This shooting happened a few miles from me, your thoughts...

[flintknapper]

Not much information just yet....so things may change dramatically in the coming days.

What are your thoughts on the way this was reported (information as concerns the law accurate/correct), and what would YOU have done in the same circumstance (using only the present information as your guide)?

http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/conte ... oting.html

[9mmGuy]

Well i dont think his life was worth the windshield or the whole car for that matter. but i wasnt there. now if he turned towards the house with a weapon or something that would be different, i still dont think i would have shot the guy unless he entered my home, but then again i was not there to judge. I dont really get that whole daylight rule anyway?

[BrassMonkey]

I am looking at my handbook. I think the guy is going to live out his days in prison. How does smashing in a windshield or causing other damage make a vehicle unrecoverable?

They are gonna throw the book at this guy.... You don't kill a human being over a car. Even if it is a Chevy Truck... If a jury doesn't, the man upstairs is sure gonna have his bacon.

[BrassMonkey]

And what ever happened to a good ole butt-whoopin?

[fadlan12]

If and a big IF the news story is exactly what happened then no way would I shoot someone for breaking my windshield with a bat. The cops would be called, but unless he came at me with it or made an attempt to attack my family...

I think what happened is the man confronted the vandal and made demands, the vandal then may have turned to attack or threaten the home owner.

I would probably go outside and tell the perp that the cops are on the way and to desist. If he then turned his attack on me I would have to defend. The reporter said he would have had to retreat. but if he is on his property I don't see how he could have retreated further. someone hitting my house or house windows could cause a lot of structural damage.

[flintknapper]

Thoughts on the accuracy of these statements made by the DA?

"That means you have the right to defend your property at night with deadly force, but not in broad open daylight," Russell said.

"Now, if an intruder is in your home, you can shoot them whether it's daylight or dark," she said."

"I wasn't there, so I don't know all the details, and I haven't seen the offense report, yet," she continued. "But I know what the law is — a person actually has to be coming at you, and, even at that, you have a duty to retreat."

In fact, the Shelby County shooting would not be justified under the state's new "Castle Doctrine," which gives homeowners more rights to protect their property with deadly force.

[seamusTX]

Those statements are correct, according to my understanding of the law.

Using deadly force in daylight requires that you are protecting yourself from another's use of deadly force, attempted sexual assault, robbery, aggravated
kidnapping, arson, or burglary, or to recover stolen property in some circumstances.

Vandalizing an unoccupied car does not constitute any of those crimes.

Now, if he confronted the thug, and the thug rushed him with a baseball bat, the use of deadly force would be justified.

- Jim

[Liberty]

Looks like it might not a just killing according to the law.

Although I know that.

I also know some people just need killing. There is no way if I were on a grand jury or a criminal jury that would I find him guilty. Mr. Ford made the world a better place. Although I bet the judge won't let Fountain's history be told in front of the jury.

[frankie_the_yankee]

If and a big IF the news story is exactly what happened then no way would I shoot someone for breaking my windshield with a bat. The cops would be called, but unless he came at me with it or made an attempt to attack my family...

I think what happened is the man confronted the vandal and made demands, the vandal then may have turned to attack or threaten the home owner.

I would probably go outside and tell the perp that the cops are on the way and to desist. If he then turned his attack on me I would have to defend. The reporter said he would have had to retreat. but if he is on his property I don't see how he could have retreated further. someone hitting my house or house windows could cause a lot of structural damage.

In the situation as described I most likely would have:

1) Called the cops.

2) Approached the guy (armed, but not showing) and ordered him to stop what he was doing immediately.

Note: In my personal situation, anyone messing with my car is gonna be about 500' inside my property line. As I often carry openly on the ranch, if this happened at my house I would be showing a gun. But that's not the situation described in the article.

If he stopped, I would have done nothing except wait for the cops. If he took off, I would simply try to note his description and where he seemed to be heading.

If he came at me with any kind of weapon in his hand like a bat or whatever, I would draw while at the same time backing up towards my house. If the distance got down to a point where I feared for my life, I would shoot.

If I could get back into the house before the guy got close to me, I would do that, and wait for the cops. If he continued to make a mess outside, I would do nothing except assume a defensive position inside the house.

If he was breaking my door down or otherwise forcing entry, I would shoot.

The bottom line is that I am not going to shoot anyone over some property.

But I have a right to order him to stop messing with my property. And if I do, and he turns his attention from the property to me, it then becomes an unprovoked threat to my life. And I will shoot to protect my life.

Of course, this all sounds neat and clean and analyzed. Real situations have a dynamic element that can change things very quickly. Split second decisions have to be made. It takes a lot longer to tell about something like this than it does for the situation to go down the toilet big time.

But that's my take on it.

From the tone of the DA's comments, I think there is more to this story than what was in the report. She seems inclined to cut the guy a break if she can.

I suspect that the old guy ordered the BG to stop, the BG came at him and the old guy shot him. Unless the old guy blabs his way into prison, the grand jury will probably no bill him.

Note: The fact that the guy was a well-known drug maniac has no bearing on things, unless the old guy knew it at the time. If he did, he would have reason to presume the guy was a threat. But if he didn't, it's a matter of historical interest only.

Remember, the duty to retreat depends on the ability of the victim. What may be easy for a 20 year old might well be impossible for a 70 year old. That's not the old guy's fault.

As a heart patient, I am very familiar with this. I can actually still run pretty fast, at 57, but I can't run very far. And I know it.

Remember the part about "knowing what you know at the time"? What I know, all the time, is that I can't run very far. So if someone is chasing me, I cannot allow the chase to go on for very long.

[flintknapper]

Those statements are correct, according to my understanding of the law.

Using deadly force in daylight requires that you are protecting yourself from another's use of deadly force, attempted sexual assault, robbery, aggravated
kidnapping, arson, or burglary, or to recover stolen property in some circumstances.

Vandalizing an unoccupied car does not constitute any of those crimes.



- Jim

I'm good with that, now how about these:

"Now, if an intruder is in your home, you can shoot them whether it's daylight or dark," she said."

"I wasn't there, so I don't know all the details, and I haven't seen the offense report, yet," she continued. "But I know what the law is — a person actually has to be coming at you, and, even at that, you have a duty to retreat."

In fact, the Shelby County shooting would not be justified under the state's new "Castle Doctrine," which gives homeowners more rights to protect their property with deadly force.

[seamusTX]

"Now, if an intruder is in your home, you can shoot them whether it's daylight or dark," she said."

Burglary. Good to go.

"I wasn't there, so I don't know all the details, and I haven't seen the offense report, yet," she continued. "But I know what the law is — a person actually has to be coming at you, and, even at that, you have a duty to retreat."

I think "actually coming at you" is inaccurate. The attacker has to be using deadly force, or imminently threatening to do so. If they have a crossbow, they do not need to move to present an imminent threat. If they have a club, you get into a subjective area of what is imminent.

An able-bodied attacker can cover 20 feet in a second, and a 70-year-old man might be hard-pressed to acquire a sight picture in that time.

The attacker's posture, facial expressions, and utterances would be relevant.

In fact, the Shelby County shooting would not be justified under the state's new "Castle Doctrine," which gives homeowners more rights to protect their property with deadly force.

I think that's correct. The new law removes the duty to retreat, but the justifications for using deadly force are basically the same. (Attempting to enter an occupied vehicle is not relevant in this case.)

- Jim

[Mike1951]

Just remember, this occurred in Deep East Texas.

No way a grand jury charges him with murder. I can see a lesser charge being brought but he still gets to face a 'jury of his peers', good East Texans.

This could be a prime example of "he jus' needed killin'".

One thing that could influence this adversely would be if it draws attention because of its proximity to Jasper and the incident of a few years ago.

Will definitely be interesting to see what happens.

[flintknapper]

"Now, if an intruder is in your home, you can shoot them whether it's daylight or dark," she said."

Burglary. Good to go.

