Friendswood: Man arrested for pulling gun on trespassers

[Bennies]

Let's get some perspective here. The "rude trespassers"? Her brother (his brother-in-law) had just died in an airplane crash. The plane hit so hard there weren't any large pieces left, then it burned. The first responders couldn't find the tail number of the airplane, so there was no means of identification until somewhat later.

The meeting, according to the article, was a news conference. You don't know how many government cars and news vehicles were already there when they arrived.

In case you can't tell, I'm a pilot, too, and just a bit ticked at the apparent lack of compassion here.

See i think this is part of the missing pieces. What was the state of mind of the victims sister and brother in law? That is why i want to know what conversation took place between the two. I have been in the middle of a couple crashes that happened at the airport i learned to fly at back home. They were always total chaos and it is hard on everyone involved. Emergency vehicles everywhere. I have lost a few friends and a former student to plane crashes, so i could not even imagine loosing one of my own family members from an event like that. It would be tough and God be with the families.


Was the homeowner very rude to the victims family which caused some sort of altercation? Made the sisters husband snap and got in the H.O. face? Or did the HO just come out of his house because he was frustrated, loose his temper and just pull his weapon? Not enough info to go on. I could see with the plane crash being a factor. Tensions and emotions would probably be through the roof. If the HO did pull his weapon because he was upset then that was an extreme over reaction IMO. That was the point i was trying to make with my previous post sharing my trespassing story. I was mad, I yelled and was extremely rude to the men on my property, but I would not produce a weapon unless i was threatened. I could see how someone can get aggravated enough to pull a gun at someone in their driveway, but pulling your gun should probably be the last resort in my opinion. Bad situation all around.

[threoh8]

We don't know enough - gee, how could that happen in a place crawling with reporters?

While we're being touchy-feely, consider that the homeowner might himself be a bit distraught having a plane wreck across the street - one that could very easily have taken out his home and family. In addition, there has likely been a disruption of traffic there since. The stress could well have had an impact on him, too. We do not know his history, state of mind, or words/actions of the driver.

He might not have known exactly what was going on. Blocking a drive could have been seen by him as prelude to an attack of some sort.

This was not an emergency or a funeral- it was a press conference. It does not give license to inconvenience, block, or occupy others' homes. Try double parking at the courthouse when there's a press conference there, and see if they don't ticket or tow.

I grew up across the street from a church, and next to their parking lot. It is absolutely amazing to me how many churchgoers feel it is absolutely their right to park in your driveway, park on your lawn, block your driveway, or drive across your lawn to use your driveway just because they're going to or from some church or social event.

No, pulling pistols is not acceptable for the situation described in the article.
Trespassing is not acceptable, either. Neither was probably what they intended.

I'll reserve judgement on everyone involved.

[jimlongley]

Let's get some perspective here. The "rude trespassers"? Her brother (his brother-in-law) had just died in an airplane crash. The plane hit so hard there weren't any large pieces left, then it burned. The first responders couldn't find the tail number of the airplane, so there was no means of identification until somewhat later.

The meeting, according to the article, was a news conference. You don't know how many government cars and news vehicles were already there when they arrived.

In case you can't tell, I'm a pilot, too, and just a bit ticked at the apparent lack of compassion here.

For perspective's sake, your status as a pilot means absolutely nothing, and you have no way of knowing what the homeowners state of mind was, maybe this was just one more car parked where it didn't belong.

I have been involved in rescue/recovery from several plane crashes, from Mohawk 405 in 1972, to a couple of GA wrecks and am well aware of the chaos that prevails during the actual event, but this was NOT the emergency, it was a news conference, and having been there too, I must assume that the news parked wherever they liked, as they always do, because they, after all, are THE NEWS and are therefore exempt from the law as well as decency and consideration. That said, the car owner had no right to park where he did, had no right to expect compassion FOR THE NEWS CONFERENCE, and no right to do anything more than get the car off private property, no matter how many news, government cars, or anything else was already there.

[VoiceofReason]

“When the couple returned to their truck about 2:50 p.m., a man who was riding a John Deere lawn mower approached the Campbells and yelled at them to get their truck off his property.

When Peter Campbell explained why they had parked there, the man pulled a gun from his shorts.

Renee Campbell was in the truck and began honking the horn.

Her husband moved the truck into the road.”

Peter Cambell just didn’t understand the concept. The home owner told them “to get their truck off his property”. He didn’t request an explanation as to “why they had parked there”.

When the home owner pulled a gun it seems Renee Campbell saw the need to start honking the horn in order for her husband to move the truck into the road. It seems that even after the home owner produced a gun, Peter Cambell chose to stand and pursue the issue.

The correct answer when the home owner told them to get their truck off his property would have been “yes sir I’m sorry”. Even better would have been to not park there to begin with.

