A Real Test of Texas' New Castle Doctrine Law

[xavier fremboe]

Here is some information concerning the local coverage of this case.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2007/10/kdfw_suspends_rebecca_aguilar.php

[MechAg94]

A few years ago, I had a home intruder.  I didn't shoot him, even though it was late evening and he came into my home unannounced. He quite loudly opened both the screen and storm doors as he made his entrance.

He was also severely mentally handicapped, and shortly after I drew down on him, he went into one of his recurring grand mal seizures.  My wife and I got him to a safe position and made him as comfortable as we could. Long story short, his mom was grateful (to say the least) that I didn't continue with the whole front sight/press bit.  As far as I know, Michael is still alive today, and I'm sure he could identify the business end of a 1911 now if he needed to.

Obviously, the guy wasn't handicapped enough.  He had the ability to break into your house.  He obviously had the mental capacity to look for valuables and fence them at the very least.  There have been plenty of cases of mentally handicapped people committing rapes, murder, and other crimes.  The fact that he was mentally handicapped doesn't really mean a thing.  If he hadn't collapsed when you confronted him and instead started moving toward you, I bet you would have shot him real quick.  If you think that some of us wouldn't give warning/threat before blasting away, I think you are assuming too much. 

If I see someone running out the door with a VCR, I wouldn't shoot.  Why would I?  That is really a silly example.  Anything short of running away or giving up immediately and he might just get shot if he poses a threat.  I think the dividing line between breaking and entering and murder is very thin myself.  Once you go down the path of doing one, doing the other ain't all that further down the path.  Considering many who do that stuff are on drugs as well, I don't think you can depend on thieves to be concerned about your life.

I am really not trying to be confrontational.  I just feel that line of thinking is what leads to all sorts of silly laws that prevent people from defending themselves.  A hot button I guess. 

[yesitsloaded]

If your life isn't worth a VCR, then don't try to steal it. At DarkoThirty I don't want to engage you in a conversation about why you are in my home and what crimes are you planning to commit. I will make sure you are not a family member and commence to neutralizing you as a threat. There is a whole lot of difference between stealing my stereo in a parking lot and breaking into my dwelling at night. 

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZd-5dYXfk

The Channel4 reported who questioned him in this video behaves reprehensibly.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[Balog]

I'd totally agree with Art. "Can't do the time, don't do the crime" etc. If death was a common consequence of violating another's house, that'd be a hell of a deterrent, wouldn't it?

And there is a world of difference between theft in and out of the home. A criminal breaking into someone's home, especially at night, is a threat. Anything short of immediate surrender or attempting to flee are threatening enough, IMHO, to use force.

I would really, really hate to have to shoot someone. I saw enough death in Iraq to last me several lifetimes. But I'd rather live with it on my conscience than make my wife a widow, or let her get raped because I hesitated to stop a threat. And when we have kids? Forget about it.

I'm curious G98: did you know the guy before hand? Was it a "Oh, it's that retarded kid from next door; I shouldn't shoot him" kind of thing? Hard to tell from your post.

Edit to add: I'd say property defense is especially valid for certain types of property. If you operate a business with expensive vandalism prone equipment, it doesn't take too many $1 million plus insurance claims before either your rates go so high you can't afford em or no company will cover you. 

[Ben]

If I see someone running out the door with a VCR, I wouldn't shoot.  Why would I?  That is really a silly example.

I was actually thinking it's a good example of the philosophy of "shoot or don't shoot" especially based on weighing the diametric positions of Art's and Gewehr's posts. When we use the example of "he needs it more than I do" the VCR could to me actually be an example of leaning towards shooting (not that I would or wouldn't, I just don't know what I'd do in the situation never having been there, and for me the greater decision would come from observing the actual perpetrator).

Nobody NEEDS a VCR -- it's a luxury item, and if someone is stealing it they're doing it for something other than "need". If I caught someone stealing food from me, or warm clothing in the Winter, that's an argument towards need and desperation, and to me a clear indication of "don't shoot". Though obviously one would still need to remain in "condition orange", since I'm sure the words "please Mister...." have more than once been followed by a shot or a stab or a blunt instrument to the head.

