'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

TomTurn -> 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 1:13:33 PM)

After his home was burglarized earlier this week, Thomas Thames decided to arm himself in case the intruder returned, police say.

The following night, he heard another noise at his home in the 5800 block of East Midcrown, so Thames, 39, walked downstairs. It was about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday when he once again saw a young man in his kitchen. The back door was open.

This time, Thames fired a gun at the man, who ran into the backyard, where Thames shot at him again, police said.

Ronnie Scarborough, 18, was pronounced dead at the scene.

San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.

Police said the man killed at Thames’ Northeast Side home Tuesday matched the description of a burglary suspect the resident said he chased from the home the night before.

Police said Tuesday that Thames likely won’t be charged with a crime because Texas law gives homeowners latitude in protecting their property and themselves.

“A property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,” Trevino said

Continued



stamper_ben -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 3:54:11 PM)

quote:

“A property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,”
Hear hear!



Jhud -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 4:05:36 PM)

Don't mess with Texas.

However, if you want to rob a house, come to Minnesota; we pratically give the stuff away here.



blessedinnyc -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 4:56:11 PM)

Shooting someone in your house in self-defense makes perfect sense.

But the story seems to suggest that the guy was running away when the homeowner delivered the fatal shot. Generally, the law makes it difficult to use self-defense as an argument when an intruder is outside and running away, so I don't know how healthy it's going to be to link this case to gun rights.

If you own a gun, you need to understand the legal use of your weapon. If this guy used his weapon illegally to shoot someone in a way that wasn't self-defense or defense of others, he's just as much a criminal- perhaps moreso- than the guy who broke into his house.

I don't know all of the facts, yet, so maybe we should wait for them to come out. If the homeowner ran outside and the burglar followed him, that's one thing. If the burglar was running away (as I first suspected, but I haven't seen enough info to make a judgement yet), that's quite another.



If you shoot someone while he's running away in New York or most Midwestern states with the intention of killing him and he dies, you're going to be charged with manslaughter. I don't think this is unfair or unreasonable.



Leslie_JnJs_mom -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 5:09:00 PM)

We have an interesting sheriffs department. The sheriff advised us that if we shot anyone to make sure we drug the dead person back into the house so we could claim self defence. Of course this is the same department where the sheriff parties with underage kids buying them booze and drugs.[:@]



tapestry -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 5:11:17 PM)

appauling a person for killing another? I have a hard time with that especially in this story. The kid ran from the house, meaning he was still alive, and then was killed outside, still running away. There is no mention of him pulling a weapon of anykind on the home owner, so how can this be justified as self defence?



blessedinnyc -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 5:12:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

Shooting someone in your house in self-defense makes perfect sense.

But the story seems to suggest that the guy was running away when the homeowner delivered the fatal shot. Generally, the law makes it difficult to use self-defense as an argument when an intruder is outside and running away, so I don't know how healthy it's going to be to link this case to gun rights.

If you own a gun, you need to understand the legal use of your weapon. If this guy used his weapon illegally to shoot someone in a way that wasn't self-defense or defense of others, he's just as much a criminal- perhaps moreso- than the guy who broke into his house.

I don't know all of the facts, yet, so maybe we should wait for them to come out. If the homeowner ran outside and the burglar followed him, that's one thing. If the burglar was running away (as I first suspected, but I haven't seen enough info to make a judgement yet), that's quite another.



If you shoot someone while he's running away in New York or most Midwestern states with the intention of killing him and he dies, you're going to be charged with manslaughter. I don't think this is unfair or unreasonable.

Apparently, I am shocked to discover that you can shoot and kill anyone who is unwelcome on your property in Texas, in general.

I retract my statement about knowing when you can lawfully discharge a weapon, because apparently, this weapon was discharged lawfully.

Apparently, Texas's laws on guns are much different than those I ran into in IL. I disagree with them, but Texans get to make their own laws. I will just be careful not to set foot onto anyone's private property unless I'm 100% certain they're mentally stable and aren't going to stab me in the back.



blessedinnyc -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 5:17:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tapestry

appauling a person for killing another? I have a hard time with that especially in this story. The kid ran from the house, meaning he was still alive, and then was killed outside, still running away. There is no mention of him pulling a weapon of anykind on the home owner, so how can this be justified as self defence?

I take it you live north of the Mason-Dixon line like me.

