And you thought you had days go from bad to worse...

[KD5NRH]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 4a544.html

Teen boys' curiosity started deadly chain of events
Shooting, which ended in fatal car crash, may test state's 'castle law'
11:34 PM CST on Monday, March 3, 2008

By SCOTT GOLDSTEIN and RICHARD ABSHIRE / The Dallas Morning News
sgoldstein@dallasnews.com; rabshire@dallasnews.com

The chain of events that left a teen shot near his friend's house and a pediatric nurse dead in a car accident late Saturday in Kaufman County began with the innocent curiosity of two boys.

WILLIAM DESHAZER/DMN
"We kept hearing music, so we wanted to go check it out," Brandon Robinson, 15, said.

About 10:30 p.m., 16-year-old Devin Nalls and 15-year-old Brandon Robinson ventured out of the Nalls home along State Highway 243 and into the darkness to check out a noisy party nearby. They hopped a fence around the Frosch property next door, but as they passed the elderly couple's front porch, Brandon noticed something.

"Hey, the blinds are moving," Brandon said to his best friend, just before a gunshot pierced a front window of the home, striking Brandon under his left arm.

Devin's mother, June Nalls, 41, died in a car accident minutes later while driving the boys to the hospital. A man who had been drinking drove his vehicle into her lane, striking her head-on, police said.

Brandon survived the car accident and the shooting that preceded it, and police haven't arrested W.C. Frosch, the 74-year-old man who fired the shot because he said he feared the boys were going to break into his home.

Police said Monday that under the state's "castle law," passed last year, Mr. Frosch may not have committed a crime.

The law permits the use of deadly force to protect property if the property owner reasonably believes such force is needed to prevent a serious offense, including burglary. Police and the boys' families maintain they were not committing such a crime when the shot was fired.

The case will be referred to a grand jury, meaning criminal charges against Mr. Frosch are possible, police said.

Shannon Edmonds, director of governmental relations for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, said there are several Texas self-defense and defense-of-property laws other than the castle law that could come into play in this case.

Still, Mr. Edmonds said, this case "sounds like it could be an interesting test of the new law."

He said several factors could play a role in the decision whether to charge Mr. Frosch. Among the possible factors, he said, is the time of night, Mr. Frosch and his wife's suspicion that a burglar could be targeting yard-sale merchandise and the fact that the Frosches might have already been concerned about a loud party going on next door.

"I think what a grand jury is going to do is look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not he acted reasonably," Mr. Edmonds said.

To the Frosches, the shooting was justified.

Mr. Frosch did not return a call seeking comment, but his wife, Jerry, defended her husband's actions Monday.

The two teens were stealthily crossing the Frosches' yard, trying not to be seen by the partygoers, when Mr. Frosch heard something, told Mrs. Frosch to call 911 and armed himself with a handgun.

"They were messing around our house," Mrs. Frosch said. "They were right at the window."

Mr. Frosch apparently fired when he looked out a window and saw someone just outside.

"Physical evidence shows that he was within 2 or 3 feet of the window when he was shot," said Sgt. Bryan Francis, a Kaufman County sheriff's spokesman. "He had most likely stopped there, based on all the statements."

Sgt. Francis said Mr. Frosch told deputies that he thought the person he saw was going to break into his house.

Mrs. Frosch said they occasionally have garage sales at the house, and during the 911 call that followed the shooting she notes her suspicions about a prowler's possible motive.

"Well we just had a garage sale today," she said, according to a recording of the call released Monday.

There were no items of value in the Frosches' yard the night of the shooting, and Sgt. Francis said there is no indication of any burglaries at the home.

Minutes after Mrs. Frosch called police, another call was placed to 911 regarding a terrible car accident along State Highway 243, about a half-mile east of the Kaufman city limits.

Ms. Nalls, 41, died instantly in the collision while driving her son and Brandon to the hospital.

