some people you just can educate, this speeds up the learning curve.


Z

[retsupt99]

Good thing this is in TX...and not in a 'blue' state.
Based on what has been said so far...sounds legit!

Stay armed...stay safe!

[DrLewall]

Note to BGs, Don't mess with Texas!

[grady]

What's that sig line I saw? Something like "don't start a fight with an old man. If he doesn't want to fight you, he'll just kill you."

Now, I'm not calling 61 old... but the other guy was 43. That could be quite a difference depending on their physical conditioning.

[abuttermilk]

+1 grady,
And also depending on how many surgeries one has had that limit his ability to protect himself physically.

[joleary223]

Mental note..... Don't pick a fight on someonelse's property in Texas, or anywherelse for that mater.

[jframe38]

No disrespect to anyone but I need to understand why this shooting was deemed justifiable. Earlier this summer I attended the CWP class and were told that you cannot shoot someone unless your life is in imminent danger. (AOJ)
I think that if I was having an argument w/neighbor and he rushed me w/o any weapon and I killed him in my yard I'd probably wind up in court. If you stay in the house and then he comes in...it's a diff story.
Could more incidents like this cause the anti's to come out of the closet and state that the "castle law" is being abused and could come under attack.
Maybe the guy would have taken another step or two and then stop in his tracks. Maybe not, but could a lawyer make a case here?
I'm just a little surprised here as I was with the Pasadena, TX shooting. I think that guy was itching to shoot his shotgun. Is it OK to shoot someone unarmed just because you are pissed and they are on your property?
Like I stated in previous threads, this is all new to me and my learning curve is pretty steep right now. So please help me understand how this shooting was justified. Is it just because it was in Texas? I don't think it would go well in some other states.

[Natureboypkr]

Note to BGs, Don't mess with Texas!

I dont think anyone messes with Texas. Big steaks and even bigger firearms

[TexasAg]

No disrespect to anyone but I need to understand why this shooting was deemed justifiable. Earlier this summer I attended the CWP class and were told that you cannot shoot someone unless your life is in imminent danger. (AOJ)
I think that if I was having an argument w/neighbor and he rushed me w/o any weapon and I killed him in my yard I'd probably wind up in court. If you stay in the house and then he comes in...it's a diff story.
Could more incidents like this cause the anti's to come out of the closet and state that the "castle law" is being abused and could come under attack.
Maybe the guy would have taken another step or two and then stop in his tracks. Maybe not, but could a lawyer make a case here?
I'm just a little surprised here as I was with the Pasadena, TX shooting. I think that guy was itching to shoot his shotgun. Is it OK to shoot someone unarmed just because you are pissed and they are on your property?
Like I stated in previous threads, this is all new to me and my learning curve is pretty steep right now. So please help me understand how this shooting was justified. Is it just because it was in Texas? I don't think it would go well in some other states.

Simply put, the laws are different in Texas. You can even shoot somebody in Texas to prevent theft of property - that would get you charged with murder here in NC.

[jframe38]

TexasAg you are right on the mark here. It would probably be a homicide or murder here in SC also.
It's getting back to the Wild West in Texas!