I am suprised to see a law like this. They'd never pass it in New York. If you shoot someone who's running away up here, you're likely to spend anywhere from three to twenty years at Rikers. Heck, if you're caught with a gun in New York City, you're liable to spend a few years there.

It's interesting that we live in a country where you can be sent to jail for several years in one area for carrying a weapon, while in another area, you have the legal right to shoot and kill anyone who isn't welcome on your property. Oh well, as long as Texans and New Yorkers are happy...

Maybe it's time for me to move back to some saner Midwestern state.



stellaluna -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 5:41:24 PM)

Texas recently changed its law to make it lawful to shoot any intruder on your property--no matter where they are on your property. That's pretty much how we do things down here.



henny -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 6:24:00 PM)

This reminds me of that case a while back (again in Texas, who would have thought?) where some neighbors asked a guy to watch their house while they were gone. The house was robbed, and the neighbor called 911 to report it, and while he was on the phone he told the dispatcher that he had his shot gun and was going to get them. The dispatcher tried to talk him out of it, but he shot and killed both robbers in the backs as they were leaving.

Glenn Beck had the recording of the 911 call on his radio show a while back. The guy tried to claim self-defense, but I never heard what happened with the case.



TomTurn -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 6:33:07 PM)

quote:

Glenn Beck had the recording of the 911 call on his radio show a while back. The guy tried to claim self-defense, but I never heard what happened with the case.


That was Joe Horn and I would say nothing is going to happen to him since the criminals came on his property and a plain clothes officer watched the shooting.



TomTurn -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 6:35:50 PM)

If a criminal does not like the laws of Texas, which may legally lead to thier death. I would suggest they take up their criminality in another location.



blessedinnyc -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 6:40:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

If a criminal does not like the laws of Texas, which may legally lead to thier death. I would suggest they take up their criminality in another location.

Why don't they just head somewhere where it's easier to get a weapon?

When criminals start thinking about risk or consequences, New York is in trouble, but until then, it seems that crime tends not to happen where getting a gun is tough. (IE: New York)

EDITED TOS 5



mapachito13 -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 6:44:11 PM)

If this is what regular people can do. Chase someone down and shoot them. Then I wonder what rules or non-rules the LEOS go by. The wild west (or should I say mid-west because Texas is still in the middle of the country) lives on!

Yippecaye!



TomTurn -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 7:14:16 PM)

quote:

If this is what regular people can do. Chase someone down and shoot them. Then I wonder what rules or non-rules the LEOS go by. The wild west (or should I say mid-west because Texas is still in the middle of the country) lives on!

Yippecaye!


The peaceful place of greater Los Angeles has spoken



dbark -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 7:15:36 PM)

Forgive me for not being thrilled that an 18 year old kid is dead. Yes, the kid was doing something very dangerous and very illegal and took this chance of his own volition, but this is hardly something to rejoice over.

Reading further in that article gives some very excellent reasons why this is a bad law ...
quote:

“The danger of empowering people to use deadly force is that they are not trained to recognize friend or foe in highly dangerous situations,” he said. “Oftentimes, a stranger in a house turns out to be a drunken neighbor or a relative.”

In San Antonio last year, a Northwest Side homeowner fatally shot an intoxicated college student who wandered into his home — in the same neighborhood where the student’s sister lived.

Raymond Lemes found 19-year-old Tracy Glass inside his house about 2:45 a.m. one Saturday last August. Believing Glass was an intruder, Lemes chased the young man outside, where he shot him in the neck, arm and chest.

Lemes wasn’t charged in the case.


Self defense is one thing, killing people for stealing from you is quite another.



rcjames -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 7:18:32 PM)

"Don't worry about the dog; beware of the owner".

The deer lease I hunt on in Texas is posted with signs that read, "Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be prosecuted".

Thanks
RC



TomTurn -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 7:25:01 PM)

quote:

Forgive me for not being thrilled that an 18 year old kid is dead. Yes, the kid was doing something very dangerous and very illegal and took this chance of his own volition, but this is hardly something to rejoice over.


