# Pflugerville: Dad shoots and kills......



## scwine (Sep 7, 2006)

daughter's punk friends.

from http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/fatal-pflugerville-shooting-examined

Police: Shooter says he felt threatened
Pflugerville death happened after confrontation

Updated: Wednesday, 07 Jul 2010, 11:16 AM CDT
Published : Tuesday, 06 Jul 2010, 10:39 AM CDT

Jarrod Wise
Jackie Vega
PFLUGERVILLE, Texas (KXAN) - A man is charged with manslaughter after police said he fired 15 rounds through the front window of his home, striking and killing a teen in east Pflugerville Monday night.

Pflugerville police found Daquan Wilson, 18, lying face-down and unresponsive when they arrived in the 1300 block of Ivybridge Drive at 9:47 p.m. He was transported to St. David's Round Rock Medical Center , where he died from a gunshot wound.

Joseph Anderson, 32, faces charges after he said he fired his handgun through the window when he heard a group of men outside his front door talking about shooting him. Anderson had gotten into an argument with one of them - his stepdaughter's boyfriend - in a nearby playground a few minutes before over his stepdaughter being there without permission, according to an affidavit.

Wilson was not identified as being one of the men at the park, but he was in front of the door with the boyfriend when Anderson fired the gun, police said.

Anderson told police he didn't want to hurt anyone, but that he was just trying to scare them.

Wilson was hit in the chest. His family described the death as senseless.

"He just graduated last month on the fifth, and last night was July 5. He died and lost his life," said Wilson's mother, Connie Wilson.

She said he had a lot to live for. He had just graduated Pflugerville High School and was on their basketball team. He was working three jobs and was about to enter the Dental Hygiene Program in college. All that, she said, was cut short.

Wilson said, "It just was a senseless loss. It really was. Our community is going to miss him greatly."

"He's not even 19 years old and talking about donating organs and funeral arrangements. But, for what reason? There's no reason a person should be shooting out their door," said Daquan's father, Michael Jefferson, who tried to hold back tears while he spoke.

Neighbors in the area are shocked something like this would happen in their community. The neighborhood is full of children playing in the late afternoons.

Erica Hernandez said, "I'm terrified because I've lived here for 11 years now, and got three kids. I'm worried about the safety of my kids and the neighborhood's kids because nothing like this has ever happened. Its scary, very scary."

Tuesday afternoon, family and friends of Daquan held hands and prayed over the spot where his body lay just 12 hours earlier. Now that same spot is adorned with flowers, candles, and memories of a life cut short.

"It can happen to any child," Jefferson said, as tears rolled down his face. "It didn't have to happen in Pflugerville. It didn't have to happen to him."

Authorities took Anderson into custody for questioning a short while later.

Investigators learned Anderson was involved in a confrontation with his stepdaughter's boyfriend earlier in the afternoon at an elementary school playground. Anderson had gone to the playground to pick up his stepdaughter after she had not returned home as she was expected to, and had words with her boyfriend and another friend at the park, police said. Anderson said the boyfriend threatened to kill him, but he had dismissed it because the boyfriend was "just a kid."

After Anderson and his stepdaughter left, she received two phone calls that Anderson told police made him feel threatened. The first warned that the boyfriend and friends were "looking for where you stay," police said.

The second call advised the stepdaughter that the group was going to "shoot whoever opens the door," police said.

Half an hour after the confrontation at the playground, the boyfriend and five or six of his friends showed up at Anderson's house and approached the front door, police said. Anderson said he moved everyone to the back of the house when he heard the voices on the other door utter the words, "come out" and "shoot" and "get out of the way," police said.

That's when Anderson said he fired his gun from inside his residence toward the front of his home, striking Wilson in the upper torso with one of the 15 rounds he sprayed through the front window.[/I]
_

What is yall take on how this will pan out? Castle Doctrine, he may have done things that could have helped or hurt this case, etc. 
Will it be No-Billed?

I posted this so maybe all of us can learn more about certain situtions we could possibly find ourselves in. Please lets keep it a clean debate._


----------



## fwoodwader (Jul 18, 2008)

We don't know all the facts. 

How close were they to the door, where did the victim actually get shot versus where did he fall?

My gut says the guy is in the right based on what has been reported but we don't know all the facts. 

Did the other group actually have a gun with them?


----------



## dune2218 (Feb 7, 2010)

Anderson would want me on his jury.


----------



## Rusty S (Apr 6, 2006)

He should have called the police, he will lose most of his belongings defending himself, I wouldn't shoot unless I knew what I was shooting at. rs


----------



## Cartman (Jun 18, 2008)

It sounds like Daquan and his gang made one bad decision too many.


----------



## deke (Oct 5, 2004)

That is too bad. But I always find it amazing that Daquans of this world are always such upstanding citizens after they are dead. So his mother said he worked 3 jobs, so how did he have the time to be going to someone's house to threaten them, or whatever else they had planned. Sounds like he wasn't the angel mama said he was or he wouldn't be at someone else's front door looking for trouble. Should the guy have fired through the window, no. But I wasn't there and the fact that they were making threatening calls before and threatened him at the park probably had the guy a little edgy. It amazes me how young people seem to just keep getting ballsier and dumber. I am sure the media will portray him as some kind of crazy gun nut, they left out the details about the threats in the news story, but who needs facts.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

> Anderson told police he didn't want to hurt anyone, but that he was just trying to scare them.


what a dumbass. handguns weren't designed to scare people.


----------



## State_Vet (Oct 10, 2006)

mastercylinder said:


> what a dumbass. handguns weren't designed to scare people.


100% correct, the only time you point a gun at someone is to pull the trigger and kill them. Whose wrong in this situation? both sides IMO, the youths for threatening and then showing up at the house, the owner for shooting through the door. He should have called the police right after the threat was made.


----------



## murphy66 (Apr 15, 2006)

It's easy to look from the outside in and say what should of been done. There is such a fine line between defending what's yours and man slaughter. Sure he should of called the cops, but do you wait for them to kick your door in before you defend yourself so that they have a fighting chance. It's really hard to say what you would do until your put in that mans shoes.


----------



## truckin_angler (Mar 24, 2010)

i would no bill him also, i mean have a argument with daddy at the play ground and then want to show up to the house??? seems like you are looking for trouble.


----------



## reelbusy (Feb 7, 2008)

If in Travis county, indicted. Williamson county, no billed.


----------



## adpostel (Jan 14, 2006)

Daquan may not have anything to do with the altercation and he may have not been at the park, but he definitely put himself in the middle of the whole incident by going with the gang of teens to a man's home. His peer pressure got him killed. I think more teens need to read this story. They need to realize that you can't just go to a man's home and start threatening him or his family. It is a sad situation for all, although probably justified, both families will suffer through this. It isn't for any of us to say if the father really felt endangered or not. His story, so far, adds up. Went to pick up step-daughter at school after she didn't come home, had altercation with her boyfriend, 30 minutes later, boyfriend shows up at house with 5 friends after threatening to shoot whoever opens the door, Dad opens fire. On paper right now, I'd say his life, family, castle was in danger, he did what he needed to do to stop the aggression. Daquan wasn't exactly just walking his dog in front of house, and accidentaly got shot. He was with the gang that went to terrorize this man and his family........ I'm willing to hear the rest of the story, but from what was written, it is a pretty cut and dry case. Even a public defender would have an easy case here. And high profile at that. I doubt he even has to pay to be represented in this case.....But we'll see......


----------



## mustangeric (May 22, 2010)

its suck that the kid got shot but thats why you dont put yourself in that situation.


----------



## surf_ox (Jul 8, 2008)

I know everyone considers him a kid but he was 19...thats adult in my book and he made an adult decision to go over to another adults house and either utter or be around people uttering the threatening words. And they said there were two calls to the house made??



> The first warned that the boyfriend and friends were "looking for where you stay," police said.
> 
> The second call advised the stepdaughter that the group was going to "shoot whoever opens the door," police said.


Oh no its time to lock down the fort and protect my family.

If he had opened the door there might be a lookout for a group of males wanted for killing a man and who knows who else. The shooter might have decided to go through the house and eliminate witnesses. This could have been a real bad deal.

I'm with adpostel.... kids need to realize the consequences of their actions and adults need to live with the consequences of theirs.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

He shot through a window on the front of his house. The kid was about 30 feet away on the sidewalk near the street. It looks like he emptied the magazine, there were between 10-15 bullet holes in the window glass. Local police supervisor interviewed on the scene when asked about the castle doctrine said he did not think it applied here, but that was for the court to resolve. The teens were not armed. Adjacent neighbors did not mention hearing any altercation, shouting, threats, etc outside, though that is not to say that video ended up on not being included in the story.