On Monday, Brandon Robinson recalled the events that twice could have killed him and left his best friend without a mother.

"We kept hearing music, so we wanted to go check it out," Brandon said in a telephone interview from his bed at Parkland Memorial Hospital. "We walked across this dude's yard. I heard the window blinds move, and I told Devin. ... I heard gunfire, and we ran."

Not realizing Brandon was hit, both boys darted back to Devin's home. Brandon's arm went numb. He looked in a bathroom mirror and saw the blood.

The boys woke Ms. Nalls, who instinctively rushed them to her pickup and headed for the hospital.

Ms. Nalls was killed minutes later in the accident, which also ruptured Brandon's spleen. Devin suffered minor injuries and was released from the hospital Sunday.

Agustin Renteria, 27, of Kaufman was driving the 1996 Ford that hit Ms. Nalls' truck. He was charged with failure to stop and render aid and was being held at the Kaufman County Jail in lieu of $75,000 bail, said Sgt. Bryan Francis, a Kaufman County sheriff's spokesman.

For Brandon's father, Donald, the shooting that ultimately put Ms. Nalls on the road Saturday night was a senseless act.

"I believe in the right to bear arms," Mr. Robinson said. "But usually with a little more respect. What's worth more: private property or human life?"

[seamusTX]

If the facts stated in this article are correct, I think the shooting was not justified. You can use deadly force to prevent burglary, theft, or criminal mischief in the night time, but the perpetrators have to make some obvious move toward committing one of those crimes.

It is possible that the story will change when the police question all the people involved separately.

- Jim

[bpet]

I saw an interview of Mr. Frosch on the news last night. Based on what he said during the interview, I have to agree with Jim and believe that Mr. Frosch is looking at some significant problems and at the very least some significant expense.

Not being there certainly creates questions but from what I understand happened, I would not have fired my weapon.

This will be an interesting case to follow.

[HighVelocity]

An elderly man sees two men (15yr old boys are big enough to look like men in the dark), at night, "stealthily" creeping by the window and he gets scared.
I can sympathize with Mr Frosch. I imagine that his fear was as real to him as the sky is blue. It was night, the boys "hopped the fence" and were already committing a crime, trespassing.

Would I have fired a shot under these circumstances? I don't know. We can all keyboard quarterback this one til' the cows come home because we know all the facts but obviously Mr. Frosch could not and did not know all that WE know AFTER the fact.

[thejtrain]

If the facts stated in this article are correct, I think the shooting was not justified. You can use deadly force to prevent burglary, theft, or criminal mischief in the night time, but the perpetrators have to make some obvious move toward committing one of those crimes.

It is possible that the story will change when the police question all the people involved separately.

- Jim

I was thinking the same thing, recalling Saturday's class. There's a distinction between "property" and "dwelling", and I believe for anything to be justified they have to be in the commission of (or imminent commission of) one of those crimes. The example was that you can fire against someone who's not yet inside the door/window, provided they're actively trying to get in.

It might come down to he said they said as to the teenagers' activities vs. the homeowner's perception of those activities. Were they actually at the window, looking like they were trying to get in? Or were they 2 feet from it trying to hide in the shadow of the house peering over the fence @ the party house? The boys were pretty stupid to go into someone else's yard in the first place, but I find it very hard to believe that a boy that age would be so cavalier as to attempt to break into the house of a next-door neighbor who he presumably knows.

JT

[seamusTX]

... I find it very hard to believe that a boy that age would be so cavalier as to attempt to break into the house of a next-door neighbor who he presumably knows.

I'm not speculating one way or the other in this case, but people do things that stupid and worse all the time.

There was a case a few years ago in my neighborhood where a teenager pushed his way into a home where the people knew him, injured the housewife, and stole four fancy car wheels. The cops went to his house and found him with the loot.