Who is thrilled? It is a shame this 18 year old thought so little of his life but that was his choice. And he is not a kid. !8 year olds are standing the line in the military

quote:

Reading further in that article gives some very excellent reasons why this is a bad law


I like it

quote:

Self defense is one thing, killing people for stealing from you is quite another


Stealing from you and then moving to kill you can happen in a second. What we do know is he made a choice and a bad one and paid.



mapachito13 -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 7:31:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

If this is what regular people can do. Chase someone down and shoot them. Then I wonder what rules or non-rules the LEOS go by. The wild west (or should I say mid-west because Texas is still in the middle of the country) lives on!

Yippecaye!


The peaceful place of greater Los Angeles has spoken


It's peaceful where I live! All crime is half or less than the national average. Not everyone in LA lives in a crime infested neighborhood! We have less property crime than Beverly Hills even! San Antonio, TX has three times more crime than the city where I live.



TomTurn -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 7:36:24 PM)

quote:

It's peaceful where I live! All crime is half or less than the national average. Not everyone in LA lives in a crime infested neighborhood! We have less property crime than Beverly Hills even! San Antonio, TX has three times more crime than the city where I live.


And of course you did not try and paint Texas with a broad brush (-:



dbark -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 7:39:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

Forgive me for not being thrilled that an 18 year old kid is dead. Yes, the kid was doing something very dangerous and very illegal and took this chance of his own volition, but this is hardly something to rejoice over.


Who is thrilled? It is a shame this 18 year old thought so little of his life but that was his choice. And he is not a kid. !8 year olds are standing the line in the military

quote:

Reading further in that article gives some very excellent reasons why this is a bad law


I like it

quote:

Self defense is one thing, killing people for stealing from you is quite another


Stealing from you and then moving to kill you can happen in a second. What we do know is he made a choice and a bad one and paid.

An 18 year old is still a kid regardless of the age of majority. Most 18 year olds still have a whole lot of growing up to do. Someone earlier in the thread responded by saying "Hear, hear." - that's to whom I was saying I wasn't thrilled about this boy's death. Some people get shot in the back running away and this law (which you like) would permit them to do so. There is no safety or self-defense issue in that scenario - only revenge.



TomTurn -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 7:49:49 PM)

quote:

An 18 year old is still a kid


Not in Texas

quote:

Most 18 year olds still have a whole lot of growing up to do
.

We are all growing but he made a very bad choice

quote:

Some people get shot in the back running away and this law (which you like) would permit them to do so.


I like the law. If a criminal does not like the law they are always free not to do the crime or take their criminality to another State, they will not be missed.

quote:

There is no safety or self-defense issue in that scenario - only revenge.


They are willing to do a crime that came with a penalty that might require payment. Cannot cry about that once you are caught. It is sad but my pity is needed in more deserving places after the fact.

In the case of someone like Joe Horn, I honestly think he saved innocent lives down the road.



blessedinnyc -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 8:02:18 PM)

quote:

We are all growing but he made a very bad choice

So are you happy he was shot the second time? Or would you rather the homeowner have missed? I personally would rather have the homeowner miss. They would have caught him at some hospital later on with the first bullet, anyways.

quote:

I like the law. If a criminal does not like the law they are always free not to do the crime or take their criminality to another State, they will not be missed.

Again, most criminals don't understand the notion of planning ahead or worrying about consequences.

quote:

They are willing to do a crime that came with a penalty that might require payment. Cannot cry about that once you are caught. It is sad but my pity is needed in more deserving places after the fact.

Unless we want anarchy, this is normally the government's job.

quote:

In the case of someone like Joe Horn, I honestly think he saved innocent lives down the road.

Except, of course, the kid's family might want revenge, so he might have just gotten himself into a world of trouble.

If you shot my son, I'd understand if you thought he was threatening you. Law or not, if you killed my son while he was running away, I'd be tempted to ensure there was a revenge killing of another sort. And after everything is done, after we've plucked out everybody's eyes, everyone's blind.



1love1God1way -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 8:04:25 PM)

I guess I'm just one of those silly people who still thinks killing is wrong regardless of the situation.

Maybe I'm even sillier to think that pulling up for a lethal shot at someone running away is even worse.

Maybe I'm silliest for putting God's Laws about Texas's.



rnershigh -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/7/2008 8:07:06 PM)

This criminal had already tried to break into this man's house once.
He decided to give it another go.
He paid with his life.

Simple as that.
It's the law in Texas that a owner can defend their property, and obviously Texans know this.
So this criminal was taking a risk and he lost.
I'm not rejoicing his death.
I'm just saddened this person found it necessary to resort to burglary.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI