Dallas: Resident arrested after shooting intruder

[Dave2]

The guy genuinely thought it was his house. The lady inside knew he was nutso. How does walking out the door and taking shots at a guy on the phone show up as justification for the use of deadly force?

Precisely because he was "nutso". Put yourself in his shoes...
Somebody has illegally entered your home, and is doing all kinds of unfathomable things with whatever and whomever (ie, visiting family & friends) is inside. You've reported them before, but the authorities won't come to your aid. Time is running out! You've gotta do something! So you call a locksmith to get you into your house because the bad guys have changed the locks (which just enrages you more). What are you going to do when you finally get into your own house and can confront the BGs? The details of my actions would of course depend on the circumstances, but I doubt it would end well for the burglars/murders/rapists/etc. One thing's for sure, I wouldn't start the process without being armed in some way, even if it's just the knife built into my multi-tool.

Admittedly, there are a few leaps of logic in there, but nothing that seems too implausible to me. And I've got the benefit of having all my faculties.

Now look at it from the homeowners point of view...
There's an [insert favorite expletive] CRAZY person with all the above paragraph -- and probably more -- running through his head trying to break into your home and do something to you and your family! He's tried stuff in the past, but this time it's scarier. You've reported him before, but the authorities won't come to your aid. Time is running out! You've gotta do something! You can't wait for him to get inside... he's crazy, who knows what he'll do then? In fear for your life and the lives of your loved ones, you take your gun and shoot only at the bad crazy guy (not the innocent locksmith who's been duped) three times. Problem (finally) solved.

Again, there are a few leaps of logic in there, but nothing that seems too implausible to me.



I'm not sure if I think the shooting was justified or not, but I'm pretty sure it's not as clear-cut as you make it seem. The article omits many relevant facts that would sway me one way or the other.

[seamusTX]

It's interesting how people line up on these issues.

I'm in favor of keeping one's cool and using one's brain to resolve this kind of situation, but I'm tall, old, mean, and intimidating when I want to be (and apparently even when I don't want to be). Here you have a single woman with someone drilling out her locks at night. The cops are not exactly responsive. What is she supposed to do?

I also get the impression from comments on the web site that this is a poor and mostly "minority" neighborhood with a bad reputation. I don't know nuthin' about Dallas.

Here's the link again for your convenience: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... cd618.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see that Kythas has already been there.

- Jim

[Hoi Polloi]

Someone named Redd714 left these two messages in the comments section, which could change things significantly if they're accurate:

"The locksmith was there the day before, not at the time of the shooting."
and
"When the real story come out it will show he had shot her dog in the past. Broke into her house before. He had been arrested at that address before. She had a gun because of him. You guys talking about calling 911, next time let someone beat your but, while you wait for the cops to come,"

[Oldgringo]

It's absolutely disgusting that the people who refused to defend her from a mentally unstable stalker, turned around and arrested her for defending herself.

Well said, herein lies the crux of the matter.

[VMI77]

It is amazing to me when most cases of identity theft/fraud, stalking, molestation, kidnapping, rape, etc are committed by someone the victim personally knows and/or is related to, that the police treat the case differently saying it is a "civil matter" because you know the person.

In this case, the woman wasn't even related in any way to the guy and the only way she "knew" the stranger was through his years-long harassment of her, which culminated in him breaking into her house again. Somehow because he's been doing it for a long time, she should be used to it and should accept it? The logic is mind-boggling.

I couldn't agree more.

[Bob in Big D]

Her mistake was in not letting him come into the house before shooting him. She goes outside and shoots him because she is mad(revenge) at all his harrassment. If she had kept her wits about her and let him come into the house before she shoots she would be no billed. That locksmith is real lucky he wasn't shot too.
That is my take away from this incident. Keep your emotions in check at all times when carrying.

[ninemm]

I checked on Pennington's driver's license and it is associated with 7519 Gayglen Drive. I checked the appraisal district website for that address and Pennington's name didn't show up as an owner since 2000. If Pennington's "I.D." was his driver's license (and nowhere did it say that it was - just saying) what are the odds that it was current?

[ninemm]

Her mistake was in not letting him come into the house before shooting him. She goes outside and shoots him because she is mad(revenge) at all his harrassment. If she had kept her wits about her and let him come into the house before she shoots she would be no billed. That locksmith is real lucky he wasn't shot too.
That is my take away from this incident. Keep your emotions in check at all times when carrying.

I agree. Sit quietly in the dark and wait for the door to open and for someone to actually enter.

[seamusTX]

I checked on Pennington's driver's license and it is associated with 7519 Gayglen Drive. ... If Pennington's "I.D." was his driver's license (and nowhere did it say that it was - just saying) what are the odds that it was current?

I got my Texas driver license in 1996, and they didn't drag me in for a once-over until this year. You can keep them current for quite a while.

- Jim

[Purplehood]

The guy genuinely thought it was his house. The lady inside knew he was nutso. How does walking out the door and taking shots at a guy on the phone show up as justification for the use of deadly force?

Precisely because he was "nutso". Put yourself in his shoes...
Somebody has illegally entered your home, and is doing all kinds of unfathomable things with whatever and whomever (ie, visiting family & friends) is inside. You've reported them before, but the authorities won't come to your aid. Time is running out! You've gotta do something! So you call a locksmith to get you into your house because the bad guys have changed the locks (which just enrages you more). What are you going to do when you finally get into your own house and can confront the BGs? The details of my actions would of course depend on the circumstances, but I doubt it would end well for the burglars/murders/rapists/etc. One thing's for sure, I wouldn't start the process without being armed in some way, even if it's just the knife built into my multi-tool.

