WOMAN SHOOTS PEEPING TOM

[thetragichippy]

This was Houston, hope it's local enough....

TVC, think she is going to get away with this?

I personally would not shoot until he tried to beak in....

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[5GallonBucket]

I understand the law but this woman could ve  saved herself or anyone else from rape, murder, kidnapped, assault etc etc. 

if your willing to trespass and sneak around people s windows then welllll….

“peep in Tom”. All those crimes I mentioned above starts with someone “peeping” for opportunity to commit those crimes.

[tvc184]

Got to love the media.  She fired  several shots and it appears that at least one hit him as he died a few feet away. Ya’ think!? 

Clearly the law doesn’t allow the use of deadly force for a class C misdemeanor (actually it does in limited circumstances)  

it is a homicide. It is not legally even Manslaughter which is to recklessly kill someone. She simply shot him out of fear which is not legal. If the guy had a crowbar, had pull the window screen off or was trying to, etc., she could reasonably have been preventing a burglary and deadly force is lawful at that point.

But…. will a grand jury indict her? That’s a whole different issue.

She does have (I don’t believe valid but plausible enough for a grand jury) justification. The word “fear” does not appear in the Texas Penal Code but everyone says, it is legal to shoot if you were in fear. Nope. You could shoot anyone and simply say they scared me. What the law does say is that you have a reasonable belief (which will be determined by someone else) that you were stopping the crime of robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, etc. It is my opinion that legally it takes more than a person looking through a window.  I mean you could say that you saw someone walking through your yard at 2 AM and thought they were going to break in and shoot if that was legal. Maybe just a neighborhood kid taking a shortcut. There has to be a reasonable belief that the crime was about to be committed. There are too many what if‘s without knowing what really happened. Was he shining a flashlight through the window and it sounded like he was prying on it? Then likely  justified stopping a burglary. The problem is all we have a news media report which in many cases is almost meaningless. About the only thing we can be sure of is that the guys is dead. 

I have a hard time believing the DA is going to push hard for a homicide charge in this case. Maybe, but I doubt it.

So this woman gets scared and killed somebody. 

Again going strictly by the law, if all this guy was doing was peeping, it is not lawful to use deadly force. A part of the law that is on her side is that she does not have to prove that she was allowed to use deadly force. The way the Texas Penal Code reads in self-defense is that the state (DA) has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not reasonable.

If I was a betting man I would say no indictment and she walks.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, 5GallonBucket said:

I understand the law but this woman could ve  saved herself or anyone else from rape, murder, kidnapped, assault etc etc. 

if your willing to trespass and sneak around people s windows then welllll….

“peep in Tom”. All those crimes I mentioned above starts with someone “peeping” for opportunity to commit those crimes.

And I’m sure you know this answer but I have seen people at 2 AM walking up and down the street looking at open garage doors. They are obviously looking to commit a burglary. Can deadly force be justified because you believe something?

They are all looking for the opportunity. Can you legally use deadly force because you suspect something?

[5GallonBucket]

5 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

And I’m sure you know this answer but I have seen people at 2 AM walking up and down the street looking at open garage doors. They are obviously looking to commit a burglary. Can deadly force be justified because you believe something?

They are all looking for the opportunity. Can you legally use deadly force because you suspect something?

Yes I know the answer.

this is a lil different giving trespassing and looking in windows from inches away. Again I know legally you can’t shoot someone in that situation. 

[tvc184]

26 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Yes I know the answer.

this is a lil different giving trespassing and looking in windows from inches away. Again I know legally you can’t shoot someone in that situation. 

I will say this after my long winded explanation, she might have easily been justified. The police might’ve already came to that conclusion I will submit that to the DA.

The problem is that we are just stuck with the peeping Tom as reported by the news.

[tvc184]

I have used this case in the past but this could be like the case, I believe in McMullen County Texas, a ranch hand beat a guy to death and was no billed.

