Houston man kills teen burglary suspect

Houston man kills teen burglary suspect

This is a discussion on Houston man kills teen burglary suspect within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Houston man kills teen burglary suspect Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle Jan. 10, 2010, 1:39PMShare The homeowner told police he woke up around 6:30 a.m. to ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 73
  1. #1
    Member Array cbp210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Humble, TX
    Posts
    473

    Houston man kills teen burglary suspect

    Houston man kills teen burglary suspect
    Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle
    Jan. 10, 2010, 1:39PMShare

    The homeowner told police he woke up around 6:30 a.m. to hear the alarm going off at his townhouse on Baer, northeast of downtown. He said his home had previously been burglarized not long before.

    Police say the man looked out his bedroom patio door and saw the teenager carrying away his TV. The man shot the teen, who dropped the TV and jumped the fence, collapsing on the other side.

    The homeowner called 9-1-1 and the burglary suspect, 19-year-old Marcel Jaquan Simpson, was taken to Ben Taub General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

    Not long after the shooting, Simpsonís girlfriend, Sabrina Walker, appeared at the scene. Police say she appears to have been acting as Simpsonís getaway driver. She was arrested and charged with burglary of a habitation.

    No charges have been filed against the homeowner. Police say the case will likely be referred to a grand jury.

    Houston man kills teen burglary suspect | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle


  2. #2
    Member Array kahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    upstate s.c.
    Posts
    55
    wow, shot outside the house ??????? lets all wish him the best, he's going to need it.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array dsee11789's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    687
    I think it should be ok to protect property with deadly force, and cops should be able to shoot runners. I hate all the "rules" criminals know that if they run and don't have a weapon in their hand then they can get away.

    I wish the homeowner good luck.
    Exodus 22:2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"

  4. #4
    Distinguished Member Array pcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    San Angelo, Texas
    Posts
    1,235
    I seem to remember hearing at some point that in Texas, if they're still on your property it's basically the same as them actually being inside the house.

    I could be wrong on that...

    Most (if not all) places would say if you shot someone outside of your house then you would be the one looking for trouble.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    memento mori


  5. #5
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    19-year-old Marcel Jaquan Simpson, was taken to Ben Taub General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
    Way to go!!! Saved his TV AND the tax payers a bunch of money

    Got a guy from Texas working with me in the comm center; he says not only can you shoot to protect your property, you can use leathal force to RECOVER property that was stolen.

    This home owner should be in the clear with nothing to worry about.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array dsee11789's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    Way to go!!! Saved his TV AND the tax payers a bunch of money
    I don't know... what if the TV was LCD. It says the guy dropped it. Poor TV. lol
    Exodus 22:2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"

  7. #7
    Member Array Angry Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by kahr View Post
    wow, shot outside the house ??????? lets all wish him the best, he's going to need it.
    Two words....Joe Horn. I don't believe a homeowner will face a grand jury for defending his possessions on his property in Texas. Joe shot and killed two burglers outside his neighbors house and was acquitted. I believe I heard an interview with Joe and he said he would not do it again in hindsight due to all the legal issues he faced.

    A Man's Home Is His Castle, and He Can Defend It - ABC News
    Whitestone Castle Armory, Austin TX
    http://www.wcarmory.com/
    Stuff For Sale http://forsale.wcptexas.com

  8. #8
    Member Array longtrain58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Whitney, Texas
    Posts
    53
    Texas now has one of the most liberal Castle Law Statutes in the Nation. I have great respect for Governor Perry, he couldn't wait to sign it.

    AN ACT

    relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

    SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

    (4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    (5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

    (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

    (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

    (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

    [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

    (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

    (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

    SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

    (b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

    SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
    __________________________________________________ _________________
    See www.rc123.com

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,761
    Quote Originally Posted by kahr View Post
    wow, shot outside the house ??????? lets all wish him the best, he's going to need it.
    Nope! Not in TX...he's good to go, and the dirtbag is where he belongs.
    I have no mercy for the scumbag willing to enter someone's home...in the home or in the yard, coming or going...
    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]

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array Guns and more's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    2,391
    I hate hearing stories like that.
    Sad the shooting ended that way.
    It's a shame that the perp dropped the TV, those are expensive!

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    "unlawfully and with force entered" "unlawfully and with force was attempting to remove."

    The word "force" and the conjunction, "and," are in the code for a reason.

    I'm not sure this was a good shoot based on this section by itself (see further on). I don't see the element of "force" and I don't see the element of "robbery."

