Careful where you walk........ - Page 5

BikerRN · June 3rd, 2008, 01:36 PM

Reading this "story" a couple of things come in to my mind.

One, anytime you shoot someone they go from being a "Monster" to being somebody's beloved offspring. In short, they magically transform from Monster to loved, beautifu human being with hopes, dreams and wishes. This means make sure you are 100% right before you shoot.

Even us gunowners and defensive gun carriers aren't in complete agreement. If we can't agree, what do you think the general population thinks? As far as, "I live in a gun friendly state and it can't happen here." HOGWASH! Anything can happen anywhere.

I'm not going to judge the actions taken, as I was not there, I'm not on the jury nor do I have access to the "investigative material". This may very well end up being a "test" of the Castle Doctrine Laws, and not for the better I bet.

Anytime you can avoid shooting it's better for you, and cheaper too. Sometimes shooting can't be avoided, but if you have a chance to not shoot I strongly encourage that course of action. This could very well become the case that "breaks" Castle Doctrine, or at least severly limits it. I'll wait and see.

To those of you that say, "snuff out the badguy, even if he's not hurting you, but a third party," do so at your own peril. If you are not hurting me and mine, when I'm not working, I'm probably not going to use a firearm to defend you. There are some exceptions to this, but that's my general line of thinking. The reason I think like I do is because I don't like paying lawyers and risking financial ruin, as well as prison, to do for someone else what they should've done for themself in the first place. The safety of my family and myself comes first before society "as a whole".

I think this case may be very interesting to follow. As far as the Drunk Driver, don't even get me started.

Biker

Herknav · June 3rd, 2008, 01:59 PM

Chuck Brick--What do you do when you have to go in someone's fenced back yard? I'm guessing you don't jump the fence.

As to the story--Why would you have to sneak up on a party where they're playing loud music? Why do you need to be next to the old man's window?

Question for the peace officers--What is the difference between "failing to stop and render aid" and hit-and-run?

chuck brick · June 3rd, 2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

Hey, Chuck...keep your bloody floodlight away from my window!

I've been cursed, I'm sure, but never shot at. My ego heals faster than my flesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herknav

Chuck Brick--What do you do when you have to go in someone's fenced back yard? I'm guessing you don't jump the fence.

If the yard is fully fenced, I have no problem waking people up and telling them what I need. Better (for both of us) than surprise wake-ups. I treat every home like I think they may be asleep naked, windows open, no curtains, and armed.

But then I'm an old fart that was taught respect when I was "knee-high to a cricket."

Stay safe,

Chuck Brick.

CT-Mike · June 3rd, 2008, 08:56 PM

Well here is an update:

Man indicted in shooting of teen who cut across yard | Latest News | WFAA.com

Quote:

A Kaufman County man faces possible prison time for shooting one of two teens cutting across his yard in March, an act that triggered a chain of events that ended with a traffic accident that killed the other boy’s mother.

W.C. Frosch, 74, was inside his home March 1 when he shot 15-year-old Brandon Robinson through a window. Mr. Frosch has said he thought the boys were about to break into his home.

Kaufman County authorities initially cited the state’s new “castle law” in declining to file charges. Under the law, a person is presumed to be acting reasonably if he shoots someone he believes is trying to break into his occupied home, business or car.

Prosecutors said they treated this case like any other.

“Self-defense claims are weighed on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts,” Kaufman County District Attorney Rick Harrison said Monday. “We decided to take it to the grand jury, and they indicted him.”

Mr. Frosch was indicted last week on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony, punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

He was not available for comment Monday, but he has said that he believes the shooting was justified.

“I don’t think I had really much choice,” Mr. Frosch said after the incident. “I think I was justified in what I done.”

On the night of the shooting, Mr. Frosch told officers he thought the teens were prowlers, so he armed himself with a handgun and told his wife to call 911.

He shot through a window, striking Brandon under his left arm. His injuries were not life-threatening.

“Mr. Frosch shot me,” Brandon said he told his friend Devin Nalls that night. “Your neighbor shot me!”

Brandon was spending the night with Devin, 16, whose family lives on one side of Mr. Frosch’s property. The teens told officers they were crossing his yard to check out a loud party that was under way at a home on the other side of the Frosches’.

After the shooting, the teenagers ran back to Devin’s home next door and his mother, June Nalls, 41, loaded the boys into her truck to take them to a local hospital.

On their way, a 1996 Ford driven by Agustin Renteria, 27, of Kaufman, crossed the center stripe and struck Ms. Nalls’ pickup head-on, police said.

She was killed. Her son and Brandon survived.

Police later arrested Mr. Renteria on a charge of failure to stop and render aid, and more serious charges were pending blood alcohol test results.

There was no answer Monday at the Nalls home.

No trial date has been set for Mr. Frosch, who will be tried in the 86th District Court.

Initially, there was some question about whether Mr. Frosch’s actions were legal under the “castle doctrine,” which the state Legislature passed in its last session.

The law authorizes residents to use deadly force to protect their property in some situations without requiring them to retreat first.

But a sponsor of the law, Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, said the law was not meant to cover a case like this.

