The Homeowner & the Burgler: TX Court Case

[jedi]

Article starts on page 34

American Handgunner March/April Digital Edition
Welcome to American Handgunner

Very short summary
- Guy comes home & finds unknown car in drive
- Guy calls friend to come over & bring a gun due to prior brugalrs in his home
- Guy's friend brings single shot .410 shotgun with one #4 birdshot shell
- As Guy and friend approach house, burglar comes walking out with cloth bag. Cloth bag belongs to Guy and that is where he keeps his two handguns (Glock in .40 and a 9mm)
- Guy tells friend to shoot as burglar is reaching into the bag
- Friend gives Guy the SG instead and Burglar by this point is in the car
- Burgalr in car drives straight towards guy & friend and appears to be driving with one hand from Guy's point of view.
- Guy step to the side to avoid oncoming car and fires SG
- Car crashes into tree with Burglar dead. Obtopise (?sp?) shows burglar was shot in the head as the buckshot went thru the open window, never got the chance to spread and entered the burglar's head. Also that burgalr was on cocaine at the time.

- Criminal case Guy is found NOT GUILITY is was justifiable homocide
- Civil case Guy is found NOT GUILTY (read the article lots of stuff on the civil case and how x-wife of burgalr does the suiing
- It is estimated by author of article that civil court case alone cost Guy $60,000 or more! OUCH!

 

[shibumiseeker]

This is what I have always said to those who want to get revenge and shoot someone running off with your stuff. Even if your shooting is completely justified legally you will spend a ton of money, time, and worry defending yourself in the ensuing legal mess. Even if you get really lucky and the cops and prosecutor decide not to file, or a grand jury decides not to return an indictment, you will spend several thousand bucks and have a few weeks to months of worry.

In that guy's case he was completely justified in his shooting. If the bad guy is running off with your stereo is it worth losing the gun, losing the stereo anyway (since both will be seized as evidence), spending most of your assets defending yourself, and probably go to prison anyway?

 

[jedi]

Anytime you shoot & kill/wound someone you can expect to be charged both CRMINIALLY and CIVIL for it.

Also note that TX and IN laws differ a bit in the area of shooting to protect property. In TX you can shoot and kill someone who is NOT an immediate threat to you IF that person is stealing your property at the time or stealing proerpty that you have been asked to look over.

So stealing in TX is a lot more dangerous for theifs.

 

[JUMBO]

I believe in texas it is called castle laws

 

[g00n24]

Anytime you shoot & kill/wound someone you can expect to be charged both CRMINIALLY and CIVIL for it.

Also note that TX and IN laws differ a bit in the area of shooting to protect property. In TX you can shoot and kill someone who is NOT an immediate threat to you IF that person is stealing your property at the time or stealing proerpty that you have been asked to look over.

So stealing in TX is a lot more dangerous for theifs.

Are the laws also different as far as civil cases go? Am I wrong in saying that you can't be sued in IN if it is a good shoot????

 

[JUMBO]

Are the laws also different as far as civil cases go? Am I wrong in saying that you can't be sued in IN if it is a good shoot????

In fact you can be sued in a civil suit brought against you by the perp (if not killed) or a family member, If my memory serves me correctly!

 

[INGunGuy]

Anytime you shoot & kill/wound someone you can expect to be charged both CRMINIALLY and CIVIL for it.

Also note that TX and IN laws differ a bit in the area of shooting to protect property. In TX you can shoot and kill someone who is NOT an immediate threat to you IF that person is stealing your property at the time or stealing proerpty that you have been asked to look over.

So stealing in TX is a lot more dangerous for theifs.

The same holds true in Indiana, you can shoot someone for just stealing your stuff.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and (B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.


INGunGuy

 

[dburkhead]

In fact you can be sued in a civil suit brought against you by the perp (if not killed) or a family member, If my memory serves me correctly!

From the actual Indiana Code:

IC 35-41-3-2

Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary. (Emphasis added)

Thus the first question becomes: does a civil suit fall under "legal jeopardy"?

Second question: the bag in question was, per the description in the OP, used to carry guns. Therefore, I think that had the shoot happened while the perp was reaching into the bag (were this event to have happened in Indiana) then the highlighted section above should come into play. Once the perp was fleeing, however, there is no longer a "protecting the person or a third person" to bring that into play.

 

[shibumiseeker]

The same holds true in Indiana, you can shoot someone for just stealing your stuff.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

Unless I'm missing something, that means you could tackle someone but not shoot them.

Regardless, what I wrote ina previous post applies. Using deadly force against another person, even if fully morally and legally justified, is going to be costly.

 

[JUMBO]

Regardless, what I wrote ina previous post applies. Using deadly force against another person, even if fully morally and legally justified, is going to be costly.

I tend to agree and concur with the above statement!

 

[jedi]

The same holds true in Indiana, you can shoot someone for just stealing your stuff.

IC 35-41-3-2

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVISE; I'M NOT AN ATTY.

IC 35-41-3-2 used the terms reasonable force which is not a shoot first invite. Shooting is deadly force and can be "reasonable force" but depends on your prior actions and the events around it.

In Indiana if I see person x coming out of my house with my TV I can not shoot them LEGALLY. That is not using reasonable force as they are no threat to me at that moment in time.

In Texas, however, their law does allow for exaclty this. You don't have to be in a situtation where your life or others are in immediate danager of death. The simple fact that you are witnessing the other person steal your property you are allowed to use deadly force.

Here in IN our law is a little weaker in which we must use reasoable force. In a trial and the example above reasonable force coudl have been holding the person at gun point, hitting them, syaing stop, etc.

In either case and in either state the LAST THING you want to do is shoot & kill someone. Either way you are going to have a CIVIL LAWSUIT on your hands.