TexasCHLforum.com

http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMG ... 0/?page=36" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This story took place in a rural area of southern Smith County, in East Texas.
Tyler is the county seat. Date of incident: Sunday, 2/18/07.

The navigation on the above site takes a little getting used to, but you'll get the hang
of it by the time you read the whole story. Or just read my summary below.

Mr. Graham (the GG), a senior citizen, returned from church to his home in a rural area.
He noticed an unfamilar 1993 white Ford Taurus in his driveway. Mr. Graham had guns
in his house, but no guns with him on body, or in his vehicle.

He called his ranchman and asked him to bring a weapon. The ranchman and his teenage son
came over, but their entire weaponry was a New England Arms .410, single shot shotgun, with
only 1 round of ammo (no backup ammo was with them). The GG decided to call 911 at some
point, but in the craziness of the moment, he dialed 119 instead.

The BG, a 33 year old cocaine addict named Chambers, exited the house, carrying Mr. Graham's
gun bag. Inside the bag was a Glock 23 loaded with 8 rounds of .40 JHP. He also had an offbrand
.22 pistol containing 21 rounds. So the GG's only had 1 round of .410 and the BG had access to
2 pistols containing a total of 29 rounds of ammo.

The GG shot the BG in the head as the Taurus roared at them. The BG was DRT and crashed
into a tree at the end of the driveway. It could not be determined if he had either of the guns
in his hand since the force of the crash threw everything forward, and neither of the guns' grips
yielded any usable fingerprints.

A Smith County Grand Jury "no billed" the GG. So he was off the hook for a criminal action.

Then the ex-wife of the BG sued the GG in court in a civil action, claiming that the GG had
"executed" the BG by shooting him from behind. The jury eventually believed that the GG
had done a "good shoot". But it's estimated that he spent $60,000 on his defense.

Lessons to take away from this story:
1. The GG's house had been burgled before, yet he did not spend any money on a gun safe.
But later had to spend $60K for his lawyer fees.
2. It is not mentioned if the GG had a CHL, but he had guns in his house, and if he was a felon
he would have been prosecuted for that. We might assume he was CHL eligible.
3. IF he had a CHL, he should have carried the Glock with him to church, ON BODY.

I pose a question to my fellow shootists: The GG shot a burglar in the commission of a crime,
and to prevent harm to himself, his ranchman, and the ranchman's teenage son.
Was the GG able to be sued in a civil action because this event happened prior to the Castle
Doctrine going into effect?

SIA

Yes

As a caveat to my #3 at the end of my OP:

Regarding "church carry", I'm not sure if church carry was OK
as of the date of the incident (2/18/07).

SIA

I'm guessing that the ranch hand is no longer employed by Graham.

ninemm:

The reason being that the GG has spent all his money on
his defense, so he doesn't have any money for an employee salary??

If it's because the ranchhand only brought one shell in the shotgun,
the GG might look to his own actions in not having a gun with him
as he approaches his already-burgled casa.

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:If it's because the ranchhand only brought one shell in the shotgun,

Uh, if my neighbor calls and says "come quick and bring a gun," I'm going to show up looking like I'm auditioning for the role of Tackleberry in the next Police Academy movie.

I mean really, they didn't specify what kind, so I don't know if it should be a handgun, a carbine, a good long-range rifle, or a shotgun, and I'll need ammo for all of those just in case...

No, because his testimony favored the plaintiff.

http://tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art ... BUSINESS01

Jury Hears Testimony In Wrongful Death Lawsuit
By REGIS L. ROBERTS
Staff Writer

A Smith County jury could begin deliberations in a wrongful death lawsuit as early as today.
The case stems from a February 2007, shooting in which a homeowner shot and killed a burglary suspect.
A Smith County grand jury failed to indict the homeowner, but family members have filed a wrongful death lawsuit in the case.

Terry Graham, the man whose home Joshua Chambers was allegedly burglarizing when he was shot by Graham, testified that he exercised reasonable action in defending himself and his property.
The deceased Chambers' ex-wife, Amanda Whitsell, brought the suit on behalf of their children Austin, now 14, and Elizabeth, now 10. Their case is being represented by Greg Porter and Charles Clark.

Graham's attorney, Tracy Crawford, made a motion to Judge Randall Rogers that "as a matter of law" the facts of the case showed that Graham acted with appropriate force in shooting Chambers and asked that a ruling in favor of Graham be awarded.

"I think if I were to grant it I'd be reversed in a heartbeat," Rogers said in his rejection of the motion.

Contention came from determining whether Chambers was trying to flee in his white Ford Taurus or trying to run Graham over. When Crawford asked Graham why he shot Chambers as he was driving away, Graham said, "I wanted him stopped; I wanted him arrested; and I wanted my property back."

Graham said when asked the same question later on, "I was afraid of my life and the life of my employee."

He was referring to Guy Osborn, whom Graham employed as a ranch hand on his property in Bullard.

Graham's and Osborn's testimony - Osborn's was played as a video deposition by the plaintiffs - differ in important ways highlighted by the plaintiffs to establish that Graham wrongfully killed Chambers.

Graham said Chambers' Taurus raced toward him, and he believed he was in danger of being run over.

Osborn, however, said Graham ran toward Chambers' car after Chambers got into it after running from the house.

When Graham noticed the strange car in his driveway, he called Osborn, asked him if he noticed the car, and instructed him to bring a gun to Graham's home. As Graham's ranch hand, Osborn lived in another house on Graham's property.

According to testimony, as Chambers ran to his car from Graham's house with a bag of property, Graham instructed Osborn to shoot him.

Asked in the video deposition by Porter why he did not shoot, Osborn said, "It didn't seem to be the thing to do," adding that he did not feel either he nor Graham were in danger at that point. He added that Chambers tried to avoid Graham and did not attempt to run him over.

Graham said that he was certain guns were in the duffle bag Chambers carried from the house.

Graham said a loaded and chambered pistol was on his bed and another pistol was in the nightstand, two items Graham were sure a burglar would steal.

Clark told Graham on several occasions there was no way to know if the bag of stolen items contained firearms, making Graham's judgment poor in shooting Chambers.

The two guns were found in the bag along with $10,000 cash, a digital camera, several watches and a bottle of Crown Royal.

Albert Rodriguez, a Department of Public Safety officer who instructs police and concealed handgun license trainees on accessing risks in using deadly force, said that Graham used correct judgment given the factors.

Rodriguez, who testified on behalf of the defense as a private consultant and not as a DPS official, said the totality of the situation - that Graham's house was being burglarized, the suspect was non-responsive to commands - could lead anyone to believe that their life was in danger.

He said Graham could not reasonably wait for Chambers to present a gun before acting.

The civil lawsuit claims Graham was "grossly negligent" in reacting to the Feb. 18, 2007, burglary.

Graham was previously no billed by a Smith County grand jury, which declined to indict him on criminal charges relating to Chambers' death.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages resulting from Chambers' death.

The jury is being asked to consider whether Graham exercised reasonable action in defending himself.

Today's proceedings are scheduled to begin at 8:15 a.m. in the Smith County Courthouse.

ninemm:

Thank you for the clarification of your earlier comment and
for supplying the fact filled entry above.

The employer wanted the employee to shoot because the employer
recognized the bag that the BG had, and correctly assumed that it
contained his 2 pistolas. The employee didn't feel justified in
shooting, possibly because he was not aware of the pistols in the bag
and the employer took possession of the shotgun and
fired.

Mr.Chambers, the BG, was only tentatively a free man, and faced going
back to prison for 10 years if he broke probation by getting arrested again.

Although the GG may not have known all that, he could still presume
that the BG could stop the car, pull his 2 pistols, and murder the 3 witnesses
with up to 29 rounds.

By the way, I question Mr. Graham's judgment on other issues:
What kind of person leaves $10,000 cash just lying around his house,
which doesn't appear to have an alarm system, or a lockable gate,
although he has already had his house burglarized at least once?

IMHO Mr. Graham had more money than common sense on several fronts.

SIA

If you do a search on the Smith County Cad website (which I did), you'll find out that Terry Graham (aka Terry Graham investments) seems to own much of the southern half of Smith County.

ninemm:

Well thank you for more information that supports my
contention about Mr. Graham:

Why would a well-funded person like himself be so lax
about his personal security? He's obviously got the means.

I believe that his wealth may have prompted the suit by the
BG's ex. Part of her case fell apart, by the way, because on
the stand she had to admit that Mr. Chambers (her ex, the dead
BG) had been quite violent during their marriage, leading to
their divorce.

SIA

The solution is to kill the wife, plaintiff in the wrongful death suit. In East Texas two wrongs make a right.