Homeowner steps up: shoots suspected burglar in the back

Homeowner steps up: shoots suspected burglar in the back


LONGVIEW, TX (KLTV) - A suspected car burglar nearly paid with his life after a homeowner shot him.

The shooting happened around 1 a.m. at a residence in the 100 block of Richardson Street in Longview.

A frightening night for the homeowner who did not want to be identified, who was victimized yet again by a car burglar.

"This is probably our fifth or sixth time this year and we're fed up with it. I don't think it's fair my--husband works really hard," said the victim.

It was one in the morning, the homeowners at the house were asleep when they hear a suspect breaking into their vehicle, but this suspect got more than he bargained for.

When officers arrived they were told by the car's owner that he had fired a weapon in the direction of a car burglar, who then ran from the scene, but was hit in the lower back.

"He heard some noises and went outside and fired off three rounds," said Kristie Brian of the Longview Police Department.

"He was trying to steal stuff from the truck," the homeowner said, "The guy took off running down green street."

Brian says that under the "Castle Doctrine," the homeowner was allowed to do what he did.

Officers later located the suspect, following a blood trail, to a house only a few blocks away.

The suspect is hospitalized, and the homeowner has a warning, "I just want to let them know, they can't come here anymore and expect top take our stuff and for nothing to happen."

We're told the suspect has non life-threatening injuries.

He will face charges once he is out of the hospital.

http://www.kltv.com/story/16114018/suspected-burglar-shot


The police and the citizens should go back to shooting thieves and looters.
Why should thieves feel free from the threat of violence?

_

 

Great OP. Here are my thoughts.

What a grossly irresponsible person.

He cranked off three rounds in the direction of a person? Hmmm? Just started throwing lead and copper around?

What he should have done is remained armed, locked his doors, and called the police.

 

Based on national history and averages, what would the results of your suggestion be?

A greater than 90% chance that the burglar would never be caught.
A greater than 95% chance that any stolen property would never be recovered.
A 65% chance that the burglar will commit burglaries again if he is actually convicted, a much higher chance that the burglar will steal again if not convicted.
A 25% chance that they will be burglarized again.

What came of his method?
The burglar was caught, nothing was stolen, the burglar is unlikely to rob him again and other burglars know that there is significant risk if they try to rob this family.

More importantly, this family did try your method four or five times before this. Obviously it was ineffective since this was their fifth or sixth robbery. It is insanity trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results. It was about time they tried something new to prevent being victimized.

 

Well said Jered!

 

We would see small crimes of opportunity decrease if the criminals start getting shot at, it would also stop the flash mob crimes in their tracks.

I live in a state with castle doctrine that allows you to protect your property without fear of getting sued by the perp or charged if you kill someone while protecting yourself and your possessions. No one should be forced to try to hide or run from someone threatening you on your land.

Only 9 states have no law on the books protecting the property owner from criminals, as they expect you to hide until the police arrive or remove yourself from the property (retreat) until local law enforcement decide to show up.

 

As has already been pointed out, he tried your method 5-6 times and it failed. He had a 33% hit ratio in a combat situation, which is excellent. This is why we should return to defending ourselves, our property, and our livelihood from criminals.

_

 

one of the great things about this country is that you can shoot someone in your house if the dogs don't eat him., excellent deterrent.

 

I can see nothing wrong if a homeowner shout a burglar or thieve. The Free Citizens have the Right to defend themselves if State denies to protect them.

 

How many times does he need to be robbed before he can do something. I think he gave the government plenty of opportunities to protect his property and they failed, it seems that he did not fail and the crook will not have the opportunity to trample on anyones constitutional rights for awhile.

Lets face it, we need to remember that these criminals are trampling on someones constitutional rights to property, and freedom, the crook deserves whatever he gets.

 

Good news; criminals should be treated like criminals..

 

Yep the Castle Doctrine.

A couple of more of these and watch burglary numbers drop, especially if they report and increase purchase of fire arms by citizens.

Then I dare anyone in that community to put a sign in their front yard declaring their anti-gun position and declaring there are no firearms in their home because of it.

 

The criminal, yes. The homeowner? He took responsibility for protecting his property as the Constitutional protects, he beared his arm.

No he took aim at a moving target and demonstrated a 33% hit ratio, not bad.

Been there and done that and the criminals kept coming back. We had a situation here once where a woman who owned a convenience store was being routinely robbed. She was small and could not physically prevent them. Guys would just walk in pick up a case a beer and something to eat and walk out. Or grab cigarettes or anything else and just walk out. Sure she'd call the police but the guys were long gone by then.

What was she suppose to do? Well she got a gun, the next came in and grabbed a case of beer and started to walk out, she told him to stop but he walked out the door, so arrogant he didn't even run, she followed him out showing the gun and told him to stop, he kept walkding. She shoot, killed him. They didn't press charges.

What else is she suppose to do, just let them steal her out of business?

 

I can't think of very many men I know who'd grab their gun, then hide behind a door, whispering into 911.

He hit the running target and now the thieving scum got a bullet in his back - that's the risk they take when they steal someone else's property....

It's called 'live and learn'........

 

What a great story........

It's a shame that that "Castle doctrine" was not a federal law

I would imagine that crime would plummet overnight........ Sure, some on the left might whine that criminals livelihoods were disrupted.....but I'm sure the benefits to society override the incessant ululations of the left.

 

Now those are some well thought out arguments. Kudos to you all.

However, my objection, if you read the post, was as follows.

The man shot his gun in the direction of someone. Now I am certain that we have some expert marksmen here, but as I am not and obviously this home owner was not, where did those other two rounds end up?

the man's behavior was reckless and immature. His life was in no imminent danger. What he should have done was called the police rather than risk injuring or killing someone no involved.

 

The man's actions were a service to society. Thankfully, he is within his rights.

Others, undoubtedly would choose the pusillanimous approach and that would be their prerogative.

Free choice is a wonderful thing.

 

Great post, but I have to disagree.

Shooting in the general direction of someone who poses no imminent danger to you seems reckless. Those other rounds have to go somewhere.

 

They certainly did......as the story clearly indicates, they missed the culprit passing harmlessly by and harming nothing else. But then, little surprise. At one in the morning, there typically isn't many people out and about.

Further, since the thief was robbing the mans truck......the odds are the rounds hit his truck.

Ah well......again, a service to his community.

 

As long as no one else was standing behind this guy, there wasn't much danger. He may have put a bullet in a car or a building, but it would take a really unlikely series of circumstances for someone else to be harmed.

One thing I don't see mentioned is the type of gun and rounds he used. A jacketed 9mm might penetrate a neighbor's house enough to do a little damage, a lighter caliber would be stopped by the outer wall of almost any house.

That being said, your comment points out how authors can't seem to avoid attempting to sway the emotional response of their readers in the manner that the author prefers. Consider the line we are discussing:

The way it is written, it sounds like the guy just went out and fired randomly in the general direction that he thought the burglar might be. This makes his actions sound reckless.

But consider the fact that he actually hit the thief. There have been numerous shootouts where numerous rounds were fired and not one actually hit a target. There have been cases where trained shooters aimed at a person standing in the open ten feet a way, unloaded the weapon and missed with every shot. It is not easy to randomly hit any target.

The fact that the guy hit the thief indicates that he probably had a clear view of the target and took careful aim. This would imply that he could see the target picture and would have seen if a bystander was in the line of fire.

Although the writer of the article tries to make it sound like this action was very dangerous, the circumstances make it sound otherwise.

 

Great post as always.

Now what if those rounds passed through the wall of the neighbors house?

 

I see nothing wrong with what the guy did, its just people who take it way to (*)(*)(*)(*) far when "stopping" a crime that should be persucuted.

Case in point, the other day I read about a guy in England who shot an unamred burgalur in the back while he was trying to run from the house. Not to morally wrong...execpt the guy shot the burgalar at point blank range 9 times (which means he reloaded at least once) with a shotgun... using buck shot...

I have no problem with you defending your property in a reasonable way, but turning an unarmed running man, criminal or not, into hamberger meat, crosses the line.

 

What If? They did not. You have no idea where the person was and if there was any buildings in the line of fire. Your take on this is why liberals always lose they deal in what ifs not facts.

Come to my house and find out what an English Mastiff and my 3 guns will do

 

"What if, what if".... there's no 'if's' about this case....

 

Great post, but may I point out that I am an avid gun owner and a strict believer of the 2nd?

Thank you for the invitation. Does your dog know tricks that you would like me to see?

 

You are very correct, not this time. Perhaps next time someone is firing in the general direction of someone else the bullets will find an innocent victim.