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

Any glass I ever shot at shattered so much after the first shot I could never tell how many shots I fired.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

murphy66 said:


> It's easy to look from the outside in and say what should of been done. There is such a fine line between defending what's yours and man slaughter. *Sure he should of called the cops, but do you wait for them to kick your door in before you defend yourself so that they have a fighting chance.* It's really hard to say what you would do until your put in that mans shoes.


yes, you do. shooting 15 rounds through a door or window at boys, who it appears weren't even armed, isn't "defending yourself."



truckin_angler said:


> i would no bill him also, i mean have a argument with daddy at the play ground and then want to show up to the house??? *seems* *like* you are looking for trouble.


any first year law student knows that you don't just point a gun and wrecklessly pull the trigger 15 times with fatal consequences because it "seems like" he was looking for trouble. and, if i recall, daquan wasn't even one of the kids at the playground who made the threat, and the article doesn't say that any of the kids were even armed.

if i were a prosecutor, i'd have a field day with this case. even though my knowledge of this case is limited, if you ask me, mr. anderson appears to be as much of a potential danger to society as the kids at the door probably were, and he deserves prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. you don't just point a gun and start shooting at people because they _scared you_. that's not "defending yourself."


----------



## Puma (Jun 16, 2009)

MC,

You make good points. And I presume the DA will make the same points as well. The main questions will be intent of the boys vs the intent of the gunman and was there a reasonable threat. However, I still think the gunman will get convicted, which brings me to my point of interest.

Just how much threat can a person make to another and not expect reprisal? Or, how much threat can a person be expected to endure before protecting ones self is warranted?

I must be old fashioned, but I was raised that you don't go round threatening people, especailly on their land.

Realizing we don't have all the facts in the case, I side with the gun owner in that those people had no business at all on his land much less making threats. If you go round making threat to people you better be able to back them up or pay the price!


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Target identification. _Did he even shoot the teen that was supposedly talking about shooting him? _
You don't just shoot your gun out the window randomly like that. Any of the rounds that didn't hit the victim could have easily hit an innocent bystander. 
I'm usually one to err on the side of castle doctrine, but no, not in this case.


----------



## 2slick (Dec 5, 2008)

I can tell you one thing for sure; the home owner had better get the wallet ready. It doesn't matter whether he is no billed or not, he's gonna be involved in a civil case before it is over.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Puma said:


> Just how much threat can a person make to another and not expect reprisal? Or, how much threat can a person be expected to endure before protecting ones self is warranted?


threats are just that - threats. in order to be able to protect yourself using deadly force, you have to feel that your life (or the life of someone with you) was in _imminent_ danger, _*and*_, you also have to convince a jury of 12 of the same.

mr. anderson might have felt his life was in imminent danger, although i doubt he really does, and there's no way that he can convince a grand jury of that. by his own admission, he was "just trying to scare them." you can't use deadly force to just "scare" someone.

again, our knowledge of this case is limited, but based on what we've heard so far, i'd be shocked if he isn't convicted. i wouldn't want to be mr. anderson's defense attorney. he's got lots of 'splainin' to do.


----------



## silver reflections (Aug 30, 2008)

Like I always tell my kids. You hang around with the wrong crowd regardless if you did anything right or wrong, you can be the one getting the punishment. Too bad it had to end this way. I would have just called the cops and filed charges of being threatened on my private property.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

> by his own admission, he was "just trying to scare them." you can't use deadly force to just "scare" someone.


This. A responsible person, gun owner, citizen, human being owns each and every bullet that exits the gun. You can't just shoot your gun to "scare" people. Lethal force is called "lethal" for a reason.


----------



## Puma (Jun 16, 2009)

mastercylinder said:


> threats are just that - threats. in order to be able to protect yourself using deadly force, you have to feel that your life (or the life of someone with you) was in _imminent_ danger, _*and*_, you also have to convince a jury of 12 of the same. What I find interesting is two fold, One, at what point does a threat become something more elevated (dangerous). Is someone coming to your house with the threat of death sufficient? Two, Conveying this threat to a jury, how do you do this as a defense attorney?
> 
> mr. anderson might have felt his life was in imminent danger, although i doubt he really does, and there's no way that he can convince a grand jury of that. by his own admission, he was "just trying to scare them." you can't use deadly force to just "scare" someone. Mr. Anderson will soon learn the cost of words he says. Too bad it won't work the same way for those who threatened him.
> 
> again, our knowledge of this case is limited, but based on what we've heard so far, i'd be shocked if he isn't convicted. i wouldn't want to be mr. anderson's defense attorney. he's got lots of 'splainin' to do.


Well, we really don't know much about the case yet. Like, of all involved who has a record? But, I think the defense attorney does have some points to build on such as the "threats". Whether or not you agree, threatening someone and then coming to their property is not good. People have got life in prison for about the same level of evidence.

However, you and i agree on the outcome.


----------



## RACER (Mar 15, 2006)

I would hate to be the gunman in this one! even if he was scared there were other options that he could have tried.If they were at the steet and he was inside a locked house I think he has some smooth talking to do..Just my 2 cents


----------



## TheToad (Jun 28, 2010)

I don't know, a man's home is his castle, don't come to my house threatning me no matter what. That's how you get on the fightin side of me. JMO


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Puma said:


> Whether or not you agree, threatening someone and then coming to their property is not good. People have got life in prison for about the same level of evidence.


we would all agree that threatening someone and then coming onto their property is not good. however, that still doesn't justify mr. anderson's wreckless use of deadly force.

we also need to remember one very important fact in this case (if what the article says is indeed fact): daquan, the kid who was killed, wasn't even one of the kids at the playground threatening mr. anderson.

we know nothing about daquan, and daquan may or may not be a model citizen, but mr. anderson still had no legal right to kill him in the careless manner that he did.

sometimes, a handgun in the hands of an otherwise law-abiding citizen can be just as dangerous and easily misused as one in the hands of a career criminal with no moral conscious.

if you're going to carry around a handgun, you better be **** sure you know what you're doing if you ever choose to use it.


----------



## oneneo3 (Feb 7, 2008)

Add in gang activity and how many of them there were out there, and the threats already made... Not saying right or wrong, but definitely a factor.


----------



## Fishtexx (Jun 29, 2004)

Good points on both sides of this one...should be interesting to watch it unfold.


----------



## RodBreaker (May 21, 2004)

*Texas Castle Doctrine*

Just based on the news story do you think it will apply?

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html


----------



## koyhoward (Jan 8, 2007)

I'm sure this kid was no model citizen and he shouldn't have been harassing someone on their property. BUT, it is never right for someone to randomly shoot 15 times through their window out into a neighborhood!


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

gets billed on man 1, gets 15 years probation. too many wrongs on both sides of this case.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Does ANYONE not think its fishy the dad is 32? I'm willing to bet Daquan wasn't an angel but I'll bet even more the "dad" wasn't either. Either way, sad story and I hate it when anybody has to die, regardless of the situation.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

rugger said:


> Does ANYONE not think its fishy the dad is 32? I'm willing to bet Daquan wasn't an angel but I'll bet even more the "dad" wasn't either. Either way, sad story and I hate it when anybody has to die, regardless of the situation.


he's the step father


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

RodBreaker said:


> Just based on the news story do you think it will apply?
> 
> http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html


 i believe that in order attempt to use the castle doctrine as a defense, the perpetrator has to have entered your home. these kids had not entered mr. anderson's home.

i also think that many of our modern day josey wales 2coolers think that the castle doctrine gives you some kind of blanket permission to shoot first and ask questions later. beleive me, it does not.


----------



## 11andy11 (Aug 12, 2004)

shooter is screwed.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

mastercylinder said:


> i believe that in order attempt to use the castle doctrine as a defensse, the perpetrator has to have entered your home. these kids had not entered mr. anderson's home.
> 
> *i also think that many of you modern day josey wales 2coolers think that the castle doctrine gives you some kind of blanket permission to shoot first and ask questions later. beleive me, it does not*.


if you put your big toe across my threshold uninvited, It does. :cop:


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Gilbert said:


> he's the step father


I know, but I still kind of find it weird. Maybe its not that weird but what kind of dad that isn't even a dad gets into a fight with a group of kids at a park at night?


----------



## REELING 65 (Aug 18, 2009)

mastercylinder said:


> what a dumb ***. handguns weren't designed to scare people.


Right...and it should be known.. only shoot when your life is in immediate danger. Not because you were threatened. He should have called Law Enforcement and waited till they arrived. Now this guy is going to pay for this the rest of his life. Maybe he should have set better standard's for his kid. Letting his Kid hang with punk's is just..fkd. I mean...kid's do not get the discipline that we did back in the day. *JMO*


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

rugger said:


> I know, but I still kind of find it weird. Maybe its not that *weird but what kind of dad that isn't even a dad gets into a fight with a group of kids at a park at night?*


she didn't come home like she was supposed to.

BF threatened step daddy during the day at the school playground.

BF calls step daddy's house with more threats.

BF shows up to step daddy's house later on that night.

Step daddy hears them outside and fires a whole clip out the window/door.

Daquan is with this group. Made the wrong choice to go and wound up getting hit. Now he is dead.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

_well, handguns were made for killin' ... they ain't no good for nothin' else _

- ronnie van zandt


----------



## texasGG (Mar 12, 2007)

Just wish Mr. Anderson was a better shot...missed a bunch of them... Don't threaten my family then come on MY property. I have the RIGHT to defend myself and my family.


----------



## murphy66 (Apr 15, 2006)

mastercylinder said:


> we also need to remember one very important fact in this case (if what the article says is indeed fact): daquan, the kid who was killed, wasn't even one of the kids at the playground threatening mr. anderson.
> 
> You keep bringing up the fact that he wasn't at the playground. This didn't happen at the playground. This happened at the mans house. This kid had to of known what was going on and had no business being there. I agree what the mad didn't wasn't in the best judgement but neither was being with a group of people that was at someone's residence making threats. I honestly don't know how I would of handled the situation, but if I would of shot it would have been through the door.


----------



## Triad_Marine (Aug 31, 2009)

You don't scare someone with a gun you call the police and scare them with flashing lights, They are kids the police would have scared them away ...


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Updated video report here. Looks like the shooter screwed himself because he made a statement that he was not intending to hit anyone. To me, that implies he did not believe his life was in danger.
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/crime/community-reacts-to-p'ville-shooting


----------



## oneneo3 (Feb 7, 2008)

rugger said:


> I know, but I still kind of find it weird. Maybe its not that weird *but what kind of dad that isn't even a dad gets into a fight with a group of kids at a park at night*?


If you are saying that being a step Dad is not being a real Dad then, then you are sadly misinformed. I have step daughters and step sons, and I would instantly go to bat for any of them. And I am real as it gets.

Not knowing the whole story here, but yes, a step dad will jump straight into a fight when it comes down to protecting his step daughter.

He should not have fired out into the yard. That was a bad call. This is what will hang him, in my opinion.

He should have dragged the dead bodies inside the house. HAHA! :slimer:


----------



## Rack Ranch (May 25, 2004)

X2... he will be spending some time in the big house and IMO deserves to be there for the reckless use of his firearm... I also think the statement ''I was just trying to scare them'' proves he didn't feel his life was in danger and will be used against him in court...Walker


11andy11 said:


> shooter is screwed.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

http://m.statesman.com/statesman/db...storycount=14&detailindex=2&pn=&ps=&full=true

ok , so the guy is 32

shoots 15 rounds thru the window of his rent house

stepdaughter is hanging out with a group of probable HS grads and her age is not known, but likely younger due to his age.

hmmmm where's Qball we need a ruling


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

murphy66;2863355
[COLOR=red said:


> You keep bringing up the fact that he wasn't at the playground.[/COLOR] This didn't happen at the playground. This happened at the mans house. This kid had to of known what was going on and had no business being there. I agree what the mad didn't wasn't in the best judgement but neither was being with a group of people that was at someone's residence making threats. I honestly don't know how I would of handled the situation, but if I would of shot it would have been through the door.


i keep bringing it up because apparently daquan wasn't even one of the kids making the threats. and you're correct, daquan didn't use the best judgment by being there, but that doesn't warrant a death sentence at the hands of mr. anderson as judge, jury and executioner. what mr. anderson did was wreckless and criminal. he deserves what he gets.

and, if you honestly don't know how you would have handled the situation, we could well be reading about you being charged for manslaughter in the near future, as well. if you really don't know, you better start thinking long and hard about it now becuase once you pull the trigger, there are no do-overs.


----------



## frank n texas (Aug 11, 2004)

Seems he should have waited a little longer for the intruders to start breaking into the home...

Shooter is in deep du du no matter how you cut it...

May have missed reading it here but did the shooter ever call the police once the group showed up on his property?


----------



## Bonito (Nov 17, 2008)

Sounds to me like the shooter was a little trigger happy. I would have called the police and not fired a shot unless they forced their way into my house.

Young kids with too much testosterone and an inexperienced gun owner. Obviously, the shooter didn't have formal training.


----------



## Triad_Marine (Aug 31, 2009)

I think I will add owning a gun constitutes responsibility on the part of the owner ...I would never fire any of my 4 guns, hand or otherwise out of my window randomly ...if I felt threatened I would be sure to pin point a target and accomplish a mission. I have called the cops to my home before and have never felt threatened enough to use my gun in defense, even all the years my ex worked away from home and it was just me....I think this is a crazy messed up situation and both the teens and the man made some stupid mistakes with the events of the night....


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Yeah triad marine, I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy and hard to find most of the time. You've still got that timespan between your call and their arrival. The longer a situation sits the more it boils. I in no way condone his random shooting. But if he had waited they could have come and kicked in the door and depending on his ability with his weapon killed him and his family. So, I guess its a **** shoot.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

this is the key part,* if* any of it is true

Investigators learned Anderson was involved in a confrontation with his stepdaughter's boyfriend earlier in the afternoon at an elementary school playground. Anderson had gone to the playground to pick up his stepdaughter after she had not returned home as she was expected to, and had words with her boyfriend and another friend at the park, police said. A*nderson said the boyfriend threatened to kill him,* but he had dismissed it because the boyfriend was "just a kid."
After Anderson and his stepdaughter left, she received two phone calls that Anderson told police made him feel threatened. *The first warned that the boyfriend and friends were "looking for where you stay," *police said.
*The second call advised the stepdaughter that the group was going to "shoot whoever opens the door,*" police said.
Half an hour after the confrontation at the playground, the boyfriend and five or six of his friends showed up at Anderson's house and approached the front door, police said. Anderson said he moved everyone to the back of the house *when he heard the voices on the other door utter the words, "come out" and "shoot" and "get out of the way," *police said.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

mastercylinder said:


> i keep bringing it up because apparently daquan wasn't even one of the kids making the threats. and you're correct, daquan didn't use the best judgment by being there, but that doesn't warrant a death sentence at the hands of mr. anderson as judge, jury and executioner. what mr. anderson did was wreckless and criminal. he deserves what he gets.
> 
> and, if you honestly don't know how you would have handled the situation, we could well be reading about you being charged for manslaughter in the near future, as well. if you really don't know, you better start thinking long and hard about it now becuase once you pull the trigger, there are no do-overs.


one of the video's I watch said he was identified as being at the school playground when step daddy went to get his daughter.


----------



## Don Smith (Nov 24, 2007)

Sure sounds like a lot of "Legal Experts" are giving their opinion without knowing all the facts. You guys have this guy convicted without him ever going to trial. I think I'll withhold judgement of this Dad's actions until all the facts are known.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

spurgersalty said:


> Yeah triad marine, I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy and hard to find most of the time. You've still got that timespan between your call and their arrival. The longer a situation sits the more it boils. I in no way condone his random shooting. *But if he had waited they could have come and kicked in the door and depending on his ability with his weapon killed him and his family*. So, I guess its a **** shoot.


and, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

a case like this doesn't hinge on what could have happened - it hinges on what did happen. it's not a cr*p shoot. this is why all of you tough guys who feel that it's necessary to carry a handgun everywhere you go should try to envison every possible scenario before it happens, because once you pull the trigger, what did happen is all that's important, not what might have or could have happened.

don't be foolish because a good prosecutor will hang you out to dry if you are.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

oneneo3 said:


> If you are saying that being a step Dad is not being a real Dad then, then you are sadly misinformed. I have step daughters and step sons, and I would instantly go to bat for any of them. And I am real as it gets.
> 
> Not knowing the whole story here, but yes, a step dad will jump straight into a fight when it comes down to protecting his step daughter.
> 
> ...


I didn't mean it that way. Sorry if I offended you but I know plenty of step dads that will go to bat in a second over their stepchild. What I meant is its kind of weird/irresponsible/crazy that someone gets in a fight with 18 year olds and hears them talking about killing him (not sure if I believe that) and then proceed to fire 15 shots through a door aiming at them. What would have happened had he hit a kid across the street? Seriously, 15 shots? If you're going to kill them, do it. Aim at them and fire. Don't shoot through a freaking door like a madman and be surprised when you kill someone.

I understand we have a right to protect our family and ourselves, but we don't always have to act like we're in the middle ages and protect ourselves with our own weapons (even if we are in Texas). There are telephones and LEOs for a reason, and we pay them to do what they do. Sometimes having a right just doesn't excuse stupid, and its acts like this (and the one where the girl blew the guys head off when she caught him robbing her car) that make a lot of people skeptical to allow us our right to own weapons. All i'm saying is that if we go around solving all problems guns a blazing, we're going to cause more trouble than good. This isn't the wild west anymore.


----------



## Redstalker (Jul 4, 2004)

Rusty S said:


> He should have called the police, he will lose most of his belongings defending himself, I wouldn't shoot unless I knew what I was shooting at. rs


Anyone who shoots "warning shots, through a window" is an idiot! You always must identify your target. If any so called warning shots are to be fired they need to be directed down at the ground not up, not sideways not to scare! This idiot shouldn't have a gun anyway.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Floatin dock, didn't you know we're all lawyers away from our puters! I say he should've waited to let the situation unfold while someone else in the house called police. Just sit ready with the gun pointed at the door in an unobvious area till help arrives. And AIM. don't just pull the trigger.


----------



## redduck (Jul 26, 2006)

I think it is terrible this young MAN was killed. All they did was threaten to kill the man, found out where he lived, called to tell him they were going to come over and kill him, then five of them show up on his property telling him they were going to kill him. I think he over reacted. You should never be so afraid that you sling lead out your door and window. Hold the gun in both hands to help steady, aim straight and squeeze the trigger.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Sorry i was a little vague earlier mc. I don't go around looking for bad guys or a reason to use my weapon. I'm no bad ***. not until you mess with me or my family. Then all bets are off.


----------



## Puma (Jun 16, 2009)

*My personal feelings*

I completely understand that how I feel about this has no regards to the law.

But, "if" the part about the shooter was threatened in person away from his house, and "if" a group of the people who made the threat found and came to his house, and "if" they shouted threatening things aloud whilst at the shooters house, THEY NEEDED TO BE SHOT! IN AFFECT, THEY WERE ASKING FOR IT!

I know how I feel is against the law, but still, threatening someone and then traveling to his house is just asking for a heap of trouble.

This is how I feel about this!


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

It will come down to personalities on the GJ, and the prosecutor.

It all comes down to whether they agree that he

_"knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:_
_(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;"_

If they believe THAT, then his action is protected by the Castle Doctrine. 
The burden of proof is with the prosecution. Effectively, I'd say, they would have to prove that the death threats didn't happen OR that they were not credible AND the guy knew or should have known they weren't credible.

You may argue that the gang were not "attempting to commit" murder. However I believe that it could well be argued that had the situation been left to develop, "attempting to commit" would have become murder.

His statement about "wanting to scare them", similarly, in my mind, won't sink him by itself. Don't confuse firearms training with law, or either with the way a jury will hear it. IF he has credibility with this many average people might well consider it a positive that he did not intend to kill.

I can certainly understand how people can question the motives, judgement, and possibly the morals of this guy. However, had he NOT acted, he and his family could be dead. These little gangstas are deadly. It's heartbreaking, but their threats are to be taken seriously. If you knew they were MS-13 or a similar very violent gang, would you still feel the same? Distinct possibility.

I have been in a very similar situation many years ago. A freinds family was threatened by local gang members for a beef with his son. These boys (or their gang affiliation) had been responsible for killings in the area and they threatened to kill everyone in the family on Holloween Night. Police interest was "call us if anything happens". Many spooks and goblins came to the house that night. Fortunately none pulled the "trick" of a nine millimeter clip. Had they wanted to exercise their vendetta they could probably have killed one of us. But they would have paid a very heavy price.

The guy might be sentenced by twelve. At least he and his family aren't being carried by six.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Levelwind said:


> It all comes down to whether they agree that he
> 
> _"knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:_
> _(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;"_
> ...


no grand jury's going to fall for that. it was a bunch of unarmed kids standing outside on the porch. and again, by his own admission, he was just trying to scare them. you don't try to just scare someone if you honestly think they're about to kill you.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

mastercylinder said:


> no grand jury's going to fall for that. it was a bunch of unarmed kids standing outside on the porch. and again, by his own admission, he was just trying to scare them. you don't try to just scare someone if you honestly think they're about to kill you.


What an arrogant response. Oh, well. That's what we've come to expect.

No GJ is going to "fall for" the premise the guy was in fear for his life after having two death threats, one in person and one over the phone, both witnessed by his stepdaughter?

"you don't try to just scare someone if you honestly think they're about to kill you."

No, maybe YOU don't. Regardless of what all the handgun instructors in the world tell you (rightly) not a few violent criminal acts have been averted because the victim scared them off, brandishing a firearm, shooting high or low. Not smart, but the idea of actually killing someone DOES occassionally over ride the smart thing to do.

Why do you think they were unarmed? Because the cops didn't find guns when they got there?

Kids? How old do you have to be to be considered an adult? The dead man was 19. When my son was that age he was a N.C.O. on a carrier.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

mastercylinder said:


> and, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
> 
> *a case like this doesn't hinge on what could have happened - it hinges on what did happen.* it's not a cr*p shoot. this is why all of you tough guys who feel that it's necessary to carry a handgun everywhere you go should try to envison every possible scenario before it happens, because once you pull the trigger, what did happen is all that's important, not what might have or could have happened.
> 
> don't be foolish because a good prosecutor will hang you out to dry if you are.


It hinges on both. If you don't consider what "could have happened" then there is no way to determine how a "reasonable person" would have responded. Not considering "what could have happened" would also introduce hindsight bias (i.e. would be unfair to the defendant).


----------



## coogerpop (Sep 3, 2009)

Sit tight,call the police,hold a shotgun,begin to fire if they attempt breakin...fire a lot....reload and if anyone moves,shoot again.....just my advice.


----------



## LandPirate (Jun 5, 2009)

I predict that he will be indicted by the GJ. Simply because he could have just called the police and waited inside. Now, if they had attempted to make entry to his home and then he fired it would be altogether different.

What if the group of men's voices that he heard had been a group of Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door?

You can't have people just blasting blindly through doors every time they hear something go bump on the other side of it.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

mastercylinder said:


> no grand jury's going to fall for that. it was a bunch of unarmed kids standing outside on the porch. and again, by his own admission, he was just trying to scare them. you don't try to just scare someone if you honestly think they're about to kill you.


We NOW know that they were unarmed. Did he at the time? Would a reasonable person in his situation have known that?

When the question is whether his action was negligent or not, you cannot just look at the facts as WE KNOW THEM NOW. You also have to look at how HE would have KNOWN them then.

I agree with levelwind, it's going to come down to:

1) At one point does "an attempt to committ murder" begin?
2) Would a reasonable person have known that "an attempt to committ murder" had not begun?

BTW, I also agree with landpirate that he'll be indicted. Found guilty at the trial? Maybe, maybe not.


----------



## fisHRman (Aug 11, 2005)

Never talk to the cops without a lawyer present. Exercise your right to remain silent.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

LandPirate said:


> I predict that he will be indicted by the GJ. Simply because he could have just called the police and waited inside. Now, if they had attempted to make entry to his home and then he fired it would be altogether different..


Do we know that he did not call police? 
So then, he could have just called police and waited inside - until when? The cops showed up? Everybody was dead? They got to his doorstep?

Judgement call all the way.



LandPirate said:


> What if the group of men's voices that he heard had been a group of Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door?.


If they had threatened, in person and in front of witnesses, to kill him just earlier in the day, then later called and threatened to come to his home and kill him, then came to his door and the voices said "shoot him", etc., then I think the Jehovahs Witnesses would have had a bad hair day. JMHO.



LandPirate said:


> You can't have people just blasting blindly through doors every time they hear something go bump on the other side of it.


He didn't. He had plenty of reason to believe those people were on his doorstep to do him and his family harm.

And for all you heroes who say you'd wait until they come through the door before shooting I'll remind you that it was about 5-1 and if you did that with hardened little gangstas you WOULD be killed, almost without a doubt.

Perhaps Mr. Andrews understood this as well.

Maybe he goes broke paying legal fees. Maybe the jury doesn't see it his way and he spends a year or two in jail.

He's alive. His step-daughter is alive.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Too late to edit. Just wanted to point out that this is all just an exercize in speculation anyway. The news never gets these things right, and there are so many crucial facts we don't know.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

texasGG said:


> Just wish Mr. Anderson was a better shot...missed a bunch of them... Don't threaten my family then come on MY property. I have the RIGHT to defend myself and my family.


Your right or not, you do what this guy did and you'll end up in the "can" just like he's going to.

Side note to a few people who have said he "emptied the clip"; it's a MAGAZINE. Sorry, just a pet peeve when that is incorrectly stated.


----------



## Matteo (Feb 22, 2006)

coogerpop said:


> Sit tight,call the police,hold a shotgun,begin to fire if they attempt breakin...fire a lot....reload and if anyone moves,shoot again.....just my advice.


X2

Civil suit is going to break him for sure. 
Please don't refer to a 19 yr old as a kid like he is 12 yrs old.

I was about that age when my dad said to me.

"Son. It is hard to get into a bar fight if you aren't at the bar."

These young men put themselves in a bad situation. One paid for it with his life. Dad will very likely have hell to pay on this. I doub't if anyone is going to date his stepdaughter for a while.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Levelwind said:


> What an arrogant response. Oh, well. That's what we've come to expect.
> 
> No GJ is going to "fall for" the premise the guy was in fear for his life after having two death threats, one in person and one over the phone, both witnessed by his stepdaughter?


my posts are based on the law as i understand it, not my opinion, or my emotions, or my josey wales wannabe mentality ... which is what everyone in here who owns guns _should_ do.


> Why do you think they were unarmed? Because the cops didn't find guns when they got there?


i'm pretty sure that when it comes to the law, you go by the evidence.


> Kids? How old do you have to be to be considered an adult? The dead man was 19. When my son was that age he was a N.C.O. on a carrier.


legally, 19-years-old is an adult. mentally, well ... no so much.


----------



## wwind3 (Sep 30, 2009)

As a point of reference-how bout the guy in Pasadena Tx who shot the guys who only burgled his neighbors house? Quannel X got in on that one and almost got his *** whipped too.

I think he was nobilled.

Seems like the guy here had more just cause to use deadly force.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

mastercylinder said:


> my posts are based on the law as i understand it, not my opinion, or my emotions, or my josey wales wannabe mentality ... which is what everyone in here who owns guns _should_ do..


What everyone who owns guns SHOULD do is to understand the law. But one must also understand consequences. Allowing yourself to be killed in order not to be prosecuted is not good logic.



mastercylinder said:


> i'm pretty sure that when it comes to the law, you go by the evidence..


Lack of evidence is not evidence. It's hard to prove a negative. It will be difficult for the prosecutor to PROVE the posse was not armed. Regardless, a good case could be made that someone who has threatened twice to kill you could be presumed to be armed. Kind of like that guy who decorated his bar with William Munny's friend.



mastercylinder said:


> legally, 19-years-old is an adult. mentally, well ... no so much.


I'd disagree with that.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Maybe one day we'll realize the whole shoot first ask questions later thing may sometimes get us in trouble.


----------



## Solid Action (May 21, 2004)

mastercylinder said:


> what a dumbass. handguns weren't designed to scare people.


Somehow I knew you would be on that side of the fence.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Solid Action said:


> Somehow I knew you would be on that side of the fence.


which side of the fence? the one of common sense, rational thought, and reason?


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Bad situation. Things go too fast in situations like this and in a instant your world gets turned upside down. He should have called police but probably thought that they where just being punk kids making threats. 

You could be in fear of your life and still try to scare off the threat. I don't necessarily think that statement sinks his case. It does show you that it is better to keep your mouth shut until you have a lawyer before you ever say anything to a cop.

This is a hard case because it could go either way and the news is never that thorough or that accurate.

I feel bad for all of them, a series of mistakes and dumb actions.


----------



## 11andy11 (Aug 12, 2004)

heres a list of viable responses that would have been acceptable. Exit the house with your weapon and confront the threat with accurate fire. Sit tight and wait for the door to be breached before engaging subject. Sit tight in a protected room on the floor with your knees to your chest in the fetal postion waiting for law enforcement. Shooting blindly through the window at a percieved threat is not a legally acceptable reaction. What if he killed a person in the house across the street?


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

^^ Couldn't have said it better myself.

edit: to both andy and fishinguy


----------



## troutdud (Jan 28, 2006)

What if everything happened just like we think it did but he waited until they busted down the door and charged him. Even if they didnt have a gun and he still shot one of them dead would he legally be in the right?


----------



## 11andy11 (Aug 12, 2004)

troutdud said:


> What if everything happened just like we think it did but he waited until they busted down the door and charged him. Even if they didnt have a gun and he still shot one of them dead would he legally be in the right?


uh yeah. Its called home invasion, forced entry. My glock 21 holds 13 rounds of .45. I guarantee the first three are dead and I doubt the rest are gonna want some. Your statement has a lot of ifs in it.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

troutdud said:


> What if everything happened just like we think it did but he waited until they busted down the door and charged him. Even if they didnt have a gun and he still shot one of them dead would he legally be in the right?


If they broke down the door and he killed all 5 of them he would not even be charged.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

11andy11 said:


> heres a list of viable responses that would have been acceptable. Exit the house with your weapon and confront the threat with accurate fire.


Great idea. One on six or seven. Outside where they can scatter - no funnel. Of course if they were just harmless kids you could have got them all not just one.



11andy11 said:


> Sit tight and wait for the door to be breached before engaging subject.


Uh huh. Subject*S. *Seven of them. Good luck with that, Rambo.



11andy11 said:


> Sit tight in a protected room on the floor with your knees to your chest in the fetal postion waiting for law enforcement.


A pretty good option, but again, how long do you wait? My guess is that when they're on the doorstep talking about shooting you, if the cops aren't there, they aren't going to get there in time.



11andy11 said:


> Shooting blindly through the window at a percieved threat is not a legally acceptable reaction. What if he killed a person in the house across the street?


What if he shot at someone inside, missed and the bullet went through a window or an open door or a wall and the same thing occurred? He'd probably go to jail either way.



11andy11 said:


> My glock 21 holds 13 rounds of .45. I guarantee the first three are dead and I doubt the rest are gonna want some. Your statement has a lot of ifs in it.


Your statement has a lot of internet tough guy in it. There were either six or seven in the posse, according to the report. If you kill the first three instantly and in such rapid succession they can't shoot you back, well, you're a pretty good pistoleer. But what do you figure the other three or four are going to be doing? 
If they're little badass gangstas you, and probably step daughter, are going out in bags along with two or three of them. If they're just stupid harmless kids, well you just wasted three of them for nothing.

Not everyone should get to have a handgun.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

> Step daddy hears them outside and fires a whole clip out the window/door.


Which was utterly irresponsible and reprehensible. You, the gun owner, own every ******* bullet that comes out of the end of your weapon. You have a moral obligation to make sure not only that yours or someone's life or property is in danger, but that you hit your intended target and that your intended target is THE RIGHT TARGET. Just because the thug BF made threats, the others with them may or may have not been parcel to making those threats. The way the story plays out, it appears this is NOT a good shoot in my book.



> What if he shot at someone inside, missed and the bullet went through a window or an open door or a wall and the same thing occurred? He'd probably go to jail either way.


Properly identifying a target and missing seems to be a whole lot different than just emptying the magazine out the window randomly and blindly. At least in the first case, you could make a defense on being scared for your life. "Well trained" police officers miss thier targets quite often.
*But just dumping the mag out the window? Reprehensible.*


----------



## 11andy11 (Aug 12, 2004)

Levelwind said:


> Great idea. One on six or seven. Outside where they can scatter - no funnel. Of course if they were just harmless kids you could have got them all not just one.
> 
> Uh huh. Subject*S. *Seven of them. Good luck with that, Rambo.
> 
> ...


I stand by my statements. Those are the options available. I would have gone outside personally. I am not an internet tuff guy. I play one in real life and wouldn't have taken any **** off of them. I would have gone outside with my pistol in my hand and flashlight in the other. I don't take **** off anyone especially in my front yard. Never said I wouldn't die on a door breach, said I would take three with me. And yeah I am pretty good with a pistol. Probably would have had a 12 gauge at that point anyways. You do want you want, which is I am assuming shoot blindly through the window. Good luck with that.


----------



## htalamant (Mar 31, 2009)

WWCBD? -Hector


----------



## wwind3 (Sep 30, 2009)

wwind3 said:


> As a point of reference-how bout the guy in Pasadena Tx who shot the guys who only burgled his neighbors house? Quannel X got in on that one and almost got his *** whipped too.
> 
> I think he was nobilled.
> 
> Seems like the guy here had more just cause to use deadly force.


uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh----how bout this case? Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller? Bueller?????


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Actually, I think most of you are missing the point.
The step-father was probably justified in applying deadly force under castle doctrine with the provided story.
The hangup is in how the homeowner applied deadly force in this instance.
*HE POINTED HIS WEAPON OUT A WINDOW AND BLINDLY FIRED 15 ROUNDS, ADMITTEDLY TO "SCARE" THE THUGS.*
Morally, deadly force isn't used to "scare" someone. You're either justified to apply deadly force or you're not. If you're justified, you then are morally (and assumedly legally) obligated to only apply deadly force to the threat. You may decide to not fully apply deadly force, but that is a discretionary decision (IE, holding a burglar at gunpoint for the police instead of shooting him). 
*YOU CAN NOT JUST BLINDLY FIRE YOUR GUN OUT THE WINDOW*. You are morally and legally obligated to actually make a reasonable attempt to hit the threat. 
Had he confronted the thugs and then shot them, we wouldn't be having this argument. Had they tried to come in his house and he shot them, we wouldn't be having this argument.
*DEADLY FORCE ISN'T USED TO JUST "SCARE" SOMEONE.* Either you're justified to apply deadly force in its intended manner or you're not*.*


----------



## seattleman1969 (Jul 17, 2008)

I don't think it should matter if he called 911 or not, he was defending his family and home against a perceived threat after being threatened: 

1. In person and 
2. Over the phone, multiple times then 
3. hearing the word "shoot" through his front door knowing one threat specifically stated they would "shoot whoever opened the door".

Seems to me the castle doctrine completely applies in this situation. How would it not?

Was he irresponsible in firing at a target that he could not see? Yes, undoubtedly. 

Did he feel threatened? I am sure he did. You don't empty an entire magazine blindly into a door if you are in control of your emotions (generally speaking)

My opinion, he gets no billed.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

jamisjockey said:


> Actually, I think most of you are missing the point.
> The step-father was probably justified in applying deadly force under castle doctrine with the provided story.
> The hangup is in how the homeowner applied deadly force in this instance.
> *HE POINTED HIS WEAPON OUT A WINDOW AND BLINDLY FIRED 15 ROUNDS, ADMITTEDLY TO "SCARE" THE THUGS.*
> ...


Oscar Meyer has a way with B a l o g n a.

Morally obligated to try to kill someone? Send me a link to that. Case law, statute, even an atty gen opinion.

It *MAY* help the prosecutors case (if it comes to that) that the guy said he just wanted to scare them away. In that if you're sufficiently scared for your life it seems incongruous just to want to scare them. Or not. A desire for the threat to go away with no bloodshed is not immoral. OR illegal.


----------



## RACER (Mar 15, 2006)

*LAWS AND OPIONS*



mastercylinder said:


> _well, handguns were made for killin' ... they ain't no good for nothin' else _
> 
> - ronnie van zandt


my posts are based on the law as i understand it, not my opinion, or my emotions, or my josey wales wannabe mentality ... which is what everyone in here who owns guns _should_ do.

Someone needs to tell M/C he needs to learn what an opinion is..He thinks if he feels a certain way if is a fact..I will bet he is a DEMOCRATE??


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

These threads produce a lot of different opinions, and food for thought. Most of us on here either carry guns routinely or, at minimum, have guns at home at least partially for home defense. The law seems simple, but it isn't, and when the discretion of prosecutors, grand jurys, and petit jurys get thrown in, it's REALLY complex. 

IMHO, and respecting other peoples, we are lucky, in Texas, to be able to defend our homes and our property without the duty to retreat. If we are judicious, this keeps us safer from bad guys, and safer from prosecution should we have to exercize deadly force. It's something we should guard, and each incident should be scrutinized, and if we can learn something, we should. The criminals will, and so will the anti gun, anti Castle crowd. 

However, when faced with what one truly believes is a deadly threat, our first instinct, and biological responsibility, is to survive. The old adage "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" is appropriate. 

So, we can "beat each other up" on these threads. Perhaps Jamis Jocky will come back with something which indicates it's illegal NOT to use lethal force in some situations. Then I will have learned something. 

Thanks to the OP for bringing it up.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

mastercylinder said:


> which side of the fence? the one of common sense, rational thought, and reason?





RACER said:


> my posts are based on the law as i understand it, not my opinion, or my emotions, or my josey wales wannabe mentality ... which is what everyone in here who owns guns _should_ do.
> 
> Someone needs to tell M/C he needs to learn what an opinion is..He thinks if he feels a certain way if is a fact..I will bet he is a DEMOCRATE??


those are lyrics from a lynyrd skynyrd song, ding-dong. but, if you disagree, please tell us what else handguns are made for?


----------



## RodBreaker (May 21, 2004)

Was an attempt to enter made?

A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Levelwind said:


> These threads produce a lot of different opinions, and food for thought. Most of us on here either carry guns routinely or, at minimum, have guns at home at least partially for home defense. The law seems simple, but it isn't, and when the discretion of prosecutors, grand jurys, and petit jurys get thrown in, it's REALLY complex.
> 
> IMHO, and respecting other peoples, we are lucky, in Texas, to be able to defend our homes and our property without the duty to retreat. If we are judicious, this keeps us safer from bad guys, and safer from prosecution should we have to exercize deadly force. It's something we should guard, and each incident should be scrutinized, and if we can learn something, we should. The criminals will, and so will the anti gun, anti Castle crowd.
> 
> ...


Exactly. We shouldn't take arguments so personally. And let's not preach about not allowing people to have their opinions. I'm pretty sure 99% of what we do on this board is rip on others opinions. (Ok, maybe only 95% :doowapsta )

That being said: Even if we are allowed to protect ourselves and our home with lethal force- I think that as humans with rational minds, we can and should come up with alternative solutions. We pull a pistol out as a last resort, and when we do we shoot to kill.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Bruce, one of my handguns fires only .22 shorts. You really think it's made to be a people killer?

Lots of people have a lot of fun with handguns, plinking, playing games, it's an Olympic event. 

Argument fails.


----------



## reelbusy (Feb 7, 2008)

SlickWillie said:


> I can tell you one thing for sure; the home owner had better get the wallet ready. It doesn't matter whether he is no billed or not, he's gonna be involved in a civil case before it is over.


Not necessarily if the Castle doctrine is upheld.

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant


----------



## 2slick (Dec 5, 2008)

So, I watch the video again. Says the men were beating on his door and shouting. Lots of different opinions on here, but I can tell you this. You come beat on my door, threatening to kill me, chances are I'll open up a nice hole in the door with a round of buckshot. I ain't gonna open the door and let you shoot me first. So they bury you, and I go to court. I'll take that option every time.

Someone brought up Joe Horn and the shootings in Pasadena. I thought sure his words to the 911 dispatcher that he was "going outside to shoot the guys" was gonna hang him, but it didn't. So, I'm not too sure trying to scare someone off that is threatening to kill you is too damaging either.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Levelwind said:


> These threads produce a lot of different opinions, and food for thought. Most of us on here either carry guns routinely or, at minimum, have guns at home at least partially for home defense. The law seems simple, but it isn't, and when the discretion of prosecutors, grand jurys, and petit jurys get thrown in, it's REALLY complex.
> 
> IMHO, and respecting other peoples, we are lucky, in Texas, to be able to defend our homes and our property without the duty to retreat. If we are judicious, this keeps us safer from bad guys, and safer from prosecution should we have to exercize deadly force. It's something we should guard, and each incident should be scrutinized, and if we can learn something, we should. The criminals will, and so will the anti gun, anti Castle crowd.
> 
> ...


i agree with everything you said above, levelwind. i am a staunch proponent of the second amendment, and i own guns, i have them in my home, but i rarely carry them around with me. i'm also a proponent of the castle doctrine.

we _are_ lucky to have the right to own and carry guns, but in doing so, we also have a tremendous responsibility to use them properly, wisely, and judiciously as allowed by the law. using a gun wrecklessly by rather blindly firing 15 shots through awindow or door in an attempt to "scare" someone, that then results in an unnecessary and negligent fatality, is *not *using a gun properly, wisely, or judiciously.

that guy had no more right firing that gun at those kids than they had a right to be on his front porch. but his action resulted in a needless and wreckless homicide, and he should, therefore, be prosecuted for his wreckless and criminal action.

as i've often said, this is 21st century houston, texas, not 1872 dodge city, kansas. never fire a gun at another person unless you intend to kill him, and be prepared to deal with the aftermath if you do.



Levelwind said:


> Bruce, one of my handguns fires only .22 shorts. You really think it's made to be a people killer?


i'd have to do some research to be sure, but i believe more homicides in this country are the result of .22's than any other caliber of gun. i believe .38's are second. anything that fires a lead projectile at 1000-2000 f/s is potentially deadly.


----------



## 2slick (Dec 5, 2008)

reelbusy said:


> Not necessarily if the Castle doctrine is upheld.
> 
> Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant


Perhaps I am wrong, but if I understand that right, you can use that as a defense in court, after you've spent the money to hire a good lawyer.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

mastercylinder said:


> i agree with everything you said above, levelwind. i am a staunch proponent of the second amendment, and i own guns, i have them in my home, but i rarely carry them around with me. i'm also a proponent of the castle doctrine.
> 
> we _are_ lucky to have the right to own and carry guns, but in doing so, we also have a tremendous responsibility to use them properly, wisely, and judiciously as allowed by the law. using a gun wrecklessly by rather blindly firing 15 shots through awindow or door in an attempt to "scare" someone, that then results in an unnecessary and negligent fatality, is *not *using a gun properly, wisely, or judiciously.
> 
> ...


Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one point. *IF *the news reports portray the situation accurately, and they almost never do at this stage, I think the guy had to assume the six or seven people were coming to kill him. No, he didn't use his gun in the most judicious manner.

But he is alive. And so is his step daughter. Unfortunately, a young man is dead who may have been guilty of nothing more than poor judgement, BUT, in my opinion from reading the news reports, more probably was part of a thuggish little gang raid on the man's home.


----------



## scwine (Sep 7, 2006)

Wow. A lot of responses!

I posted this because I would bet almost all here on this site own a gun and willing to do whatever it takes to protect our family. Sometimes we need to think about certain situations before it actually happens to ourselves.


Well, with the info. given...... First, myself or my wife would call 911. At the same time I am grabbing a gun and an extra magazine. 
The next move is their move........ I am ready and prepared to defend me and my family and no I am not blindly firing through a door(especially b/c I would hate to hit the cops house across the street or behind me...  ),,,,,,,well, unless they are firing or have already entered.


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

scwine said:


> Wow. A lot of responses!
> 
> I posted this because I would bet almost all here on this site own a gun and willing to do whatever it takes to protect our family. Sometimes we need to think about certain situations before it actually happens to ourselves.
> 
> ...


this is about the best post ive seen yet


----------



## Flounderpounder27 (Sep 22, 2008)

It's always sad to hear of someone losing their life, BUT I would go with a no bill. You can't go threatening people outside the doors of their homes and not expect some type of defensive action. Granted, we don't know all the facts.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

From the phone calls, kill or be killed. it's your choice, make the right decision.

Pre meditated on the gang of thugs when they came down the street.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

wwind3 said:


> uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh----how bout this case? Anyone? Anyone?
> Bueller? Bueller?????


What do you need to know? I saw him this morning.


----------



## Pokey357 (Jun 8, 2010)

Smells fishy to me. I think there's probably a lot more to the story than we know. I'd have to hear
The boy freind and the daughters side of the story
Before I have a real opinion. But who in the hell blindly shoots through a window or a door. What if a car was driving by or someone was walking by, or he hit the folks across the street house. I agree that
Everyone should protect their property and family by any means necessary. In this case I think anger
Was probably more of a factor than fear.


----------



## State_Vet (Oct 10, 2006)

my turn

If someone really wants to kill you they would'nt warn you twice--IMO kids trying to act tough

if "dad" really felt threatened he would have put 15 shots through the door where the voices were, not the window--IMO he wasnt threatened he was try to scare the kids because he knew the threats were BS unfortunately he killed one of them, by not putting the bullets in the door this sinks his castle defense becuase he wasnt using deadly force.

I'm all for defending whats yours, however dont be stupid in your reactions to a situation, this guy let his emotions drive his decisions and someone got killed, do I think he was wrong in how he handled it ....yep


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> what a dumbass. handguns weren't designed to scare people.


Maybe not but they do scare people.

TH


----------



## TXDRAKE (Jun 24, 2004)

mastercylinder said:


> those are lyrics from a lynyrd skynyrd song, ding-dong. but, if you disagree, please tell us what else handguns are made for?


Ummmmm, I Agree!!! My handguns ARE made for Killin and for doing all kinds of other stuff like target shooting, competition shooting, collecting, plinking, etc.!!!

Ohhhhh, and I have numerous other long guns that are made for and do ALOT of Killin, target shooting, competition, collecting, plinking, and I have even used my shotguns to paddle with and to repair leaking levees around our hunting ponds, etc. and they include but are not limited to those infamous black guns and other assorted assault type weapons, shotguns, rifles, black powder, and other assorted long guns.

Ohhhhhh, Ohhhhhh, and I have numerous knives that I have done some Killin with when we hunt hogs with dogs and I use those for all kinds of stuff!!!!!

ROFLOL!!! :spineyes: :slimer: :rotfl:


----------



## Red3Fish (Jun 4, 2004)

*Excellent Post...*

It makes all of us reconsider what our "game plan" is for any situation. Good opinions, on both sides of the argument.

Anyone that owns a weapon should have already played over in their mind all situations they can think of, BEFORE it might happen.

Mine is....call police, grab shotgun with out plug and loaded with buckshot, and hold back until the first kick or attempt to break down my door....then let loose with ONE warning round. After that all bets are off. Oh, yeah and replace the warning round in shotgun, if time, and another one for the empty chamber I leave for safety purposes. Hearing a shell being jacked in the chamber with a pump gun,or an auto might be enough to make them stop and think.

This was my plan before, during and after this string.

Later
R3F


----------



## surf_ox (Jul 8, 2008)

It will be interesting to see how the media plays this one out knowing both men involved were black males.



> Joseph told investigators based on the words exchanged earlier that he was concerned for the safety of his family and discharged his weapon from inside his residence toward the front door area of the house. As a result Daquan Wilson was struck in the upper torso with one of the rounds.
> 
> Daquan Wilson
> Black Male
> ...


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

Great opinions, all different and all with valid arguments. It's not just the castle doctrine that we should be thankful for. We should also be thankful for the trial by jury system and the protections it provides us.

Grand Jury: 9 of 12 must select to move forward with the prosecution (I believe)
Petit Jury: 12 of 12 must convict

A single judge with a particular view is not enough. This is something I'm very thankful for.


----------



## nightgigger (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't usually comment on things like this, But watched some of the News Videos.
The Guy's house has the garage on the side of the front door. The window with the bullet holes is just to the left of the door. I wonder where all of the other rounds ended up at. If all of the other lead is in his garage wall, the men must have been right on his front door, and he was not shooting blindly.( i.e. He could see what he was shooting at, and had a backstop). The homeowner has been charged with manslaughter.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Wilson was not identified as being one of the men at the park, but he was in front of the door with the boyfriend when Anderson fired the gun, police said.

Pflugerville police charged Anderson with manslaughter, a second-degree felony. And although Wilson was on the property when shot, authorities said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon that the Castle Doctrine will not apply in this case.


----------



## wwind3 (Sep 30, 2009)

fishinguy said:


> Wilson was not identified as being one of the men at the park, but he was in front of the door with the boyfriend when Anderson fired the gun, police said.
> 
> Pflugerville police charged Anderson with manslaughter, a second-degree felony. And although Wilson was on the property when shot, authorities said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon that the Castle Doctrine will not apply in this case.


But it DID apply in the Joe Horn case? Uh huh...........


----------



## seattleman1969 (Jul 17, 2008)

Not a comment directly to this subject but pertinent...

Doors, unless they are steel core, are COVER not CONCEALMENT.

Cover = you cannot be seen

Concealment = cannot be penetrated by bullets

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot17.htm


----------



## REELING 65 (Aug 18, 2009)

seattleman1969 said:


> Not a comment directly to this subject but pertinent...
> 
> Doors, unless they are steel core, are COVER not CONCEALMENT.
> 
> ...


Maybe people should live in missile cilos. :biggrin:


----------



## RodBreaker (May 21, 2004)

wwind3 said:


> But it DID apply in the Joe Horn case? Uh huh...........


No it didn't apply in the Joe Horn case.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

fishinguy said:


> authorities said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon that the Castle Doctrine will not apply in this case.


What's an "authority" and by what logic do they make that determination, I wonder. I suspect Mr. Anderson's attorney will disagree.


----------



## RodBreaker (May 21, 2004)

Levelwind said:


> What's an "authority" and by what logic do they make that determination, I wonder. I suspect Mr. Anderson's attorney will disagree.


I've posted twice why; they didn't enter or attempt to enter his house.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Levelwind said:


> What's an "authority" and by what logic do they make that determination, I wonder. I suspect Mr. Anderson's attorney will disagree.


That is what I was thinking. Wether it applies or not is still yet to be determined. I like how the news reports it as absolute.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

RodBreaker said:


> I've posted twice why; they didn't enter or attempt to enter his house.


I believe they were on the porch/stoop, which is an "appertenunce" (sp?) and is considered part of the habitation.

If not, I would have to agree that the Castle Doctrine itself, as narrowly defined, would not provide a defense. However, I believe that with a good lawyer the guy SHOULD prevail under the general self defense statutes (931).


----------



## wwind3 (Sep 30, 2009)

RodBreaker said:


> No it didn't apply in the Joe Horn case.


then why was he nobilled by the grand jury?


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Levelwind said:


> I believe they were on the porch/stoop, which is an "appertenunce" (sp?) and is considered part of the habitation.
> 
> If not, I would have to agree that the Castle Doctrine itself, as narrowly defined, would not provide a defense. However, I believe that with a good lawyer the guy SHOULD prevail under the general self defense statutes (931).


Why should this guy get off? He *admittedly *used LETHAL FORCE to "scare" someone, and *admittedly* fired indiscriminately out a window.

Whether or not the teens were a threat isn't the real issue here. Whether or not castle doctrine is valid in this case isn't an issue. The issue is if you can morally or legally use LETHAL FORCE to SCARE someone, and if you can use LETHAL FORCE indiscriminately. 
You should, both legally and morally, always have an identified target. You should not use lethal force to "Scare" someone. The threat of lethal force? Sure. But no bullet should ever exit your firearm without an intended target. PERIOD.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

wwind3 said:


> then why was he nobilled by the grand jury?


Because it was Pasadena. Because the guys he killed were illegal alien criminals. Because in Texas, per statute, it is permissable to use deadly force to prevent robbery if that is the only way the theft/robbery could reasonably be expected to be prevented. Because one of the guys had a crowbar and Joe testified he was headed for him with it before he turned away. Because Joe Horn wasn't considered by the GJ to be a future threat to society. Because after 16 days of deliberation somebody said to hell with it I give up I have to go to work.


----------



## RodBreaker (May 21, 2004)

wwind3 said:


> then why was he nobilled by the grand jury?


Section 9.43 of the penal code

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

I do not follow your logic. I understand the shooters responsibility and that if he kills or injures an innocent person then he may be prosecuted for that shooting. 

I think the matter hinges upon whether the jury believes that the victim was an innocent person. Information released so far causes me to believe that he wasn't. Rather, he was part of a group supporting a man who had threatened to kill the shooter earlier in the day and either had or seemed about to enter the shooters habitation, presumably to carry out the threat.


----------



## texasGG (Mar 12, 2007)

*Slain Pflugerville Teen Laid to Rest*

Updated: Sunday, 11 Jul 2010, 7:21 PM CDT
Published : Sunday, 11 Jul 2010, 6:08 PM CDT


myFOXaustin(AUSTIN) - A Pflugerville teenager who was killed by during shooting rampage was laid to rest Sunday.
18-year old DeQuan Wilson died after a homeowner fired 15 rounds through his window and closed front door. Police said the homeowner felt threatened by Wilson and his friends after an argument earlier in the day.
Police say DeQuan Wilson was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. It was a tearful and somber service packed with DeQuan's friends, family and mentors.
Many people we spoke during the service saying DeQuan was a driven and loyal person who cared about his family, friends and future. The 18 year old just graduated from Pflugerville High School; had three jobs and was enrolled at Austin Community College wanting to be a dentist.
This past week, all those accomplishments were cut short. DeQuan was gunned down by Joseph Anderson. Earlier in the day, police say Anderson got into a verbal argument with one of DeQuan's friend at a park.
Minutes after he went home, he told police he noticed that teenager and a group of friends were outside his home throwing gang signs and banging on his door. Anderson fired 15 rounds with his 9mm handgun after he told police he heard one teenager say shoot. DeQuan was shot in the chest he died at the hospital.
Anderson was not charged with murder. He's charged with 2nd degree manslaughter punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Can you believe the SLANT the local news agency put on this story!!! I think we should voice our oppinion on this one. Here is thread to do it... http://ktbc.m0bl.net/r/7bpv5


----------



## seattleman1969 (Jul 17, 2008)

texasGG said:


> *Slain Pflugerville Teen Laid to Rest*
> Can you believe the SLANT the local news agency put on this story!!! I think we should voice our oppinion on this one. Here is thread to do it... http://ktbc.m0bl.net/r/7bpv5


Done

at the very least I hope that Anderson's charges are reduced to reckless endangerment. I truly don't think that manslaughter charges apply here.


----------



## Redfishon (Nov 10, 2005)

Wish he would of waited a bit and shot the entire gang dead.. Why waste rounds? put them to good use..


----------



## seattleman1969 (Jul 17, 2008)

This is the only issue I can see POSSIBLY arising from this confrontation against Anderson, BUT I believe it would be a rather large leap to call DaQuan an "Innocent third person". I would propose that he knew exactly what his friends were attemtping to do in going to Anderson's place of residence after a physical (In person) Confrontation/threat and one or more phone threats to Anderson. 

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person

Thoughts/opinions? I know you guys have 'em! Share!


----------



## 2slick (Dec 5, 2008)

I think it would be a stretch to call him innocent. Guess we'll have to see how it plays out.


----------



## RodBreaker (May 21, 2004)

texasGG said:


> Can you believe the SLANT the local news agency put on this story!!! I think we should voice our oppinion on this one. Here is thread to do it... [URL="http://ktbc.m0bl.net/r/7bpv5"]http://ktbc.m0bl.net/r/7bpv5


What slant? Police said, police say, friends said...


----------



## nightgigger (Oct 13, 2008)

"INNOCENT THIRD PERSON" was he or was he not on the man's front porch with a group of angry young men?


----------



## texasGG (Mar 12, 2007)

"A Pflugerville teenager was killed in a shooting rampage" You don't think that is slanted?...... Makes the homeowner sound like he went out seeking to kill someone. He was in HIS home with his FAMILY minding his own business. This group of young men came looking for him after threatning to kill him. They came onto his property calling out to him in a threatning way. to me it is slanted... maybe not to everyone, to each his own...


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

DeQuan Wilson deserves the Darwin Award for being on the porch. You can't tell me DeQuan knew nothing of the previous threats at the play ground. He was an idiot!


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Levelwind said:


> I do not follow your logic. I understand the shooters responsibility and that if he kills or injures an innocent person then he may be prosecuted for that shooting.
> 
> I think the matter hinges upon whether the jury believes that the victim was an innocent person. Information released so far causes me to believe that he wasn't. Rather, he was part of a group supporting a man who had threatened to kill the shooter earlier in the day and either had or seemed about to enter the shooters habitation, presumably to carry out the threat.


I think you're all getting hung up on the intent of the teens. Skip ahead to the statements of the father that he was trying to scare them away by firing 15 rounds out a window at them. I think the question here is the intent of the father. *He claims he fired only to scare the teens.* That would in my opinion, INAL and all that, make him guilty of a crime. Had he intended kill them, with Castle Doctrine I think the threats and them coming to his property would make him in the right. But you don't just blindly fire in someone's direction to "SCARE" them. You only fire at someone if your intent is to use lethal force to prevent them from committing a crime agasint your person or another person or property. 
It's splitting hairs, but when it comes to the taking of a human life, it's not something we should ever take lightly or for granted.


----------



## Nocturnal (Feb 26, 2010)

jamisjockey said:


> Why should this guy get off? He *admittedly *used LETHAL FORCE to "scare" someone, and *admittedly* fired indiscriminately out a window.
> 
> Whether or not the teens were a threat isn't the real issue here. Whether or not castle doctrine is valid in this case isn't an issue. The issue is if you can morally or legally use LETHAL FORCE to SCARE someone, and if you can use LETHAL FORCE indiscriminately.
> You should, both legally and morally, always have an identified target. You should not use lethal force to "Scare" someone. The threat of lethal force? Sure. But no bullet should ever exit your firearm without an intended target. PERIOD.


Agreed

The manslaughter charge seems sensible, given what we know at this point.


----------



## Nocturnal (Feb 26, 2010)

One lesson that can be learned from Anderson is if you are ever in the unfortunante situation of having to shoot somebody, **** and don't talk to anyone but your attorney.

Admitting what he did to the police may be his undoing.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

"group of men outside his front door talking about shooting him".

We can prove this.

next


----------



## Nocturnal (Feb 26, 2010)

Anderson's own admission-

*Anderson told police he didn't want to hurt anyone, but that he was just trying to scare them.*

Fits this definition-

*19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense *
*if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.*
*(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second *
*degree.*

By his own admission to the police, his intent was to "scare". Obviously it was NOT his intent to use lethal force to stop an imminent threat, therefore "use of lethal force" laws or the Castle Doctrine wouldn't apply.

Again, NEVER talk to ANYONE but your attorney...


----------



## Dave B (Aug 3, 2004)

I don't the track record of these two, but it's possable if he goes to jail this could be a win-win.


----------