    9.32 specifies, "(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. "

    What happened was burglary of a habitation or theft at night. At the time of the shooting the BG was fleeing and outside the habitation, not using or attempting to use force (at least as reported), not an immediate threat.

    Joe Horn's situation was slightly different. The BGs made threatening moves toward him. The BG in this instance was running away.

    Would not want to be in the shooter's shoes.

    HOWEVER

    [9.42] may be applicable.

    "to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, THEFT DURING THE NIGHT TIME, or ciminal mischief during the nighttime; or

    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary...theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to substantial risk of death or bodily injury.

    Still, would not want to be in the shooter's shoes.

  12. #12
    Member Array jbailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    NC coast
    Posts
    148
    I hope the homeowner will be vindicated. It is so sad though to see a teen waste his life by making stupid choices.

    Here in NC, our Castle Doctrine (Defense of Habitation) does not extend outside the dwelling. Here it is unlawful to shoot a fleeing thief, even inside.

    Strange as it may seem, once an intruder is inside, has already broken in and you discover them, NC laws say that deadly force is not authorized unless the suspect is armed and/or makes a threatining move, in other words unless the homeowner is in fear of "death, serious bodily injury or sexual assault".

    Hopefully before long our Castle doctrine will be the same as TX.

    I think anyone that decides to break into someone's home, especially when occupied, should expect to be shot on sight. Perhaps that prospect will help convince some to choose a less lethal line of work. That being said, I don't think I could have shot the fleeing thief in my yard; but I would definitely oblige if breaking in, or found inside.

    Jim
    "There is no problem that cannot be solved through the proper use of high explosives"
    G. Alan Foster

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array Guardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wichita Falls, Texas
    Posts
    1,618
    No charges have been filed against the homeowner. Police say the case will likely be referred to a grand jury.


    My question (not be a legal eagle here) is why does it have to go to a grand jury even if the darn law states he's legal and the police say no charges which means it was legal. I still don't understand that portion of it. Can anyone please explain that to me, why waste such time and energy?
    "I dislike death, however, there are some things I dislike more than death. Therefore, there are times when I will not avoid danger" Mencius"

  14. #14
    Member Array FLSquirrelHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FL, The "Stand Your Ground' State
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Guardian View Post
    My question (not be a legal eagle here) is why does it have to go to a grand jury even if the darn law states he's legal and the police say no charges which means it was legal. I still don't understand that portion of it. Can anyone please explain that to me, why waste such time and energy?
    A human being is dead. It's worth a little time, effort, and money to make sure there wasn't more to this story. [Teen was dating shooter's niece, considered a bad influence. Shooter invited kid to take home a 'spare TV' then shot the kid on the way out and called it a robbery.] It's also better to get a no bill (which in some jurisdictions means you cannot later be charged) from a sampled jury than to let one person act as sole arbiter -- imagine that religious tensions are part of the public's perception of the shooting -- do you really want a politician making the final decision on whether or not to charge you?

    In an ideal situation, the prosecutor intentionally portrays you as defending yourself, the grand jury returns no bill, you can never be charged with the shooting, and you have a jury decision backing you up in event his girlfriend files a civil suit.
    Last edited by FLSquirrelHunter; January 10th, 2010 at 10:40 PM. Reason: added ideal result

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array miklcolt45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    @ Wits' End
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Guardian View Post
    No charges have been filed against the homeowner. Police say the case will likely be referred to a grand jury.


    My question (not be a legal eagle here) is why does it have to go to a grand jury even if the darn law states he's legal and the police say no charges which means it was legal. I still don't understand that portion of it. Can anyone please explain that to me, why waste such time and energy?
    Someone from TX will have to chime in to be sure, but I think I remember someone saying that is SOP in TX.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    Albert Einstein

Page 1 of 5 12345 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Houston. Homeowner interrupts burglary
    By NJB in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 12th, 2010, 09:26 PM
  2. In the News: Good - Detroiter kills teen home intrusion suspect
    By MackinacMike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 6th, 2009, 10:33 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. Houston state rep uses pistol to stop burglary
    By portsider44 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 10th, 2007, 05:05 PM

Search tags for this page

houston man kills burglars

,

houston murder marcel jaquan simpson

,

man in texas kills two people under stand your ground law

,

man kills bulglary suspect

,

marcel jaquan simpson

,

sabrina walker burgalary of a habitation

,

sabrina walker burglary

,

sabrina walker burglary of a habitation

,

texas man kills two burglars under stand your ground

,

texas shooter burglers stand your ground

,

texas stand your ground law man kills two burglars

,

tx man kills burgaly

,

why so many burglaries in houston

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors