Burglar calls 911 after homeowner holds him at gunpoint

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/burglar-calls-911-himself-163618126.html

Burglar calls 911 to save himself from gun-wielding homeowner

By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News | The Sideshow – 44 mins ago

A suspected burglar called 911 after the owner of the home he broke into caught and held him at gunpoint.

The suspect, Christopher Moore, placed the emergency call in Springtown, Texas, during the botched burglary attempt early Tuesday after James Gerow, the homeowner, and Gerow's son pointed guns at him as he sat in his pickup truck parked in the driveway.

"I'm out in the country somewhere," Moore told the 911 operator during the 10-minute call. "Some guy's got a gun on me."

Gerow's wife, Lindy, placed a concurrent call to 911 that confirmed Moore's account.

"You better come quick," she said, "or my husband's going to shoot him."

"If he gets out of the truck, shoot him in the legs," James Gerow told his son, according to the Dallas Morning News Crime Blog. "You ain't gotta kill him—just shoot him in the legs."

When police arrived, both Moore and Lindy Gerow were still talking to 911 dispatchers.

According to CBS' Dallas-Fort Worth affiliate, Moore was arrested and charged with burglary. He's currently being held on a $35,000 bond.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there:)

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You broke into his house, idiot. You're lucky you were able to call 911.

[Dakine10 5,452]

"If he gets out of the truck, shoot him in the legs," James Gerow told his son, according to the Dallas Morning News Crime Blog. "You ain't gotta kill him—just shoot him in the legs."

Shoot him in the legs? Good thing they both called 911.

[bsd058 296]

Shoot him in the legs? Good thing they both called 911.

Sad part is that if the guy shot him in the legs, and they couldn't prove that the burglar would have attempted to harm them first, the burglar might have been able to sue.

The homeowner owes a duty to all (even trespassers) to not harm them willfully.

[aaydrian 479]

Well that was a boring end to the night.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Sad part is that if the guy shot him in the legs, and they couldn't prove that the burglar would have attempted to harm them first, the burglar might have been able to sue.

The homeowner owes a duty to all (even trespassers) to not harm them willfully.

Sure, I would say don't shoot unless it is necessary. But if/when it does become necessary, don't aim for the legs.

[natty bumppo 297]

Sad part is that if the guy shot him in the legs, and they couldn't prove that the burglar would have attempted to harm them first, the burglar might have been able to sue.

The homeowner owes a duty to all (even trespassers) to not harm them willfully.

TX castle law rules.

Evylin got it right .....

You broke into his house, idiot. You're lucky you were able to call 911.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What's this world coming to? Why should a homeowner have the right to defend himself/family/property? Burglars are people too.

[Darnell 8,479]

Teach yer sheep to steal, Spooky

Then you get around the 'human' issue...

[bsd058 296]

TX castle law rules.

Evylin got it right .....

From what I understand of TX castle doctrine, it refers to the right of use of deadly force only. And the property owners must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home before they can use deadly force.

But from the point of view of the article, I don't think the owners wanted to kill him. So this law may not apply.

Edited December 6, 2012 by bsd058

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

From what I understand of TX castle doctrine, it refers to the right of use of deadly force only. And the property owners must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home before they can use deadly force.

But from the point of view of the article, I don't think the owners wanted to kill him. So this law may not apply.

I've been stationed in Tx a few years back. I remember the big thing back then was Crime of Passion law, the right to kill your spouse and their lover if they were in your house. It was crazy back then, I am glad I was young and single, you can get a gun at the gas station if you had to cash

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

The area to aim for is between his legs.

[TBoneTX 46,122]

*** Thread moved from P&R to Off Topic -- not political or religious. ***

[natty bumppo 297]

From what I understand of TX castle doctrine, it refers to the right of use of deadly force only. And the property owners must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home before they can use deadly force.

But from the point of view of the article, I don't think the owners wanted to kill him. So this law may not apply.

read more. just a few excerpts for the law.

this dude was lucky to dial 911 .... the homeowner decided it was less hassle to let the police escort the body away than to have the meat wagon pick up the body.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(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;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

( C ) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

.....

to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Edited December 7, 2012 by natty bumppo