Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/burglary-suspect-calls-911-for-help-after-texas-homeowner-pulls-a-gun-on-him-what-the-hell-are-you-doing-in-my-house/

A Texas burglary suspect called 911 early Tuesday morning to report that a homeowner was holding him at gunpoint and threatening to shoot him, KDFW reports.

Homeowner James Gerow said he awoke at around 12:30 a.m. and found a man wearing dark clothes and a hoodie inside his Springtown home. He then retrieved his legally owned gun and followed the man out to a truck that was parked in his driveway.

Wielding his firearm, Gerow ordered the suspected burglar to give him the keys to the vehicle and told his wife to call 911 while he held the suspect at gunpoint.

“Yeah, hurry up now. He says my husband’s fixing to shoot him,” she reportedly told the dispatcher.

The burglary suspect was later identified as 41-year-old Christopher Lance Moore. Parker County Sheriff Larry Fowler said Moore also called 911 for help while he was in his pickup truck.

“I’m not sure. I’m out in the country somewhere and some guy’s got a gun on me,” he said on the emergency call, conveniently leaving out why he found himself looking into the barrel of a gun.

“I pointed the gun at him and asked him who he is and what the hell he was doing in my house,” Gerow said. “He said his name was Lance, and I said, ‘Lance, what the hell are you doing in my house?’…And he said, ‘unlucky.’ Just unlucky.”

Moore was later arrested for burglary of habitation, a second-degree felony.

Gerow, the homeowner, said Moore admitted to investigators that he had “bad intentions.”

“I gave him a chance…Had he said he had bad intentions before that, he wouldn’t have got his second chance. That’s a different ballgame. You threaten me and my family, that’s a different ballgame,” Gerow added.

Should have shot him in the shin because its not attempted murder then say it was self defense.

I'm a pro gun person, but I will put myself in the "if he was leaving don't pull a gun and hold him at gun-point" camp.

If you feel the situation is dire enough to pull the gun on somebody then pull the trigger, other than that its just playing vigilante and dangerous.

Why in caps?

juraigamer wrote:Why in caps?

Why not? Caught your attention didnt it?

d-usa wrote:I'm a pro gun person, but I will put myself in the "if he was leaving don't pull a gun and hold him at gun-point" camp.

If you feel the situation is dire enough to pull the gun on somebody then pull the trigger, other than that its just playing vigilante and dangerous.

Not surprising coming from a guy whos avatar is dressed as a monk. If someone comes in my house uninvited, having a gun held on him is the easiest he's getting off.

 juraigamer wrote:
Why in caps?

Copied the headline from website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
Should have shot him in the shin because its not attempted murder then say it was self defense.

Not attempted murder, no. Intentional maiming, yes.

If this burglar has an arm long rap sheet, it's an easier conviction. Otherwise he said she said kind of case.

I would have invited him to make sweet love to my wife, then served him hot pancakes in bed.

amidoingitright?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a pro gun person, but I will put myself in the "if he was leaving don't pull a gun and hold him at gun-point" camp.

If you feel the situation is dire enough to pull the gun on somebody then pull the trigger, other than that its just playing vigilante and dangerous.

Texas is one of the few states in which you can shoot someone in defense of property. Its not vigilantism to detain a criminal and call the cops, but I get there isn't an easy word for it.

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a pro gun person, but I will put myself in the "if he was leaving don't pull a gun and hold him at gun-point" camp.

If you feel the situation is dire enough to pull the gun on somebody then pull the trigger, other than that its just playing vigilante and dangerous.

Texas is one of the few states in which you can shoot someone in defense of property. Its not vigilantism to detain a criminal and call the cops, but I get there isn't an easy word for it.

Yeah, what exactly is wrong with holding the guy at gunpoint till the Cops show up to haul him away?

It gets the criminal off the streets.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a pro gun person, but I will put myself in the "if he was leaving don't pull a gun and hold him at gun-point" camp.

If you feel the situation is dire enough to pull the gun on somebody then pull the trigger, other than that its just playing vigilante and dangerous.

Texas is one of the few states in which you can shoot someone in defense of property. Its not vigilantism to detain a criminal and call the cops, but I get there isn't an easy word for it.

Yeah, what exactly is wrong with holding the guy at gunpoint till the Cops show up to haul him away?

It gets the criminal off the streets.

Potential for escalation, mistakes, future revenge, bloodshed.

feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a pro gun person, but I will put myself in the "if he was leaving don't pull a gun and hold him at gun-point" camp.

If you feel the situation is dire enough to pull the gun on somebody then pull the trigger, other than that its just playing vigilante and dangerous.

Texas is one of the few states in which you can shoot someone in defense of property. Its not vigilantism to detain a criminal and call the cops, but I get there isn't an easy word for it.

Yeah, what exactly is wrong with holding the guy at gunpoint till the Cops show up to haul him away?

It gets the criminal off the streets.

Potential for escalation, mistakes, future revenge, bloodshed.

Yeah, breaking into someones home clearly isn't the root cause. Its that silly home owner that objects that causes escalation.

 AustonT wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a pro gun person, but I will put myself in the "if he was leaving don't pull a gun and hold him at gun-point" camp.

If you feel the situation is dire enough to pull the gun on somebody then pull the trigger, other than that its just playing vigilante and dangerous.

Texas is one of the few states in which you can shoot someone in defense of property. Its not vigilantism to detain a criminal and call the cops, but I get there isn't an easy word for it.

Yeah, what exactly is wrong with holding the guy at gunpoint till the Cops show up to haul him away?

It gets the criminal off the streets.

Potential for escalation, mistakes, future revenge, bloodshed.

Yeah, breaking into someones home clearly isn't the root cause. Its that silly home owner that objects that causes escalation.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at. Remember, at this point, the bad guy is leaving.

He's leaving, no one has been hurt and nothing is lost. You are winning already. Figure out how he got in your home in the first place, upgrade your defenses. Don't be Captain Cowboy Coolguy. Don't get hurt.

 AustonT wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a pro gun person, but I will put myself in the "if he was leaving don't pull a gun and hold him at gun-point" camp.

If you feel the situation is dire enough to pull the gun on somebody then pull the trigger, other than that its just playing vigilante and dangerous.

Texas is one of the few states in which you can shoot someone in defense of property. Its not vigilantism to detain a criminal and call the cops, but I get there isn't an easy word for it.

Yeah, what exactly is wrong with holding the guy at gunpoint till the Cops show up to haul him away?

It gets the criminal off the streets.

Potential for escalation, mistakes, future revenge, bloodshed.

Yeah, breaking into someones home clearly isn't the root cause. Its that silly home owner that objects that causes escalation.

To me, the gun serves to neutralize the thread.

If he's snooping around inside the house and I have my gun he is getting shot as soon as I get a clear shot. If he is leaving, then there is no more threat. Get the vehicle info and let the threat leave, capturing and arresting him is the job of the police. My job is to protect myself and my family.

At this point I don't have the element of surprise anymore. I am standing out in the open in front of my house holding a gun. He could pull a gun, he could try to run me over, there could be somebody on the bushes aiming at me to save his buddy, bad guy could try to disarm me. Lots of potential for escalation that could hurt me.

I am very much pro-gun to remove a threat. Here is a threat hat was in the process of removing himself from the situation, so there is no point in putting myself in danger to play police and to keep the threat in my driveway.

If you are not going to kill when you pull and point the gun to defend yourself or your family then you are pulling it for the wrong reason IMO. It's not to scare somebody, it's not to make somebody comply, it's to kill whoever is posing a threat to you.

Blah Blah Blah, The Criminal has rights. Guns should be outlawed Rabble Rabble Rabble. Thats what people expect me to say.
But i have a question, it is clear the house was broken into from the man, that is clear. But should you be able to shoot someone who is fleeing?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But should you be able to shoot someone who is fleeing?

Morally or legally?

Both. I remember in my criminal justic class a cop cannot pull a weapon on someone who is not an immediate threat to someone and they have to use their judgement to determine is the crime is worth it(the gave an example of a Cop who shot someone who stole ten Dollars)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Both. I remember in my criminal justic class a cop cannot pull a weapon on someone who is not an immediate threat to someone and they have to use their judgement to determine is the crime is worth it(the gave an example of a Cop who shot someone who stole ten Dollars)

Morally, speaking a casual citizen shouldn't be permitted to shoot someone clearly fleeing.
Legally, I have no idea. Its best to place as little limitations on private domiciles as possible to prevent things like a burglar suing you when he trips in your house.

IIRC the police may use deadly force to stop a felon from fleeing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But should you be able to shoot someone who is fleeing?

Morally yes, not sure about legally though.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Both. I remember in my criminal justic class a cop cannot pull a weapon on someone who is not an immediate threat to someone and they have to use their judgement to determine is the crime is worth it(the gave an example of a Cop who shot someone who stole ten Dollars)

Waste him I say.

In America punishment has always been inversely proportional to the ammount of money stolen just as god intended.

Steal $10, get shot

Steal $50, a dozen years locked up with hardened criminals

Steal 400K, few years in minimum security and you get out early

Steal anything over a million and they give you a goverment job.

 Shredsmore wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But should you be able to shoot someone who is fleeing?

Morally yes, not sure about legally though.

What the hell? Since when has it been morally justified to shoot a man in the back?

feeder wrote:

 Shredsmore wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But should you be able to shoot someone who is fleeing?

Morally yes, not sure about legally though.

What the hell? Since when has it been morally justified to shoot a man in the back?

If it's WWI again and they won't go over the top?

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Shredsmore wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But should you be able to shoot someone who is fleeing?

Morally yes, not sure about legally though.

What the hell? Since when has it been morally justified to shoot a man in the back?

If it's WWI again and they won't go over the top?

Er, ok. Let's put aside nightmarish muddy trench related time travel for now.

Since when, in America, has it been ok to shoot a man in the back?

feeder wrote:

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Shredsmore wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But should you be able to shoot someone who is fleeing?

Morally yes, not sure about legally though.

What the hell? Since when has it been morally justified to shoot a man in the back?

If it's WWI again and they won't go over the top?

Er, ok. Let's put aside nightmarish muddy trench related time travel for now.

Since when, in America, has it been ok to shoot a man in the back?

There was a recent case in Tx or Ok an old man shot a robber in the back as he was leaving... and didn't get charged.

It all depends on state laws.

I think MO you can if you can prove they were in your house (trespassing).

Me personally, I'm more on what D-USA said... but, if my kids were hurt. I'd probably be in jail when all said and done.

 whembly wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Shredsmore wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But should you be able to shoot someone who is fleeing?

Morally yes, not sure about legally though.

What the hell? Since when has it been morally justified to shoot a man in the back?

If it's WWI again and they won't go over the top?

Er, ok. Let's put aside nightmarish muddy trench related time travel for now.

Since when, in America, has it been ok to shoot a man in the back?

There was a recent case in Tx or Ok an old man shot a robber in the back as he was leaving... and didn't get charged.

It all depends on state laws.

I think MO you can if you can prove they were in your house (trespassing).

Me personally, I'm more on what D-USA said... but, if my kids were hurt. I'd probably be in jail when all said and done.

Legally, perhaps. Morally? Can you shoot a man in the back?

Since always. Who wants a fair fight?

 AustonT wrote:
Since always. Who wants a fair fight?

No one?

Exactly

feeder wrote:


Legally, perhaps. Morally? Can you shoot a man in the back?

Morally? Who cares?

d-usa wrote:If he's snooping around inside the house and I have my gun he is getting shot as soon as I get a clear shot. If he is leaving, then there is no more threat. Get the vehicle info and let the threat leave, capturing and arresting him is the job of the police. My job is to protect myself and my family.

And for all you know, he'll come back, better prepared next time. Better to shoot the intruder the instant you have a clean shot and have identified the intruder as just that.

I've said it before, but it is worth repeating:

Once someone breaks into your home, the social contract has been broken. Only thunderdome remains.