- Jim

[gregthehand]

I too think that if the facts are what this article lays them out to be that this guy is going to have a rough ride. Somewhere in-between what the two parties say is the truth. As a rule people shouldn't go jumping into neighbors yards, but also as a rule someone shouldn't shoot at someone else who is just standing in their yard. I guess the kids weren't being to stealthy for this guy to hear them.

[Tactical_Texan_CHL]

That's a tough one. I too, think he may have a rough road ahead of him. I have a self imposed rule that I will not shoot unless someone enters my house, or physically tries to enter. I count the garage as part of the house. I will fire if they break a window or kick a door. This is just my plan. I've never had to put it into action, so I can't say for sure what I'd ACTUALLY do when the time came. I doubt that I'd shoot if someone were just in my back yard, so I'm 99% sure I would not have shot in that instance, but I really can't say with ABSOLUTE certainty. I guess it still depends on the situation at the time. I think HV's right, we can keyboard quarterback this one all day, and still not get anywhere.

[bdickens]

Author's note: Edited post. Added the word "attempted."

I'm gonna lay out my opinion on this one and it's gonna be rough.

Mr. Frosch typifies the anti's sterotype of crazy people who own guns for protection. He is just the kind of paranoid old man who does not need to have one around. Castle doctrine or no castle doctrine, there is no justification for putting a bullet in someone who just happens to be in your yard outside your window. There are all sorts of begnin, albeit not very smart, reasons why someone could be there. We see one in this case.

People even innocently walk into the wrong house. Someone could be drunk and got a ride home and was dropped off in front of your house instead of his three doors down. It is the homeowner's duty to attempt to ascertain why that person is there and if he poses any threat.

Mr. Frosch's paranoid "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is just the sort of thing that will get good laws like the castle doctrine and possibly even CHL taken away from us. Mr. Frosch should be charged with attempted murder.


*flame suit on*

[thejtrain]

I'm gonna lay out my opinion on this one and it's gonna be rough.

Mr. Frosch typifies the anti's sterotype of crazy people who own guns for protection. He is just the kind of paranoid old man who does not need to have one around. Castle doctrine or no castle doctrine, there is no justification for putting a bullet in someone who just happens to be in your yard outside your window. There are all sorts of begnin, albeit not very smart, reasons why someone could be there. We see one in this case.

People even innocently walk into the wrong house. Someone could be drunk and got a ride home and was dropped off in front of your house instead of his three doors down. It is the homeowner's duty to attempt to ascertain why that person is there and if he poses any threat.

Mr. Frosch's paranoid "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is just the sort of thing that will get good laws like the castle doctrine and possibly even CHL taken away from us. Mr. Frosch should be charged with murder.

I understand what you mean and if the facts play out as you understand them (I'll quote Jim here in saying we don't know everything yet) then I agree with the negative perception this will put on Castle & CHL. But murder? That's going a bit far, don't you think? The boy he shot didn't die, his mother did when she was hit by a (drunk?) driver on the way to the hospital.

JT

[seamusTX]

The boy who was shot (with a shotgun) survived. Assuming that this news story is accurate, the possible charges against Mr. Frosh for shooting the boy are attempted murder, aggravated assault, and deadly conduct.

Are you saying that Mr. Frosh was responsible for the death of Ms. Nalls?

- Jim

[bdickens]

I meant to write "attempted murder" and have edited my post to read as such. Apologies for the confusion.

[Wildscar]

The boy who was shot (with a shotgun) survived. Assuming that this news story is accurate, the possible charges against Mr. Frosh for shooting the boy are attempted murder, aggravated assault, and deadly conduct.

Are you saying that Mr. Frosh was responsible for the death of Ms. Nalls?

- Jim

The story above states that it was a handgun that Mr Frosh armed himself with? Did you see a diffrent story?

[seamusTX]

I read gunshot as shotgun. I'm dyslexic (really).

- Jim

[Wildscar]

I read gunshot as shotgun. I'm dyslexic (really).

- Jim

Good'ol lysdexia will get you everytime.