The headline of this story says alleged victims open fire, but the way I read it, the son is the only one who had a gun he had just purchased, and fired upon the armed robbers. Some will read the story and claim it should never have happened because the victims are teens. I agree. It should never have happened because they should never have attempted to rob people, but if in fact the story police have been given is true, the victims had every right to protect themselves. I'm hearing more stories these days of victims fighting back, and I think it will continue to happen, since police can't be on every block at every house or store where these incidents are taking place. Hopefully the truth will come out, and the son will not be charged with protecting himself. If he and the father were in fact victims, I doubt the son will be charged, since that's usually how it goes in Harris County.
@Diane Lane This type of occurrence very rarely makes any news report of a national nature, but remains confined to local papers. One can imagine the several other possible outcomes, guessing the two teen intruders were bent on criminal action, whether or not they knew their intended victim(s) had a weapon. The father and/or son might be dead, or gravely wounded. The surviving criminal, whether "street hardened" or not, is bound to lie about the actual circumstances, forcing the folks attacked on their own property to secure legal help. Overall, the best scenario as I see it, would have been both criminals dead. Save a lot of lawyer fees. Harsh? Inhumane? Rehabilitate? Nah! You get caught committing an act of potential lethality to someone minding his own business, and get in a serious "bind", it's tough nuggets. Frank
If both criminals were dead, wouldn't the father and son be charged? Don't they have to prove self defense in court and that will cost money also. Or does the police believe their story and no charges are filed? Don't know how it works. Edit: I wrote selfie defense, lol. Also, does robbery justify murder? Thought you could only shoot if you were going to be killed?
@Chrissy Page What you say is for the most part true. However, if you are on your own property and an armed intruder enters it, if you think he has intent to use lethal force against you, killing him first is justified in every state. The aftermath, however, in some states will be terrible, but not quite as bad as being dead at the hands of an intruder. A number of states have instituted a "Castle Law", NM being one with a long-standing tradition of accepting Castle Law Doctrine, they even extended it to folk's vehicles. Castle Law Doctrine is based on the concept of one's home being an inviolable retreat for the owner, and any unpermitted entry is grounds for use of lethal force. Frank
Yes, we have the Castle law here and it's been extended to vehicles. As far as I'm concerned, if someone comes on my property (including my vehicle) who hasn't been invited, particularly someone I don't know or know to be a problem, there's a good possibility I will feel threatened. I will react as I deem appropriate for the situation. I'm not going to waste possibly the last minutes of my life debating on whether they're 'only' there to rob me, rape me, or kill me. They are trespassing, which puts the onus on them, and in this county, grand juries most often side with the resident in the case of potential self-defense. The police will do an investigation, speak with any potential witnesses, and the DA might refer the case to the grand jury. The grand jury rarely indicts, unless it's obvious that the shooter (or person using some other sort of weapon) was the instigator. In Texas, the Castle Law applies to protection of property, as well as life.
Although I'm all for law and order, I think killing someone for stealing is too much. I'd feel guilty the rest of my life. Especially if the theif wasn't really a hardened criminal just some troubled teenager on the wrong path. Even though he might sue, I would wound him to disable him. Of course, I have no idea how I would react Ina situation because I've never even come close to be threatened by anything or anyone. I would probably panic and miss anyway.
I have been threatened and even assaulted several times, and so I have a good idea of how I'd act. I think our situations are also different in that you live in a better neighborhood. The fact that I have a drug dealer living next door already puts me on alert. There haven't been any crimes like rape or murder in my neighborhood, although the one neighbor did shoot her hubby and 2 next door neighbors. That was a neighbor dispute, she claimed self-defense, and I believe maybe got 10 years probation. It wasn't considered murder, since she shot in self-defense. Her hubby was standing in the way and she shot him by accident, apparently, when aiming at the others. She still lives here, although in a different house now. The neighbors had been harassing her, were neglecting (and/or abusing) their young children, and were on drugs. It was like an episode of Fear Thy Neighbor on ID channel, with yelling, harassing, calling CPS, kids out naked playing in the yard while the parents were passed out from drug use...just horrible. I certainly hope my situation doesn't evolve into something like that. I would certainly prefer not to harm anyone, let alone kill them, but if it comes down to him/her or me, if it's at all possible, it won't be me. It is dangerous to aim to harm, not kill, which is why cops shoot for body mass, not for a hand holding a gun, etc. Being sued isn't really a concern of mine, since there's nothing to get. The teenagers on the wrong path here are usually caught before things escalate to that level, since everyone pretty much knows everyone. People post (for their safety) in the neighborhood group about kids not stopping at a stop sign, with identifying information, so the parents will know and can correct them, so hopefully other issues will also be pointed out and harm prevented.
I wouldn't worry about being sued either but even if I aimed to kill, I'd miss. I've never been even close to any threatening situation so don't even know how I'd react. I don't have a gun anyway so in reality I'd be dead probably.
You never know, @Chrissy Page, it probably depends on how strong your will to live is. There are plenty of other weapons handy in most houses that could prove useful, especially if they don't have a gun. I've read that most people do miss, unless they shoot all of the time. Down here, it's possible that the homeowner/renter could shoot all of the time, and there's an even better possibility that there'll be one or more guns in the house, so I have no idea why anyone would even attempt to rob a house/harm someone.
I do have a huge almost machete type knife under my bed, lol. It belonged to my husband but until,this post, is forgotten about it.
Hmm, it looks like we have the same law on burglary. There was a time when a singer named Sonny had shot an intruder who tried to rob their house and had attempted to raper Sonny's daughter. When Sonny was able to free himself, he got his gun and shot the suspect who died on the spot. For that, Sonny was charged with homicide (I think it's the same as manslaughter, correct me if I'm wrong). Now with the teens committing crimes, we have a law freeing minors from the liability of their crime. When you catch a burglar who happens to be a minor, you may be sued if you hurt him. With the case of this thread's topic that a teenager shot a teenager, well, I think there would be no liability at all.