A guy working on a ranch went to his home or a guest cottage on the premises install a male Hispanic and what appeared to be in attempt to sexually assault the ran hand’s daughter. I don’t believe any assault had occurred but I suspect fled. The ranch hand chased him down and hit him a couple of times with his fist, killing him.

The law allows the use of deadly force to stop a sexual assault but not to retaliate later for an attempt. There is simply no ambiguity in this part of the law. That is exactly what the father did however. I made comments and probably this and other forums that while it is almost certainly murder, he would never be indicted. And Harris County? Maybe. In South Texas Ranch country? No way. 

There is the saying that the old Texas law is, some folks just need kiilin’.

This ranch hand was no billed within like a few days.

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

I have used this case in the past but this could be like the case, I believe in McMullen County Texas, a ranch hand beat a guy to death and was no billed.

A guy working on a ranch went to his home or a guest cottage on the premises install a male Hispanic and what appeared to be in attempt to sexually assault the ran hand’s daughter. I don’t believe any assault had occurred but I suspect fled. The ranch hand chased him down and hit him a couple of times with his fist, killing him.

The law allows the use of deadly force to stop a sexual assault but not to retaliate later for an attempt. There is simply no ambiguity in this part of the law. That is exactly what the father did however. I made comments and probably this and other forums that while it is almost certainly murder, he would never be indicted. And Harris County? Maybe. In South Texas Ranch country? No way. 

There is the saying that the old Texas law is, some folks just need kiilin’.

This ranch hand was no billed within like a few days.

I didn't realize it was that easy to get away with murder.....

[tvc184]

14 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I didn't realize it was that easy to get away with murder.....

Many times it all depends on the county. by the same reasoning however, there are times when I think people should be cleared and they have to face trial because of the county. I think it is section 2.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that says the duty of the district attorney it to seek justice and not seek convictions.  

[BMTSoulja1]

My opinion …. If you’re snooping around on someone’s property, in this case, a woman, probably was there by herself , you deserve to get shot.  The fear is that he was not on the street.  He was on the property.  Don’t you have the right to defend your property?

[5GallonBucket]

26 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

My opinion …. If you’re snooping around on someone’s property, in this case, a woman, probably was there by herself , you deserve to get shot.  The fear is that he was not on the street.  He was on the property.  Don’t you have the right to defend your property?

I agree

as far as property according to the law you can t use deadly force if someone is stealing property or trespassing…..  @tvc184 could answer this

[tvc184]

14 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

I agree

as far as property according to the law you can t use deadly force if someone is stealing property or trespassing…..  @tvc184 could answer this

Trespassing? No. You can use any force necessary to remove the person from your property except deadly force.

Theft? There is a provision in the law in Texas to use deadly force to stop a theft. It is very narrow however. The first requirement is it has to be at night time. The second requirement is one of two things. One is that to recover your property he would expose yourself to serious injury or death. The other is that you reasonably could not get your property back unless you use deadly force.

I will give what if examples on what I think it means. First if it’s daylight then deadly force is out, period. If the theft is in progress and you see an 18-year-old kid running down the street with your property at 2 AM (nightime) it would be reasonable in my opinion to believe that you were not likely to get your property back. Of course a jury is going to sit in judgment of that. The judgment should not be what they would have done but did you come to a valid conclusion that you reasonably would not get the property back otherwise. If a reasonable person would say that’s a valid conclusion, then deadly force is an option in that situation under Texas law in my opinion. The other is the same circumstance where the person might be much bigger than you or much younger than you as an older person, etc. and you try to tackle the person to get your property back you would stand a reasonable chance of serious bodily injury or death. Again in my opinion only, that is a valid use of deadly force under Texas law.

If you saw your next-door neighbor’s kid steal your stuff at 2 AM and run away, it would be hard to justify deadly force because you know who took the property. I think that goes a long way to where it is not justified in the daylight.

I would be very hesitant or almost just say no on using deadly force to stop a theft in the night time but legally it is available under Texas law.

[tvc184]

Here is the Texas Penal Code quoted…

 ……to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;mor (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. 
 

You can see in the first part where it gives the crimes where you can use deadly force to stop. Almost everyone knows that you can use deadly force. A robbery, burglary, sexual assault, etc. After that however notice where it says theft at night time and escaping with property. As a follow-up to that notice there is (A) and (B). One of them has to exist to justify the use of deadly force as I mentioned. One is at the property would not reasonably be recovered by other means and the other is that you would reasonably stand a chance of suffering serious injury or death.

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

My opinion …. If you’re snooping around on someone’s property, in this case, a woman, probably was there by herself , you deserve to get shot.  The fear is that he was not on the street.  He was on the property.  Don’t you have the right to defend your property?

Do you feel this way when criminals (armed or unarmed) fight with cops putting their lives in danger? If you feel a woman inside her house should be able to protect her "property" with deadly force  and they deserve it.....what about the cop protecting themselves with deadly force, their life seems more valuable than "property".......we may agree, because when I see someone fighting a cop, and they get shot......I do think they deserve it in most cases.....

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

My opinion …. If you’re snooping around on someone’s property, in this case, a woman, probably was there by herself , you deserve to get shot.  The fear is that he was not on the street.  He was on the property.  Don’t you have the right to defend your property?

You do not have the right to defend your property with deadly force.

That is repeated by so many people, so many times and has to be one of the biggest myths in the law.

Do you have the right to use deadly force if someone is trying to kill you, someone is trying to rob you (not theft), someone is trying to break into your home, so I want to try to burn down to your home or sexually assault you. You also have the right to defend another person, even if you do not know that person, under the same circumstances.

 

[tvc184]

I was reading this  story on Facebook a little while ago on the KFDM Facebook website.

I hope no one gets their legal advice from Facebook. It is unbelievable the amount of people that are putting out complete nonsense as “the law” says…..

Not only is most of it completely wrong, some of it combined like three different laws or circumstances. Like, you can shoot someone if they’re trespassing, if it’s after midnight, and you’re in fear of your life and…

Where do they get this stuff? 

[BMTSoulja1]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Do you feel this way when criminals (armed or unarmed) fight with cops putting their lives in danger? If you feel a woman inside her house should be able to protect her "property" with deadly force  and they deserve it.....what about the cop protecting themselves with deadly force, their life seems more valuable than "property".......we may agree, because when I see someone fighting a cop, and they get shot......I do think they deserve it in most cases.....

I mean , that’s understandable.  Cops have firearms on their hips.  Last thing they need is the perp taking that and shooting the officer.  So if the circumstances are correct, then absolutely.

[thetragichippy]

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I was reading this  story on Facebook a little while ago on the KFDM Facebook website.

I hope no one gets their legal advice from Facebook. It is unbelievable the amount of people that are putting out complete nonsense as “the law” says…..

Not only is most of it completely wrong, some of it combined like three different laws or circumstances. Like, you can shoot someone if they’re trespassing, if it’s after midnight, and you’re in fear of your life and…

Where do they get this stuff? 

It's all those "I KNOW MY RIGHTS"!!! people....lol

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

It's all those "I KNOW MY RIGHTS"!!! people....lol

It is crazy some of the stuff I was reading.  And it was put out as “fact”!! 

Stuff like, I have a friend who has a buddy who’s a cop and he says you can shoot anybody in your yard after dark and blah blah blah….

Uhhhhhh, no. 

[bullets13]

8 hours ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

My opinion …. If you’re snooping around on someone’s property, in this case, a woman, probably was there by herself , you deserve to get shot.  The fear is that he was not on the street.  He was on the property.  Don’t you have the right to defend your property?