“It was our thinking that you have to be under attack,” Mr. Wentworth said after the shooting.

This indictment seemed inevitable to me.

Reborn · June 3rd, 2008, 09:39 PM

The question now will be can he convince a jury that he was in fear of his life or even trying to protect his property (castle law)? I'll bet he gets a probated sentence if his past is clean and because of his age. Its a tough call on this one. No winners here.

garn · June 3rd, 2008, 09:51 PM

I definitely don't trust the news source. I bet there was a bit more going on than "walking across the yard"

Army22rpr · June 4th, 2008, 01:27 AM

If the kids are still outside how about a warning that "I have agun get off my property"(as wife is calling 911) and then reassess the situation to determine if shooting was the next escalation step. You do have a barrier between you and the perp. Probably this wouldn't be an issue if Mom hadn't died. He was only shot in the elbow.

Paladin132 · June 4th, 2008, 11:37 AM

Another report that makes my blood boil. How about everyone stop second guessing? Instead of saying well if A happened then he was wrong and B he was justified, which I have seen in less than half the posts, people want to crucify an old man who very possibly is getting rather feeble in old age. Its dark, its late at night, prowlers are outside, and if they make it inside, its over for you and your wife more than likely. Why not announce? Two reasons, and I will admit the first is a knee jerk one: because he's not a cop, he doesn't have to. Reason two: because that "Cover" of the house will not necessarily stop a bullet. It may, it may not, but bullets do go through houses, and through the next one sometimes. With just some sheetrock, braces, insulation, and then something on the outside, perhaps the homeowner didn't feel it was safe to. I can sure understand not wanting to wait until someone was inside. In my apartment if they are inside then they are in one of my two rooms, should I let someone shoot / knife / beat me for a few feet inside the door or window before I am justified in defending myself? With the Castle Doctrine I think the law puts him in the justified catagory, but everyone is upset over the "Boy" getting shot, the Mom dieing in the car wreck, and stuff that has no bearing on the incident under investigation.

I'm sorry about ranting, but I just get so sick of people rushing to judgement on someone that was trying to defend themselves. Was this in a residential neighborhood or more rual texas? That will also matter, but I don't think we know, I may have missed it. Is this old man spry and able to fight off a teenager? Maybe, again its something we dont know. But what in the hell was a boy doing sneaking within a few feet of a window?

Not saying the guy was right or wrong, I'm saying we haven't seen alot of the ground, alot of the evidence, and even the jury is going to have a hard time seeing what happened. Its impossible to know what really happened with what we know, and I would ask all of you to remember if you thought that your life was in danger and were now in that situation, how great you would feel seeing people armchair quarterback your decision without the facts.

Sorry, didn't realize that this was such a bloody long post. My appologies.

Kerbouchard · June 4th, 2008, 11:48 AM

It is a rural area. His yard is fenced. His window was not in the line of travel from the kid's house to the 'party' house. He observed two people sneaking up to his window. He sold antiques and such as part of First Monday Trade Shows. He believed the people were trying to steal his property, or hold them up. He feared for his life, and he fired a shot. Not a great shot. But a shot.

It is a well known fact in Texas that if you sneak around somebody's fenced in property in the middle of the night, you take a chance of being shot at. That hasn't changed in hundreds of years. It's not likely to change because of this case.

2 kids had a severe lapse in judgment. A Hispanic man had another lapse in judgment and decided to drive drunk. Those two lapses in judgment merged and ended the life of the Mother of one of the boys.

Mr. Frosch should not be punished because of other people's mistakes.

kazzaerexys · June 4th, 2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

But a sponsor of the law, Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, said the law was not meant to cover a case like this.

“It was our thinking that you have to be under attack,” Mr. Wentworth said after the shooting.

All due respect, but Sen. Wentworth appears to be an idiot. The whole point of a Castle Doctrine is to give the homeowner authority to use lethal force without having to wait to be attacked first.

I find myself curious to know whether the grand jury was told about the drunk driving hit and run in order to prejudice them against a no bill decision. The prosecutor runs the grand jury session, so a defense attorney would have no grounds to object to irrelevant, prejudicial arguments.

This is one I find very hard to form a strong opinion on, because I think the crux of the matter is in whether the homeowner had reasonable belief that the kids were trying to break in, and that sort of evidence will only come out at trial.

June 3rd, 2008, 01:36 PM	#41
BikerRN Distinguished Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: State of Discombobulation Posts: 1,660	Reading this "story" a couple of things come in to my mind. One, anytime you shoot someone they go from being a "Monster" to being somebody's beloved offspring. In short, they magically transform from Monster to loved, beautifu human being with hopes, dreams and wishes. This means make sure you are 100% right before you shoot. Even us gunowners and defensive gun carriers aren't in complete agreement. If we can't agree, what do you think the general population thinks? As far as, "I live in a gun friendly state and it can't happen here." HOGWASH! Anything can happen anywhere. I'm not going to judge the actions taken, as I was not there, I'm not on the jury nor do I have access to the "investigative material". This may very well end up being a "test" of the Castle Doctrine Laws, and not for the better I bet. Anytime you can avoid shooting it's better for you, and cheaper too. Sometimes shooting can't be avoided, but if you have a chance to not shoot I strongly encourage that course of action. This could very well become the case that "breaks" Castle Doctrine, or at least severly limits it. I'll wait and see. To those of you that say, "snuff out the badguy, even if he's not hurting you, but a third party," do so at your own peril. If you are not hurting me and mine, when I'm not working, I'm probably not going to use a firearm to defend you. There are some exceptions to this, but that's my general line of thinking. The reason I think like I do is because I don't like paying lawyers and risking financial ruin, as well as prison, to do for someone else what they should've done for themself in the first place. The safety of my family and myself comes first before society "as a whole". I think this case may be very interesting to follow. As far as the Drunk Driver, don't even get me started. Biker __________________ "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

June 3rd, 2008, 01:59 PM	#42
Herknav Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Waypoint 0 Posts: 453	Chuck Brick--What do you do when you have to go in someone's fenced back yard? I'm guessing you don't jump the fence. As to the story--Why would you have to sneak up on a party where they're playing loud music? Why do you need to be next to the old man's window? Question for the peace officers--What is the difference between "failing to stop and render aid" and hit-and-run? __________________ I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

June 3rd, 2008, 09:39 PM	#45
Reborn Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Rowlett, Texas Posts: 923	The question now will be can he convince a jury that he was in fear of his life or even trying to protect his property (castle law)? I'll bet he gets a probated sentence if his past is clean and because of his age. Its a tough call on this one. No winners here. __________________ Psalms 144:1 Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. CHL INSTRUCTOR, Retired LEO

June 3rd, 2008, 09:51 PM	#46
garn Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: VA Posts: 215	I definitely don't trust the news source. I bet there was a bit more going on than "walking across the yard" __________________ http://www.putertuner.com

June 4th, 2008, 01:27 AM	#47
Army22rpr Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Mission Top secret, destination unknown Posts: 154	If the kids are still outside how about a warning that "I have agun get off my property"(as wife is calling 911) and then reassess the situation to determine if shooting was the next escalation step. You do have a barrier between you and the perp. Probably this wouldn't be an issue if Mom hadn't died. He was only shot in the elbow. __________________ Nemo me impune lacesset "No one will provoke me with impunity"

June 4th, 2008, 11:37 AM	#48
Paladin132 Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: West Virginia Posts: 298	Another report that makes my blood boil. How about everyone stop second guessing? Instead of saying well if A happened then he was wrong and B he was justified, which I have seen in less than half the posts, people want to crucify an old man who very possibly is getting rather feeble in old age. Its dark, its late at night, prowlers are outside, and if they make it inside, its over for you and your wife more than likely. Why not announce? Two reasons, and I will admit the first is a knee jerk one: because he's not a cop, he doesn't have to. Reason two: because that "Cover" of the house will not necessarily stop a bullet. It may, it may not, but bullets do go through houses, and through the next one sometimes. With just some sheetrock, braces, insulation, and then something on the outside, perhaps the homeowner didn't feel it was safe to. I can sure understand not wanting to wait until someone was inside. In my apartment if they are inside then they are in one of my two rooms, should I let someone shoot / knife / beat me for a few feet inside the door or window before I am justified in defending myself? With the Castle Doctrine I think the law puts him in the justified catagory, but everyone is upset over the "Boy" getting shot, the Mom dieing in the car wreck, and stuff that has no bearing on the incident under investigation. I'm sorry about ranting, but I just get so sick of people rushing to judgement on someone that was trying to defend themselves. Was this in a residential neighborhood or more rual texas? That will also matter, but I don't think we know, I may have missed it. Is this old man spry and able to fight off a teenager? Maybe, again its something we dont know. But what in the hell was a boy doing sneaking within a few feet of a window? Not saying the guy was right or wrong, I'm saying we haven't seen alot of the ground, alot of the evidence, and even the jury is going to have a hard time seeing what happened. Its impossible to know what really happened with what we know, and I would ask all of you to remember if you thought that your life was in danger and were now in that situation, how great you would feel seeing people armchair quarterback your decision without the facts. Sorry, didn't realize that this was such a bloody long post. My appologies. Last edited by Paladin132; June 4th, 2008 at 11:37 AM. Reason: Sorry

June 4th, 2008, 11:48 AM	#49
Kerbouchard VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 2,347	It is a rural area. His yard is fenced. His window was not in the line of travel from the kid's house to the 'party' house. He observed two people sneaking up to his window. He sold antiques and such as part of First Monday Trade Shows. He believed the people were trying to steal his property, or hold them up. He feared for his life, and he fired a shot. Not a great shot. But a shot. It is a well known fact in Texas that if you sneak around somebody's fenced in property in the middle of the night, you take a chance of being shot at. That hasn't changed in hundreds of years. It's not likely to change because of this case. 2 kids had a severe lapse in judgment. A Hispanic man had another lapse in judgment and decided to drive drunk. Those two lapses in judgment merged and ended the life of the Mother of one of the boys. Mr. Frosch should not be punished because of other people's mistakes. __________________ Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever. http://miscmusings.townhall.com/ Who is John Galt?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode