McKinney Apartment Evicting Vet for self defense

[rtschl]

Saw this on the news just now. Specifically: 'having a weapon (gun) on the community in plain sight and using it in a potentially harmful manner,' the letter stated.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/McKin ... 04501.html

I hope this is actionable on his part and he wins.

[Grundy1133]

ridiculous. all the more reason to buy instead of rent.

[Paladin]

Sounds like a lousy Apt complex that prefers hoodlums to veterans. I think it's time to investigate Apt management. They might be in on the crime.

[Allons]

I know its no fun moving but, you have to ask yourself; Do I really want to fight to stay somewhere I'm not allowed to protect myself?

[The Annoyed Man]

I mean to disrespect to those of you who are vets, but I don’t see how the subject’s being one is relevant to the story. NO citizen ought to be subjected to injustice just because he or she lawfully defended themselves. On its face, it sounds like this guy did what he had to, but the details are a little skimpy, and I’d like to know more before rendering an opinion.

[cyphertext]

Moments later, video showed Jacobs looking for his attacker who ran off...
When he found him, Jacobs said he pulled his gun again.

"We walked him out our exit gate and here we are," Jacobs explained.

He is not a a commissioned LEO, functioning in the performance of his duty. He is like any of us, and does not have the right or authority to track someone down and "escort them out" at gun point, once the perp has disengaged from the fight. You get a description. You call the cops. End of story.

This was my thought as well. He drew the firearm and the guy ran off... he stopped the threat. Going to look for the guy was where he messed up.

[cyphertext]

I mean to disrespect to those of you who are vets, but I don’t see how the subject’s being one is relevant to the story. NO citizen ought to be subjected to injustice just because he or she lawfully defended themselves. On its face, it sounds like this guy did what he had to, but the details are a little skimpy, and I’d like to know more before rendering an opinion.

I'm a vet and agree with you TAM.

[MechAg94]

I am not sure I see enough detail to say what he did was wrong. The wording could be interpreted multiple ways and the police aren't commenting.

That said, he is a renter. I don't like the complex telling him to move out for this reason, but it is their property and I am weary of setting precedents to force them to allow an unwanted renter to stay. What applies to them also applies to the grandmother renting out that second home for extra income.

[rtschl]

I mean to disrespect to those of you who are vets, but I don’t see how the subject’s being one is relevant to the story. NO citizen ought to be subjected to injustice just because he or she lawfully defended themselves. On its face, it sounds like this guy did what he had to, but the details are a little skimpy, and I’d like to know more before rendering an opinion.

TAM, I'm not a Veteran, but the son and son-in-law of Vets. I was watching this on TV and went to their website and was quoting their headline. You are correct that his Veteran status is not a relevant or mitigating factor on whether he is being unjustly evicted.

[Abraham]

I will speculate he has an LTC.

As I've posted before, having one doesn't lend you the power of an LEO. You don't get to chase after criminals no matter how justified you think you are.

People rationalize this, that and the other of what they'd do if confronted by a situation they're not qualified to perform except by LE, but thinking that the possession of an LTC is kinda, sorta like be L.E.

No, it's not.

Start acting like you're empowered as an LEO because you're a card carrying LTC and I have no pity when they throw you in jail when you step over the line.

[Soccerdad1995]

According to the "private property" crowd, his possessions and beliefs should be subject to the whims of his landlord, the almighty and all powerful property owner. Of course, those same folks would argue in favor of the property owner being able to have him arrested, not just evicted, because he had something that they find "scary".

I agree that his vet status is no more relevant than any other job he may have had in the past. It was probably featured here because the story has a slant in his favor and that helps to make him more sympathetic, thus making for a better story.

I also agree that we need all facts before second guessing his actions. The story does mention him "going looking for" the BG's, which may be a bit of an overreach on his part, or not, depending on the specifics.

[strogg]

Here's how I see it:

If the BGs were still a threat when the vet with the gun gave chase, then it would be justified. If the threat was gone when the vet with the gun gave chase, then it's vigilantism. It's the peace officers' job to arrest and book any perps, and it's the job of the courts to determine guilt and punishment. We, under LTC and castle laws, have a right to defend ourselves under immediate threat of violence and death. The rest should be left to the professionals.

[bblhd672]

Neither the man nor his wife seem to have a real understanding of the law regarding justified use of a deadly weapon.

Previous "military training" does not grant you extended rights to use or threaten to use deadly force.

[CoffeeNut]

If I manage to scare a threat in one direction then I'm going the opposite way. I'm not walking into an ambush.

What's the legality of drawing back down on someone that showed themselves to be a threat a few minutes ago but is no longer presenting a threat? I can't imagine it gets you a key to the city.