Lots of variables.  Two examples, neither of which would legally justify murder, but I feel differently about them. 
 

example one: a guy cuts between two houses to get to the next street over, a woman sees him outside her window and thinks he’s a peeping Tom, shoots him through the wall.  Maybe he even heard her talking and glances in as he walks by.

example two: a guy is staring through a window at a woman in an effort to see her changing, and she notices him and shoots him through the wall.  
 

do we know which example, if either, applies to this guy who got shot?  Would you feel differently about a guy shooting a teenager who was in his backyard at night? Maybe the teenager was stealing something, maybe he was confused and thought it was his buddy’s yard, maybe he was just crossing through.  There’s a reason that the law only allows for self defense under certain criteria.

[thetragichippy]

5 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Lots of variables.  Two examples, neither of which would legally justify murder, but I feel differently about them. 
 

example one: a guy cuts between two houses to get to the next street over, a woman sees him outside her window and thinks he’s a peeping Tom, shoots him through the wall.  Maybe he even heard her talking and glances in as he walks by.

example two: a guy is staring through a window at a woman in an effort to see her changing, and she notices him and shoots him through the wall.  
 

do we know which example, if either, applies to this guy who got shot?  Would you feel differently about a guy shooting a teenager who was in his backyard at night? Maybe the teenager was stealing something, maybe he was confused and thought it was his buddy’s yard, maybe he was just crossing through.  There’s a reason that the law only allows for self defense under certain criteria.

I personally don't think either of those examples warrant shooting someone, and like you said, what if it was a curious 10 year old snooping.....and not only that, through a wall with a rifle.....if you missed a stud, could it make into the next home?  You could very well kill someone unintentional.  We will see if justified, but I think for sure reckless.....

[bullets13]

11 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I personally don't think either of those examples warrant shooting someone, and like you said, what if it was a curious 10 year old snooping.....and not only that, through a wall with a rifle.....if you missed a stud, could it make into the next home?  You could very well kill someone unintentional.  We will see if justified, but I think for sure reckless.....

I think it was reckless and criminal, but will likely be no-billed by the grand jury.  And if it was one of my daughters, I would probably look at it differently.  

[tvc184]

6 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I think it was reckless and criminal, but will likely be no-billed by the grand jury.  And if it was one of my daughters, I would probably look at it differently.  

That is pretty much what I think. It was more likely murder but I doubt you would ever get an indictment. Texas law errs on the side of the defender and a reasonable belief. Under our law you do not have to prove self-defense.

If the woman truly shot because she saw a peeping Tom only, that is murder. If the guy was breaking in or she had a reasonable belief that he was breaking in (what is reasonable is determined by a grand jury and if indicted, later by a judge or jury) it is lawful self-defense. I think it takes more than being in a yard or looking through a window to justify oppression is breaking in. But again, the burden is on the state to prove otherwise.

And let’s face it, at the end a peeping Tom and possibly a sexual pervert is no longer with us. Other than his family there are probably not going to be a lot of tears shed.

Had the  circumstance been different and it was not a person peeping, the sentiment would probably be in the opposite direction and she would almost surely be indicted, in my opinion. 

[BMTSoulja1]

42 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Lots of variables.  Two examples, neither of which would legally justify murder, but I feel differently about them. 
 

example one: a guy cuts between two houses to get to the next street over, a woman sees him outside her window and thinks he’s a peeping Tom, shoots him through the wall.  Maybe he even heard her talking and glances in as he walks by.

example two: a guy is staring through a window at a woman in an effort to see her changing, and she notices him and shoots him through the wall.  
 

do we know which example, if either, applies to this guy who got shot?  Would you feel differently about a guy shooting a teenager who was in his backyard at night? Maybe the teenager was stealing something, maybe he was confused and thought it was his buddy’s yard, maybe he was just crossing through.  There’s a reason that the law only allows for self defense under certain criteria.

Great point.

[SmashMouth]

21 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Would you feel differently about a guy shooting a teenager who was in his backyard at night? Maybe the teenager was stealing something, maybe he was confused and thought it was his buddy’s yard, maybe he was just crossing through.

Someone is going to have to do more than steal a bicycle before I take his life. If My family is threatened, all bets are off.