We will probably not hear any more about this so we will never know how it turns out. I believe however that unless the homeowner pointed the gun at Mr. or Mrs. Cambell or threatened to shoot someone, the charges will probably be dropped. Personally I don’t believe a jury would convict the home owner.

[txmatt]

I believe however that unless the homeowner pointed the gun at Mr. or Mrs. Cambell or threatened to shoot someone, the charges will probably be dropped. Personally I don’t believe a jury would convict the home owner.

Even if he did threaten to someone in conjunction with producing the weapon it would still be justified.

Mr. Cambell was tresspassing and penal code sec 9.41 permits the use of force:

Sec. 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.

And 9.04 permits the production of a weapon and the threat to use it where force is justified:

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Pointing the gun at Mr. Cambell as opposed to simply producing it may very well change this and make it not justified, but the article only says that a weapon was produced which- while perhaps not prudent- seems to me to be clearly allowable under the law.

[TxD]

Lotsa interesting thoughts and comments in this thread, even as noted, with very few "facts"
presented in the article.
I would like to point out one fact that seems to have been overlooked or at least not talked about.

Quoted from the article.
"Police charged Walter Gordon Decherd, 74, with aggravated assault with a firearm. Bond was set at $40,000, Friendswood Police Chief Bob Wieners said."

Does anyone think that Decherd was arrested because a Police Officer simply saw him in possession of a gun?

Or do you think that the arresting Officer talked with the parties involved, interviewed a few other witnesses, and spoke to his supervisors before he placed Decherd under arrest?

As has been noted there is more to the story than trespass and owners rights.

[gigag04]

Not all LEO's are friends of "The Armed Citizen" or CH licensees.

Then again, the landowner's demeanor may have had something to do with torqueing the arresting officer. Y'all remember what 'ol Dale Carneghie taught us about 'bees, vinegar and honey'.

While that's true, all reporters don't capture the whole story either :)

[seamusTX]

Or do you think that the arresting Officer talked with the parties involved, interviewed a few other witnesses, and spoke to his supervisors before he placed Decherd under arrest?

Since an arrest without warrant must be based on probable cause, I think the arresting officer had reason to think that Mr. Decherd committed the offense of aggravated assault. The article quoted the police chief, so the arrest apparently was approved up to that level.

In the case of a felony, I would be surprised if the police would bring a charge without approval from an assistant DA.

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another ...;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury...; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

Cases involving oral threats are problematic because the only evidence is witness testimony, and the perception of a threat can be subjective.

Now, it is possible that Mr. Decherd's actions were justified, but it probably will cost a lot in legal fees to find out.

- Jim

[MechAg94]

It is certainly also possible and likely that the cops have only heard the side of the story from the husband. The home owner probably didn't call the police and may have decided to use his right to remain silent and only talk to his lawyer when the police showed up to arrest him.

If that is the case, the only information that is public is what the husband is saying.



Also, we are talking about a 74 year old man. If some young guy is talking loudly at him and walking toward him, he might perceive that as a threat.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Its pretty simple really.

This could have all been avoided had the couple NOT tresspassed. It was not their property and they had absolutely NO right to be there.

Compassion for the couple plays no part in this. They had a family member die in a plane crash. I understand this and feel bad for them. However, this does not give them full reign. They can't just park in anyones driveway because they want to. If there was no place to park in the immediate area find one further down the road and walk.

[seamusTX]

If in fact they parked on private property.

Here's another story: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=7420183" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

P.S.: Here's another one that is substantially similar: http://www.click2houston.com/news/23433580/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[Pinkycatcher]

If in fact they parked on private property.

Here's another story: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=7420183" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

That's a totally different story than the other, great reporting abilities! Hah

[bayouhazard]

It sounds like someone is changing their story. I wonder why.

I think the most important lesson is be the first to call 911. Even if it seems like nothing. Not because the police are going to be much help during Problem One, but because it sets the stage for solving Problem Two.

[GOP]

It is certainly also possible and likely that the cops have only heard the side of the story from the husband. The home owner probably didn't call the police and may have decided to use his right to remain silent and only talk to his lawyer when the police showed up to arrest him.

If that is the case, the only information that is public is what the husband is saying.



Also, we are talking about a 74 year old man. If some young guy is talking loudly at him and walking toward him, he might perceive that as a threat.

Smart move on his part if he did.

[MechAg94]

If in fact they parked on private property.

Here's another story: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=7420183" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

That's a totally different story than the other, great reporting abilities! Hah

Interesting.

She also told police that her husband had parked his truck across the street from the site adjacent to the driveway of the suspect.

So does that mean they parked on the shoulder or does that mean they parked in the middle of his yard adjacent to his drive way? I wonder if his drive way was already blocked by other vehicles that weren't supposed to be there. There is a lot of information that would be nice to know.