[MechAg94]

Well, considering there are charities of all sorts (and govt) that are willing to provide basic necessities, I really don't see someone breaking into your home to steel a blanket.  When someone breaks into your home especially at night or if I am there, they are a threat.  I like the think I would at least yell out or give warning before shooting.  Never been in that situation.  As someone else said, If they do anything except give up or run, I don't see what other choice I have. 

I guess it is a matter to breaking and entering or not.  If they just ran onto your property and stole fruit out of a tree, that is entirely different.  I am not really picturing someone running down the street with my stuff, but in my house.

[HankB]

. . . As one of our resident and usually well-grounded Texicans, Art referenced the "time spent" argument as he borrowed it from THR, but I doubt even he would consider ending one's remaining lifetime of hours for the few hours of work spent to originally buy the stolen widget - not entirely proportional, is it? . . .

Why should the response to a criminal's unprovoked and malicious attack upon you or the fruits of your labor BE proportional, especially when your home is violated? You didn't ask to be a victim, the bad guy decided to victimize you. This justifies far more than a mere "tit for tat" response . . . I firmly believe that, within very broad limits,** one should never do an enemy a minor injury.

** - Yes, there ARE limits . . . for example, no sane person would advocate shooting a 7 year old who pilfers an apple from a tree in your back yard, but adults or near-adults who B&E your residence or business are an entirely different matter.

[roo_ster]

It was night. Things in Texas get different at night, even before the law changed September 1st.

We had another one last night, too. Guy caught a burglar in his garage.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa071016_wz_intrudershot.17668d7e8.html

Similar outcome. Don't be jackin' with folks' stuff in Texas. Especially at night.

Riley, we consider present and future thieves to be duly warned by previous example. If they choose to ignore the example, the lesson will be harsh.

Regards,
Rabbit.

Ditto.

I would really, really hate to have to shoot someone...But I'd rather live with it on my conscience than make my wife a widow, or let her get raped because I hesitated to stop a threat. And when we have kids? Forget about it.

Darn tootin'. 

When I was single, the greatest risk I took when not immediately neutralizing a threat in my home was my own injury or death.  Nowadays, if I get killed, my wife is a widow, my kids lose their father, my wife has to go back to work, she likely wouldn't be able to keep them in private school, my wife & kids could be injured/raped/killed after me, to mention just a few consequences.

The magnitude of a poor outcome, were I to overindulge in compassion for the tweaker thief's plight, is exponentially greater.  Many risks I took as a younger, single man are no longer acceptable to me.

If some goblin breaks into my house, he had best be all about falling on the floor in a compliant & non-threatening mode, RIGHT EFFING NOW.  Anything else and I will neutralize the threat as expeditiously as possible.

[Gewehr98]

I'm curious G98: did you know the guy before hand? Was it a "Oh, it's that retarded kid from next door; I shouldn't shoot him" kind of thing? Hard to tell from your post.

Does it really matter?  Honestly, according to the folks here, he should be dead, period.  He had the potential to be a threat, and should have been iced accordingly.   

[Manedwolf]

>That doesn't work like it does it movies! What can happen was shown with the Russian school siege. Depending on body mass and health, any sort of "gas" like that can indeed KILL people.

In the US, that would have been multiple counts of attempted first-degree murder. What's the law there?! <

Oh Knock out gas works just fine for the one who doesn't care if you wake up with brain dammage or not at all. It is used in Europe for cab drivers while they are awake truck drivers while they rest watch dogs in the garden and well entire famillies.

I don't know about the law here but I cannot recall anybody beeing caught yet since
those people are professional criminal tourists which is easy in central Europe where you have ten countries (and languages) within a days drive.

As for the punishment I'd recommand public hanging (par les couilles) until death.   

La Guillotine was last used for an execution in France in 1977. They should bring it back.

[xavier fremboe]

G98,

Yes, it seems to me it does matter.  If some cat breaks into your house naked except for an AFDB and some oven mitts, it would make quite a difference in your reaction if you knew it was "Ol' Oven Mitt John from down the street" vs. not recognizing them in the least.  No one wants to 'ice' anyone. 

[Paddy]

My own personal ROE's won't permit the use of deadly force except and until I, or another person(s) are in imminent danger of injury or death.  I would not shoot someone stealing my stuff. That's not to say I'd just let somebody walk off with my stuff.  I'd be pissed and try to stop them.  If they dropped it and ran, I'd let them go.  If they turned and threatened me with a weapon, I'd shoot.

