TexasCHLforum.com

Turns out a friend of mine works with the PO for one (or a couple, not sure) of the dead minors. Her story was that the kids were already on probation for other crimes and came up here to get drugs. Supposedly a lot of drugs were found in the house when the LEOs showed up.

All of this is just what I heard, no offense to the families of those poor, dead, "wouldn't hurt a fly" teenagers.

Surprisingly, my first thought was drug deal gone bad when I looked at the time and distance traveled.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:The home invaders were 16 and 17. They were 24 miles from home.
It was a school night. It was 200 AM.

It sounds like the parental controls in these 4 families were non-existent.

I saw one of the neighbors, a young woman, state that "shooting a 16 year
old seems harsh". Well, I guess if they were in her house she'd have been
dead since she wouldn't think it proper to have a gun and fire back at 3 young
men with weapons and in the midst of multiple felonies. Sheesh.

SIA

I also get rather irritated when I hear people make these statements. What they don't realize is that a 16-year-old breaking into your home can be just as cruel as someone with legal adult status. The point of using the weapon is not to cause pain (although, yes, it does), but to PROTECT yourself and your family by effectively stopping them. It doesn't matter how many ways you explain it, some people just refuse to understand that.

Let me preface what I'm about to say by saying according to the story and things said so far, these kids were up to no good and bad things happen when you don't keep your nose clean. I am sorry for the parents loss, but I have two small kids and am going to do my best to keep them out of harms way by teaching them not to get involved with things like these kids did. But if they choose to not listen, you can only hope they make it through "that" stage.

I'm not tyring to be funny or offend anyone here, but to me, looking at the picture of the house in the story, it looks abandoned. Quote from the story says "As news crews arrived at the small, two-story gray house in the 900 block of Chestnut Street, residents inside boarded up windows and draped a curtain over the front entrance, which was missing a door." If it were truly not a drug deal, house looked in shambles like that, and had no front door, assuming these kids were just being kids, they could have thought it was an abandoded house and been playing dare games to see if someone would go in or tying to find some place to hid and smoke a cigarette or something "innocent". I wonder, in that instace, if charges might have been pressed if this were the case maybe with some type of negligence involved. I understand breaking and entering, but there was no breaking here. Maybe this is too far fetched and too many "what ifs", but it was the first thing that went through my mind after looking at the pictures.

Texas has no crime called "breaking and entering." The definition of burglary does not require the use of force to enter a building.

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building ... not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault;...

It seems odd to me that kids from Luling would go all the way to San Marcos to find an abandoned house.

Maybe illegal drugs were involved, and if so the residents of the house will have to answer for that.

- Jim

Maybe the boarded up windows and lack of door was due to the home invaders'
breaking these items?

SIA

I was just putting a what if out there and using kids from the next neighborhood over type thing.

seamusTX wrote:with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault;...

The problem I'm having here is how long do you have to determine somone's intent before taking action?

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Maybe the boarded up windows and lack of door was due to the home invaders'
breaking these items?

True, true.

Wisewr wrote:The problem I'm having here is how long do you have to determine somone's intent before taking action?

At the risk of sounding flippant, you have as long as it takes the hypothetical reasonable person to determine their intent.

I always keep my doors locked, so someone walking in through an unlocked door would not be an issue. If someone is trying to break down the door, and doesn't stop when I yell, "Stop or I'll shoot," their intent is clear.

Likewise if they have visible weapons or make an illegal demand.

As a practical matter, anyone breaking into a house in Texas is presumed to be committing burglary. People get in trouble only when they shoot unarmed people that they have opened the door to (usually shirt-tail relatives or people that they have feuds with).

- Jim

Wisewr wrote:I understand breaking and entering, but there was no breaking here. Maybe this is too far fetched and too many "what ifs", but it was the first thing that went through my mind after looking at the pictures.

Here's an experiment. Get a few friends. Arm yourself with pellet guns and at least one real handgun. Walk into a bank and display your guns. Then come back and post the details of how people reacted.

Count wrote:Here's an experiment. Get a few friends. Arm yourself with pellet guns and at least one real handgun. Walk into a bank and display your guns. Then come back and post the details of how people reacted.

Give me your number and I'll make my one phone call to you.

Details are trickling out. Pay attention to this:

Police took the home’s front door and other items of evidence along with the suspects’ weapons, the resident’s Glock and several others that belonged to the same resident.

“Anytime we’re going to a shooting like that, if there are any weapons in the house we’re going to take them.” [Chief of Police Howard] Williams said the resident’s guns will be returned.

Don't even bother asking if this is legal.

Williams said there are not, “at this point,” any plans to file any charges against the shooter; though the case will be referred to the office of District Attorney Sherri Tibbe.

Homicides are always reviewed by the DA, so that's routine.

[Williams] said there was no history of complaints about the home located west of the Texas State campus in an area of mixed owner-occupied and rental houses, and that narcotics officers hadn’t received any intelligence on it.

http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/local/lo ... 52703.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, at that URL you can almost imagine the "suspect" in a choirboy uniform hugging a nun.

Some people advise keeping a weapon or two in a concealed place, like maybe inside a metal air-conditioning duct. I don't know. I'm just saying.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Some people advise keeping a weapon or two in a concealed place, like maybe inside a metal air-conditioning duct. I don't know. I'm just saying.

Hmm....someone has the brain engaged.

Sounds like I need to go buy another gun or TWO.

seamusTX wrote:Details are trickling out. Pay attention to this:

Police took the home’s front door and other items of evidence along with the suspects’ weapons, the resident’s Glock and several others that belonged to the same resident.

“Anytime we’re going to a shooting like that, if there are any weapons in the house we’re going to take them.” [Chief of Police Howard] Williams said the resident’s guns will be returned.

Don't even bother asking if this is legal.

OK, I won't. (Hmmm . . . if the resident had a gun safe, would LEOs break into it?)

seamusTX wrote: Some people advise keeping a weapon or two in a concealed place, like maybe inside a metal air-conditioning duct. I don't know. I'm just saying.

Maybe people should keep spare doors as well, as it looks as if LEOs may help themselves to those, too.

BTW, so far, the news stories I've seen and heard haven't mentioned the drugs an earlier poster alluded to . . . it seems to me that if a resident was a dealer, something would have leaked out by now, and San Marcos PD wouldn't have been so open about saying they were not planning to file charges against the shooter.

As I understand it, the immunities granted under the castle doctrine don't apply if you're involved in a crime yourself, and it would seem that if the residents were dealing drugs out of that house it might complicate a castle doctrine defense. (If you're a lawyer and my understanding is wrong, please set me straight!!)

You're right. All the PC Chapter 9 justifications go overboard if the actor is in the commission of a crime other than a class C traffic violation.

However, I think the state would have to prove that you were actually committing the crime at the time that you used deadly force, for example, while selling drugs to or buying drugs from the people that you shot. I think if you had failed to pay sales tax the same day, it would not void your castle-doctrine defense. However, IANAL, etc.

- Jim

Even if you weren't buying or selling at the time, I can see a DA making an issue of possession to void the castle doctrine protections . . .

That's why we have lawyers and judges.

I don't know of any case law in this area. That doesn't mean that there isn't any; it's hard to find if you don't have a Lexis subscription or law clerks.

- Jim