"I wasn't there, so I don't know all the details, and I haven't seen the offense report, yet," she continued. "But I know what the law is — a person actually has to be coming at you, and, even at that, you have a duty to retreat."

I think "actually coming at you" is inaccurate. The attacker has to be using deadly force, or imminently threatening to do so. If they have a crossbow, they do not need to move to present an imminent threat. If they have a club, you get into a subjective area of what is imminent.

An able-bodied attacker can cover 20 feet in a second, and a 70-year-old man might be hard-pressed to acquire a sight picture in that time.

The attacker's posture, facial expressions, and utterances would be relevant.

In fact, the Shelby County shooting would not be justified under the state's new "Castle Doctrine," which gives homeowners more rights to protect their property with deadly force.

I think that's correct. The new law removes the duty to retreat, but the justifications for using deadly force are basically the same. (Attempting to enter an occupied vehicle is not relevant in this case.)

- Jim

Jim,

IMO....you understand the law better than this DA.

As concerns her first statement, "burglary" is not mentioned (although I agree with you). She simply states:

"Now, if an intruder is in your home, you can shoot them whether it's daylight or dark".

I do not believe you can (lawfully) shoot someone for mere presence in your home. Her public statement is dangerously misleading IMO.




Her second statement:

"But I know what the law is — a person actually has to be coming at you,...."

This is so plainly wrong.... that it does not require any argument. It also tells me she does NOT "know what the law is", and like the first statement....is misleading to the public.



Her third statement:

"the state's new "Castle Doctrine," which gives homeowners more rights to protect their property with deadly force...."

I understand her meaning....but wish she would have worded it differently, as I don't believe any more "right" is acquired. There is a certain element of empowerment in being able to "stand your ground" and not suffer a "successful" law suit by the other side (for any legal shooting/show of force). But the "right" itself....is either there, or it is not.

Just my .02 on it.

I thought it was poorly reported in some respects....and highly inaccurate in others.


The shooting itself (using only the information at hand), was inappropriate and unnecessary in my judgment.

[tfrazier]

Human life is more valuable than any animal, property, or other posession. I would be very angry if I saw someone smashing up my Magnum RT, because that would spoil my fun outpacing Mustang GTs on the highway day in and day out. But I wouldn't have been quick to shoot the guy.

As others have said, it would be a different story if he charged me or displayed a weapon. At that point he's bought and paid for and I'm just delivering his receipt at 1200 fps. That's why I have certain less-than-lethal options prior to escalating to center mass ventilation. Car antennas can be snapped off and used as a handy whip to drive a person away from you or your car if you're certain they dont have a gun or knife. A hearty scream that you've called the cops will sometimes get them thinking that it might be time to run off elswhere just in case you're telling the truth. If that fails, and we happen to be in front of my house, he will soon be wearing a fine fur coat made up of a lively American Pit Bull Terrier brindle skin with a flashy white interlocking collar clasp. He'd have a much greater chance surviving that than surviving all the blood let out and air let into his chest by my 40 cal.

The real question is what was this guy doing out of the streets? He'd been previously apprehended walking down the road chewing the ears off a live puppy! The mentally disturbed among us should be allowed to live as normal as possible among the general population UNTIL they start eating our live pets. Then they should be placed under the care of mental health officials behind very stout steel doors with wire reinforced lamanate tempered glass windows for treatment untill they are 105 years old and so feeble the puppys and kittens have a decent chance to fight back and they haven't the strength to bust up someone's windshield. Most of them are simply children's minds in adult bodies with adult freedoms. These poor souls get disowned by their families who've run out of time and resouces to take care of them and the next thing you know they are outside doing drugs, eating live puppys and messin' with someone else's ride to combat the intense boredom they are forced to live in.

Do this once a year, go visit a nursing home or some facility for special needs adults. Make one of those peoples' day by letting them know that for one day, sombody outside those walls thought about them.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The real question is what was this guy doing out of the streets? He'd been previously apprehended walking down the road chewing the ears off a live puppy! .

100%

You nailed it.