[Werewolf]

My own personal ROE's won't permit the use of deadly force except and until I, or another person(s) are in imminent danger of injury or death.

By which time it may very well be too late. That's a heck of a risk to take.

Evaluating a situational threat is not an instantaneous process.

[zahc]

If someone breaks into my house, I consider it a safe assumption that I am already under the threat of bodily harm.

If a thief is taken in the act of forcing his way into a house, ... and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him. ...Exodus 22:2

[Perd Hapley]

Video of Aguilar interview is still available. 

[RevDisk]

While I personally don't believe "shoot first, ask questions later", the only expensive stuff I own is in my bedroom.  If someone was breaking into my place while I was there, I'd have no clue whether they were looking for a VCR or intending me serious hurt.  I think I'd be more likely to shoot if someone was breaking in.  Theoretically, if I was returning home from somewhere and someone was walking out with my stuff, I'd probably would not shoot. 

On the flip side, I understand the argument that possession xyz is not worth someone's life.   Due to my religious/spiritual beliefs, I disagree.  Not over the value of the possession, but rather that no one has the right to steal for strictly monetary gain.  Food or clothing would be a different story.  When someone breaks into another person's home to take their possessions, they are not just depriving the owner of x dollars of property.  They are violating the sanctity of that person's home, causing severe distress and emotional harm, stealing for personal gain.  The dollar value is the least important.  For survival, I can understand.  I obviously do not approve, but I understand.  For personal gain, I do not respect. 

[Firethorn]

I have insurance for my physical possessions, and am more than willing to defend my family's lives and limbs.  Although I'm quite ready to do so, I am not so psyched by my inflated bravado that I'll adopt a "if it moves, it's dead" strategy.  There's a split-second in there where I'm going to identify my threat, or even if it exists, before I go Rambo on somebody.  If they're leaving with a VCR, they need it worse than I do, because my insurance policy will buy me a nicer one.  That may rub the Texicans in here raw, but I ain't a Texican, and cattle rustlin' ain't in my local laws, anyway. As one of our resident and usually well-grounded Texicans, Art referenced the "time spent" argument as he borrowed it from THR, but I doubt even he would consider ending one's remaining lifetime of hours for the few hours of work spent to originally buy the stolen widget - not entirely proportional, is it? Regardless, the Texas deadly force/property law is the exception, rather than the rule, and one cannot use that measuring stick in the remaining 49 states that comprise the membership here. A DA would have a very easy case in that respect.

In my case, with my insurance, they could steal my VCR, DVD player, and TV and I still might as well not bother reporting it to my insurance, as the depreciated value of 5+ year old electronics is pretty much zilch.  Still, they meet my needs, so I wouldn't sell them for the price I could get for them - they have more personal value to me than their book value.

Then there's the philosophical part:  they start with your VCR, but they're never satisfied - they keep stealing.  If not from you, from others.  To support their drug/gambling habits.  So they steal an item worth $200 to you, $100 on the books, for $50 or even $20 at a lenient pawn shop or whatever.  They cause damage - ransacking your home, breaking locks, doors, furniture in their search for valuables.  It costs the time of the police and insurance adjuster.  Sure you have 'insurance' for it.  Now think about how much lower your insurance premiums could be if we didn't have burglars running around.

The cost to society of these goblins, even if they don't move up, is enormous.

Sure, I have replacement value insurance - but I still have a $500 deducible, which is about a week's income after deductions.  Plus I currently pay ~3 weeks of pay/year for my insurance.  Without criminals it could be a bit lower.

[doczinn]

re: shooting someone running away with my VCR:

See, there's a difference between what I believe to be morally justified, and what I would actually do.

If someone breaks into my home, I believe it would be morally justified to kill him. If he's no longer in my home but has my property, I believe it would be morally justified to kill him. Realistically, though, there are two factors that mean I probably wouldn't unless he attacked me.

- Legally, especially in California, I'm in deep doo-doo no matter how just a killing might be.

- Personally, I just don't think I can kill someone for a VCR. Some of you guys probably could, and I wouldn't fault you for it. I probably couldn't. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.