Shooting Intruder as they retreat?

[locke_n_load]

I know this story happened in NY, but here in Texas, say someone broke into your home, you confront and chase them out (you know they armed). As they are exiting your property (say your yard), can you fire? I'm guessing yes with the thought that you don't know if they are going to turn and shoot as they retreat, but I wanted some other opinions. Not CHL related.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03 ... is-family/#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[texanjoker]

Article doesn't make much sense. I wonder why this particular house was targeted? Could be more to the story. Generally speaking, if they are leaving or exiting the property as you ask I am letting them leave. I will update 911 to the situation.

[Tic Tac]

A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

[RoyGBiv]

A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

How do I know they're fleeing and not just taking cover before they turn and fire?

ETA:
Am I expected to be a mind reader?

BTW, if something was stolen PC 9.42 gives explicit justification.

(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;

[Cedar Park Dad]

A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

How do I know they're fleeing and not just taking cover before they turn and fire?

That would depend on the facts of the case. In this hypothetical you have chased them out of your house and they are running away from you on your property.

[RoyGBiv]

A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

How do I know they're fleeing and not just taking cover before they turn and fire?

That would depend on the facts of the case. In this hypothetical you have chased them out of your house and they are running away from you on your property.

I hear you... Just thinking out loud.

This case was in NY. The sheeple must not fight back or they will face the wrath of the majority.

One of the many reasons I don't live there.

[philip964]

Many interesting points here.

Shotguns are excellent home defense weapons.

New York.

I am not leaving the defense of the doorway and access to my loved ones.

Anytime some one is not shot inside your home you will receive extra attention. This excludes New York since even having a gun will receive extra attention let alone firing it with real ammunition and hitting something.

If in Texas, you could shoot to recover your stolen property at night ( with restrictions).
But he had no property.

Only found a pellet gun, but video apparently shows a flash ( from shotgun?)

Inside I assume a fenced back yard. To me not the same as an unfenced front yard. Less public more castle like.

If you fire, it will be expensive afterwards.

[Rrash]

I am not leaving the defense of the doorway and access to my loved ones.

Could you? Maybe if you have a really good lawyer and a sympathetic jury, but why would you compromise the advantages you have of cover and concealment (not to mention return fire and/or friendly fire by armed bystanders and police). Plus, if the bad guy wants to come at you again, you are tactically set up for an ambush should he make it to your front door.

[pops1982]

I think I'm letting them go if their back is to me and they are fleeing whether or not I can "legally" shoot them. I think you can legally shoot them in this instance to stop them from stealing from you assuming they have something of yours in their hands and I think this was the determination made in the Joe Horn shooting in Pasadena, tx. in which Joe Horn was no billed. But this could have cost him everything if it had gone to trial whether or not he was ever found guilty of any thing.

"An unidentified plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call arrived at the scene before the shooting, and witnessed the escalation and shootings while remaining in his car.[3] His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".[1] Police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett, a spokesman for the Pasadena Police Department, stated that the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and that one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before angling away from Horn toward the street when the suspect was shot in the back. The medical examiner's report could not specify whether they were shot in the back due to the ballistics of the shotgun wound.[7] Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into Horn's front yard. The plain clothes detective did not arrest Horn."

[jbarn]

A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

How do I know they're fleeing and not just taking cover before they turn and fire?

ETA:
Am I expected to be a mind reader?

BTW, if something was stolen PC 9.42 gives explicit justification.

(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;

The code uses the phrase "immediately necessary". What he "might" do is not a justification. There is no justification to shoot a fleeing person who does not have stolen property.

Also, in your quote you left out the parts where you must reasonably believe the deadly force was immediately necessary, AND you must reasonably believe there is no other way to protect or recover the property, or that using force less than deadly force would expose you or another to a sunstantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[tomtexan]

A threat is a threat even if they're moving. However, Texas does not generally authorize deadly force to stop a criminal who is fleeing after their crime, even for heinous crimes.

How do I know they're fleeing and not just taking cover before they turn and fire?

ETA:
Am I expected to be a mind reader?

BTW, if something was stolen PC 9.42 gives explicit justification.

(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;

The code uses the phrase "immediately necessary". What he "might" do is not a justification. There is no justification to shoot a fleeing person who does not have stolen property.

Also, in your quote you left out the parts where you must reasonably believe the deadly force was immediately necessary, AND you must reasonably believe there is no other way to protect or recover the property, or that using force less than deadly force would expose you or another to a sunstantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Very important part to remember when shooting someone in the back (a fleeing criminal).

[Oldgringo]

Yep, what jbarn said: if they are backing away is one thing, if they are running 'for their life' is another thing altogether. You really don't want to shoot anybody...if you can get out of it. It will definitely be a life changing experience, in more ways than one.

[Dragonfighter]

I've always told my wife and girls, "If they're showing their rear by the time you have a sight picture, fight's over." I feel pretty comfortable with that dictum.

[AF-Odin]

I like Dragonfighter's response. If they are fleeing after a break and enter or even if they have my laptop, I would let them go. Laptop is cheaper than the attorney bill. If, however, they have harmed someone in my family and are then fleeing all bets are off.

[RoyGBiv]

Yep, what jbarn said: if they are backing away is one thing, if they are running 'for their life' is another thing altogether. You really don't want to shoot anybody...if you can get out of it. It will definitely be a life changing experience, in more ways than one.

Let me be clear.... I would never shoot a perp who was no longer a threat to my (and loved ones) physical safety.
The dilemma comes in knowing whether he's actually fleeing, and whether he'll keep fleeing.

That said, I firmly believe that the level of danger presented by a gun-toting perp in close proximity, someone who has already attempted to break in to my house (OP), should not be so quickly dismissed just because they've turned their back on me and started to step away. Proximity to me (and my loved ones), offenses committed and most importantly, the opportunity for me (and loved ones) to gain cover out of harms way will determine the best course of action.

Specifically, if I'm standing in my front yard after an attempted armed robbery and the perp is 2 feet away with his back to me, my course of action might very well differ from an encounter with that same armed perp creating distance from the other side of my locked door. Standing in that field and choosing not to shoot leaves me at the mercy of the perp. Must I wait for him to turn and shoot when, if he chooses to do so, I am clearly in mortal danger?

I think it's a huge mistake to pre-determine an immediate change from shoot to no-shoot until the immediate physical danger has clearly passed. I can shoot fairly well out to 25 yards, why would I assume any differently for the perp? That mistake might cost me more than money.