Elderly man fatally shoots 2 reported burglars targeting neighbor's home
03:39 PM CST on Wednesday, November 14, 2007
By Juanita Jimenez /KHOU 11 News
Two reported thieves in Pasadena are dead after a neighbor, in his 70s, took matters into his own hands.
The ordeal occurred Wednesday afternoon at 7814 Timberline.
Pasadena Police say it began when an elderly neighbor heard glass breaking at the home next door, so he headed out to investigate.
It was then, police say, that the individual saw two men climbing out the rear window of his neighbor's home.
The pair was reportedly carrying items from the home.
The neighbor reportedly told the pair to drop the items and then, police say, he shot both men when they didn’t comply.
Police say neither of the men was armed.
No word yet on if charges will be filed in the case.
Man, you can't make this stuff up if you tried. I wonder what charges they are going to get???
Last edited by Lucky45 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:42 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Elderly man fatally shoots 2 reported burglars targeting neighbor's home
03:39 PM CST on Wednesday, November 14, 2007
By Juanita Jimenez /KHOU 11 News
Two reported thieves in Pasadena are dead after a neighbor, in his 70s, took matters into his own hands.
The ordeal occurred Wednesday afternoon at 7814 Timberline.
Pasadena Police say it began when an elderly neighbor heard glass breaking at the home next door, so he headed out to investigate.
It was then, police say, that the individual saw two men climbing out the rear window of his neighbor's home.
The pair was reportedly carrying items from the home.
The neighbor reportedly told the pair to drop the items and then, police say, he shot both men when they didn’t comply.
Police say neither of the men was armed.
No word yet on if charges will be filed in the case.
Man, you can't make this stuff up if you tried. I wonder what charges they are going to get???
Very subtle and well done. ;)
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
The man, who police have not identified, knew the owner of the house in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive was not home, and that the noise could possibly be a burglary, Corbett said. The man then called police to inform them he thought his neighbor's house was being burglarized.
The man then saw two men coming through a gate in the backyard of the neighbor's house.
"He confronted them with a shotgun," Corbett said, and asked them to stop. They did not and he fired two shots, striking each man once, Corbett said.
One man was found dead about two houses from where the reported burglary occurred. The other was found dead across the street, Corbett said.
Police are interviewing the homeowner.
If the homeowner has not yet been arrested, it is likely that there is a lot of information missing from this report.
"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women." Ronald Reagan
Russell wrote:Well, what was described there doesn't fall under the deadly force statutes or deadly force in the protection of third person's property statutes,
It certainly appears to from the information given
Texas Penal Code
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;
What part of his actions fall outside of that?
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
They ought to give him a medal and congratulate him for preventing two pieces of trash from robbing and violating a neighbor and ridding the neighborhood bad rubbish.
But in today's bleeding heart politically correct legal system he will probably get life in 30 years to life. Oh well, at least the most of his life is behind him and it was spend free and enjoying the life God gave him.
txinvestigator, the catch I think is that it happened before 6 pm (before the "nighttime") according to what I saw on FOX news
Last edited by Doug.38PR on Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As usual, nobody's stuff is worth a life...But I didn't write the law...
And as usual there are a few things NOT reported here in this one...
Pasadena's not to far around the Beltway from us, and "petty" crime is apparently on an upswing around this area...
I kinda wish I had a neighbor like this living next to me...At least I know he gives a rats about the neighborhood and his neighbors to watch after it...
I certainly wouldn't go outside to investigate without something handy that would make ANY encounter to my advantage...
But thats just my opinion...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
txinvestigator wrote:What part of his actions fall outside of that?
What about the good ole drumbeat song that we hear about "that material stuff can be replaced by insurance." The ole "he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" spill. Well this should be the perfect test case to put that theory to rest. The theory that states, " you should be hesitant in using deadly force to stop a theft of your or a third party's property."
Last edited by Lucky45 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If you don't stand for something, then you will fall for anything.
Hmmmm, right across the way from the Pasadena Fairgrounds and the Convention Center, where we have a few guns shows every now and then...
Satellite recon shows what looks to be an apartment complex across from the corner cul-de-sac where the incident took place...
Interesting...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
txinvestigator wrote:What part of his actions fall outside of that?
What about the good ole drumbeat song that we hear about "that material stuff can be replaced by insurance." Well this should be the perfect test case to put that theory to rest. The theory that states, " you should be hesitant in using deadly force to stop a theft of your or a third party's property."
Well, you could assume the 70 yr old was not going out there to shoot anyone with other people's stuff, right???
When he said "stop", that might have been enough for the two burglers to assume the good neighbor wouldn't do anything drastic to stop them then...
We can paint the numbers all day on this, and you are correct, nobody's stuff is worth a life...But then again we do not know what the two burglers did after they were told to stop...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
stevie_d_64 wrote:We can paint the numbers all day on this, and you are correct, nobody's stuff is worth a life...But then again we do not know what the two burglers did after they were told to stop...
Hold up stevie. Before we go any further, I don't want you to think I'm a burglar sympathyser. Like the Presidential candidates, you can check my RECORD and see that I have NEVER, EVER, had an issue with using FORCE including DEADLY when it comes to property. I'm a letter of the law kinda guy , I don't flip flop on the issue like some others. I was just rehashing what others say all the time, who went and got a CHL and now are unsure of when they will use it.
Last edited by Lucky45 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you don't stand for something, then you will fall for anything.
txinvestigator wrote:What part of his actions fall outside of that?
What about the good ole drumbeat song that we hear about "that material stuff can be replaced by insurance." The ole "he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" spill. Well this should be the perfect test case to put that theory to rest. The theory that states, " you should be hesitant in using deadly force to stop a theft of your or a third party's property."
I get your point. ;) So I'll address that in its literal form for grins; The law indicates "recovered" not "replaced". Huge difference.
As far as your theory statement, I agree with it in moral principle. However, it is not a legal standard.
IMO, if that facts are as he we have read, I think he should be no-billed. I probably would not have fired in that situation, but the law allows DF in that situation.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
txinvestigator wrote:I get your point. ;) So I'll address that in its literal form for grins; The law indicates "recovered" not "replaced". .
Spoken like a true politician. Have you ever thought about running for office??
txinvestigator wrote:As far as your theory statement, I agree with it in moral principle. However, it is not a legal standard.
Man, we agree. I think I'm finally rubbing off on you.
txinvestigator wrote:IMO, if that facts are as he we have read, I think he should be no-billed. I probably would not have fired in that situation, but the law allows DF in that situation.
You know what I thought about today?? Was thinking that we should start putting polls in some of these discussions, just to get a concensus on the general opinions on a matter. I know alot of people lurk and don't want to state their opinion. Fearing they might lose a shooting buddy, I guess.
If you don't stand for something, then you will fall for anything.
My homeowners insurance has a deductible of 1% of the value of the real estate, which comes to about $1,300 in my case. Burglars could steal anything they could carry in their hands from my house, and the insurance would not pay a dime.
I agree with txinvestigator on the legality of this incident.
Furthermore, since most people who serve on grand juries have been the victim of some kind of crime, I doubt they would indict this guy, even in Harris County. Remember the CHL holder on the bus?
Before we go any further, I don't want you to think I'm a burglar sympathyser. Like the Presidential candidates, you can check my RECORD and see that I have NEVER, EVER, had an issue with using FORCE including DEADLY 
when it comes to property. I'm a letter of the law kinda guy 
, I don't flip flop on the issue like some others. I was just rehashing what others say all the time, who went and got a CHL and now are unsure of when they will use it.
Spoken like a true politician. Have you ever thought about running for office?? 
I think I'm finally rubbing off on you. 