Admittedly, there are a few leaps of logic in there, but nothing that seems too implausible to me. And I've got the benefit of having all my faculties.

Now look at it from the homeowners point of view...
There's an [insert favorite expletive] CRAZY person with all the above paragraph -- and probably more -- running through his head trying to break into your home and do something to you and your family! He's tried stuff in the past, but this time it's scarier. You've reported him before, but the authorities won't come to your aid. Time is running out! You've gotta do something! You can't wait for him to get inside... he's crazy, who knows what he'll do then? In fear for your life and the lives of your loved ones, you take your gun and shoot only at the bad crazy guy (not the innocent locksmith who's been duped) three times. Problem (finally) solved.

Again, there are a few leaps of logic in there, but nothing that seems too implausible to me.



I'm not sure if I think the shooting was justified or not, but I'm pretty sure it's not as clear-cut as you make it seem. The article omits many relevant facts that would sway me one way or the other.

He was not presenting an immediate threat. He did not fit any legal definition that would justify the use of deadly force. Once the locksmith let him in, that would change. At that point I seriously doubt that any charges would have been levelled at her.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

As much as I do not agree with the arrest, as it should never have had to happen because the police should have taken the proper steps to take care of this long ago, I am conflicted on if it was a just arrest.

There was a man that she knows to be "not sound of mind" having a lock smith change the locks on her house at night. This man had broken into her house before. So yes he was a threat. Legally she had the right to shoot him. Same as if someone was attempting to break into her car at night...legally she could shoot. However, my issue is that she placed herself in danger. She was the one that went out and confronted him. She opened the door. I am guessing here and this is nothing more than an assumption and yes I know what that does. My guess is that she looked out to see who was messing with her door. When she noticed who it was she decided to go out and confront/shoot him. To me that is premeditation. That is not in defense of ones self. Like I said this is an assumption but I just do not see her going out there if it was a stranger. She felt comfortable enough to open the door and confront him, so I am leaning more to it was premeditated and a just arrest.

Again it should never have happened as it should have been dealt with by the authorities in the beginning.

[Oldgringo]

Again it should never have happened as it should have been dealt with by the authorities in the beginning.

There it is.

[Purplehood]

Again it should never have happened as it should have been dealt with by the authorities in the beginning.

There it is.

I have to agree.

[E.Marquez]

From the info I have seen, Morally I’m ok with the choice she made.. To protect herself and property from a man illegally attempting to gain entry, who has a history of doing the same.
Tactically, I see the same mistakes others have pointed out… Had she asked for advice ( ) I would have suggested, shouting from inside the door while on the phone to 911 so the conversation is recorded.. “My Name is XXX this is my home, do not enter. I have called the police.. If you enter I will use deadly force to stop you.” Then observe, listen, and waited for either the police (telling the 911 operator all along in a constant repetitive stream, I’m in fear for my life, please have the police hurry.. I am armed..Please tell the police to tell me before they come in my house. to arrive or the door to be breached. )
But alas, she did not ask my advice, she chose to go to her door way, and shoot a nut case outside her home.

Like the Detroit story about warning shots at gang bangers on a lawn.. morally I’m ok, tactically, I think it was a mistake.

[chasfm11]

Again it should never have happened as it should have been dealt with by the authorities in the beginning.

The reality of our legal system is that it doesn't deal with recidivists of any stripe very well. Violent criminals with long rap sheets and sentences in the decades are released early or even very early. Why would we expect that same system to handle a less violent type any better?

My Monday morning quarterback take out of this is:
1. This was not an IMMEDIATE violent threat because it was still outside her house. In all such cases, the best action is to get on 911 right away. Had she done that, it would have established her feeling threatened by the actions that were being taken against her. I recognize that her previous calls to police were for naught but even contemplating the use of deadly force seems to mandate another attempt.
2. Texas laws say that you can "stand your ground". The fact that she was advancing undermined that, even if she only advanced outside her home. I consider that anytime that I exit my house with gun in hand, I'm risking being seen as the aggressor, not the defender, especially if I'm not in immediate contact with law enforcement. Maybe that is just me.
3. Head shots in any situation seem to cross the line. I wonder if she had fired the first couple of rounds COM if it would have made any difference.
4. Demonstrated anger erodes the premise of either fear or rational thought. In the book "Strong on Defense", the recommendation is to get angry, really really angry to give yourself the mental drive and adrenaline to face an armed assailant. That same anger against an unarmed opponent can be counterproductive.

So what we have is a situation that touches the fringes of general acceptability on several counts. My guess is that most LEOs have a "centerist" approach. Anything that isn't really cut and dried is going to get handed to the lawyers to figure out. I do understand that under duress, one doesn't always have the opportunity to sit down and rationally consider how many fringe elements are part of the situation being faced. I'm trying to learn from the mistakes of others and will try not put myself in a similar situation. In "Strong on Defence" , the recommendation is to always give up personal property immediately. If it was possible for me to safely exit my house in the face of a situation like this, I would do so. The "big picture" says that using deadly force against someone who doesn't have a weapon is going to put me at greater legal risk in spite of what the laws actually say.

My goal is to protect myself - both physically and legally if I can.