[DBL Tap]

I located this story after reading my Jan 08 issue of "American Rifleman." This is the type of real life event the anti-gunners don't want to know about.
"The armed citizen" is one of my favorite features of the NRA magazine.

Neighbor, 83, shoots burglar
Gabriel Valdez 03.OCT.07
LA VERNIA â€" Raymond Charles Bunte, 83, shot and killed a burglar who broke into his neighbor’s house at approximately 1:30 p.m. on Sept. 28.

He told deputies from the Wilson County Sheriff’s Office that he heard a loud noise from his neighbor’s house on F.M. 1346, Sheriff Joe Tackitt Jr. said. Since he knew his neighbor was at work, Bunte drove his vehicle around his neighbor’s home.

Bunte saw a ve-hicle he knew shouldn’t be there and blocked it in with his own. He saw that the front door was kicked in and, with 12-gauge shotgun in hand, shouted for the burglars to come outside, Tackitt said.

One suspect ran, but the other, 23-year-old Dustin Brandon Houston, got into his vehicle and tried to run over Bunte.

Bunte fired once, hitting Houston in the head and killing him instantly, Tackitt said. Bunte’s wife flagged a passerby down on the road, who made a call to the police at 1:52 p.m.

Bexar County law-enforcement units and the Texas Rangers assisted Wilson County deputies in the search for the other suspect, identified as Steven Christopher Muniz, 24. Texas Rangers arrested Muniz at 10 p.m. at his home on the south side of San Antonio. He was arrested on outstanding San Antonio warrants for burglary of a habitation. Wilson County has yet to charge him, Tackitt said.

Houston and Muniz had told friends earlier that day they were on their way to commit burglaries in Wilson County, according to Tackitt.

“We think they may have been responsible for a number of burglaries here,” Tackitt said. A number of stolen items were retrieved, but owners have not yet been identified. - Wilson County News

 

[Shaolin]

Nice story, but hopefully the buglar's had weapons in their hands, to justify the shooting. Not enough info in the story to tell though.

 

[apollosmith]

From the sounds of it, the guy tried to run him over - a car's definitely a lethal weapon. In fact, I think I'd rather risk getting shot than run over. It sounds like a clean shot to me, though I don't know that I'd have barricaded the bad guy's car in as that is probably what led to him attempting to run the old guy over.

 

[divegeek]

I have to disagree that this is necessarily the kind of story antis don't want spread around. At the very least, it's a story that's pretty easy for them to spin their way.

Although the outcome wasn't too bad, it wasn't ideal, and arguably a direct result of poor decisionmaking on Mr. Bunte's part. Also, it can easily be argued that his poor decisions were a result of excessive confidence because he had a firearm.

His first poor decision was not to call the police immediately upon realizing that his neighbor's house was being burglarized. His second was blocking the bad guys in. Giving their license plate number to the dispatcher and backing off would have been a much safer alternative. His third -- and biggest -- was in actually alerting the burglars to his presence by shouting at them. Much better to just watch and wait until the cops showed up. It appears this may have been a rural area, so the cops might have taken some time to show up, which means maybe Bunte would've had to decide whether to let the burglars go or try to stop them. But he certainly didn't have to precipitate the confrontation.

Luckily, his mistakes didn't result in injury or death to himself. The only person hurt was the burglar, who clearly earned the facefull of shot by assaulting Mr. Bunte with a deadly weapon. Still, with a little more thought, the burglars probably would have been apprehended without anyone getting hurt.

I'm assuming here, of course, that Mr. Bunte had a way to call the police. If he didn't, that changes my opinion of the situation somewhat.

I also recognize that perhaps he wasn't completely sure it was a burglary, but I don't think that lets him off the hook. He had adequate reason to believe it was, and the worst result of calling it in would be a little embarrassment, if the men inside turned out to have permission. Better to risk embarrassment than a shootout.

 

[Ruger Collector]

If his wife had to flag somebody down to call 911 it would seem they didn't have quick access to a phone.

His safety and possibly that of his wife were unnecessarily put at risk. If he had been stopping a forcible felony (rape, kidnapping, arson etc) his escalation of force would have been more appropriate. But trying to apprehend burglary suspects who were too scared to fight until he cornered one... He probably could have just as easily snapped pictures of the suspects and their vehicle as they fled and let the PD do their duty.

Granted that an 83 year old is more likely to own and know how to use a shotgun than a cell phone or an easy to use digital camera. (Too bad weapon mounted cameras are so expensive! I’m sure it won’t be too many years before all LE are equipped with them.)

Thank heaven things came out for the best in this incident. Had there been multiple armed BG this could have easily turned into a horrible tragedy for these responsible neighbors.

Another Great and Honorable Man: Mark Wilson's heroic deeds should never be forgotten, but his tactics learned from.

 

[Jeff Johnson]

Realize that Texas deadly force laws are not the same as Utah deadly force laws. We may be looking at this from a Utah perspective.

If I'm not mistaken, Texas laws allow the use of deadly force to stop a felony after dark.

 

[divegeek]

Realize that Texas deadly force laws are not the same as Utah deadly force laws. We may be looking at this from a Utah perspective.

If I'm not mistaken, Texas laws allow the use of deadly force to stop a felony after dark.

So does Utah law. Specifically, it says (76-2-402 (1)):

that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So you can use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony, which is defined as (76-2-402 (4)]:

a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6. Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony. Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.

So you are justified in using deadly force to prevent a burglary, in Utah.

In my opinion, however, the fact that the law won't hold you culpable doesn't make it right. Once the truck was coming at him, the guy had every right -- legal and moral -- to shoot. I question the decisions that led up to that situation, though. He needlessly endangered himself and his wife, not to protect his neighbor, but to protect his neighbor's things. Writing down the license plate number and getting to a phone to call the police would almost certainly have resulted in the apprehension of the burglars and the returning of the neighbor's stuff, without all the risk, and without the death of the burglar.

Just because you're armed and can confront the bad guys doesn't mean you should. Even if it's legal.

All (but the law) IMHO, of course.

 

[xmirage2kx]

Realize that Texas deadly force laws are not the same as Utah deadly force laws. We may be looking at this from a Utah perspective.

If I'm not mistaken, Texas laws allow the use of deadly force to stop a felony after dark.

So does Utah law. Specifically, it says (76-2-402 (1)):

that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So you can use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony, which is defined as (76-2-402 (4)]:

a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6. Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony. Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.

So you are justified in using deadly force to prevent a burglary, in Utah.

In my opinion, however, the fact that the law won't hold you culpable doesn't make it right. Once the truck was coming at him, the guy had every right -- legal and moral -- to shoot. I question the decisions that led up to that situation, though. He needlessly endangered himself and his wife, not to protect his neighbor, but to protect his neighbor's things. Writing down the license plate number and getting to a phone to call the police would almost certainly have resulted in the apprehension of the burglars and the returning of the neighbor's stuff, without all the risk, and without the death of the burglar.

Just because you're armed and can confront the bad guys doesn't mean you should. Even if it's legal.

All (but the law) IMHO, of course.

I agree just because you can doesn't mean you should, but you can legally shoot people for a lot more than I thought you could.

 

[apollosmith]

Burglary is not always a forcible felony. It is only such if forcible or secretive entry is made into your home, habitation, or place of business, if you are inside an automobile that is being stolen, etc.

In other words, you can't shoot someone because they're stealing your car (unless you or a loved one are inside at the time). You can't shoot them if they're stealing your stereo (but if it's a PS3, light 'em up 8) ). But if they're in your home at night and stealing your stereo, this is a forcible felony and you MAY be justified legally because the presumption is that if someone has made forcible entry into your home, then they are likely there to hurt someone.

As in all things, common sense prevails.

 

[divegeek]

I agree just because you can doesn't mean you should, but you can legally shoot people for a lot more than I thought you could.

My CFP instructor went over this stuff pretty thoroughly. One thing to keep in mind is that you can only shoot to prevent a forcible felony. Once the felony has been committed and the BG is leaving, you can no longer use deadly force. The argument that because he's done it once, he's probably going to do it again doesn't hold up in court, unfortunately

According to my instructor (haven't looked it up in the law), this is different for LEOs. Supposedly, they are authorized to shoot to stop a fleeing felon.