• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woman fatally shoots suspected ‘peeping Tom’ outside bedroom window

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,465
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hmmm... I dunno'. The rules for the use of deadly force are pretty narrow in scope, and I don't see how someone peering through a window fits...
Unless I saw a weapon, I personally would not be in fear for my life or grievous bodily harm. As I previously posted, I would arm myself and confront the individual to determine their intent, then instruct them to leave the property immediately. However, I'm also not a woman.

The home was clearly posted with No Trespassing, and he was on the property when he was shot. So it all depends on the woman's state of mind at the time, and her relationship (if any) to the victim she shot. If there was no relationship between the shooter and the victim, then we have to accept that she felt genuinely threatened and in fear of bodily harm.
 

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
13,256
Reaction score
5,396
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
HOUSTON (KTRK) - Police are investigating after a suspected “peeping Tom” outside a Houston home was shot to death by a woman inside.

A woman in north Houston says she was frightened when she saw a strange man looking into her bedroom window around 11 p.m. Friday night.

Believing she was in danger, she got her rifle and opened fire in self-defense.

Police say the woman fired several shots through her wall, at least one of which apparently hit the suspect in the torso.

Investigators believe the man staggered a short distance then died at the scene.

Police say there’s been no decision yet as to whether any charges will be filed.







AR15, right through the wall of her house.

I don't know if that's enough cause to kill someone over though. She might go to jail. What do you think?

It could even be that the guy was her lover and she decided to murder him for some reason.



.
Firing through a wall. What could go wrong?
 

ASHES

A Person
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
14,603
Reaction score
6,832
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Texas Penal Code
Sec. 9.31
Self-defense

(a)Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor 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
(3)was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b)The use of force against another is not justified:
(1)in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2)to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3)if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4)if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A)the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B)the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5)if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor’s differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A)carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02 (Unlawful Carrying Weapons); or
(B)possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05 (Prohibited Weapons).
(c)The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1)if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2)when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d)The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32 (Deadly Force in Defense of Person), 9.33 (Defense of Third Person), and 9.34 (Protection of Life or Health).
(e)A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f)For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
9,218
Reaction score
9,895
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Unless I saw a weapon, I personally would not be in fear for my life or grievous bodily harm. As I previously posted, I would arm myself and confront the individual to determine their intent, then instruct them to leave the property immediately. However, I'm also not a woman.

The home was clearly posted with No Trespassing, and he was on the property when he was shot. So it all depends on the woman's state of mind at the time, and her relationship (if any) to the victim she shot. If there was no relationship between the shooter and the victim, then we have to accept that she felt genuinely threatened and in fear of bodily harm.

If Lord of Planar's photograph of the house is accurate, the woman's property was surrounded by a chain-link fence with a no-trespassing sign on it meant to keep uninvited persons from wandering onto the property. I think it is more than reasonable for the woman to presume that anyone trespassing on her property by climbing her fence in the middle of the night was out to do her harm. But because this person was not trying to break into her dwelling at the time deadly force was used (though he did trespass on her land), pursuant to the Penal Code @ASHES cited, has her use of deadly force is not automatically presumed reasonable. She will have to demonstrate the reasonableness of her use of deadly force. I am inclined to side with her, but more facts will have to come out.
 
Last edited:

Big Steve

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2021
Messages
1,673
Reaction score
558
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Cases such as these always involve looking at the totality of circumstances to determine whether the use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. If you are awoken in the middle of the night by a trespasser fogging up your bedroom window, you have a far more reasonable claim of fearing for your life than, say, someone who trespasses on your land by driving up to your home during the day and knocking on your door asking for directions.

Of course.

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out...
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
9,218
Reaction score
9,895
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Lots could. That will most certainly be a point against her.

Fear and adrenaline though. Her lawyer can still make a good case, assuming things are as they appear so far.

It might be used in her favor: That is, she was so genuinely in fear for her life that she was not taking careful aim when she was firing. She could then be charged for negligent discharge of a firearm, though.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
48,277
Reaction score
14,116
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Texas Penal Code
If Lord of Planar's photograph of the house is accurate, the woman's property was surrounded by chain-link fence with a no-trespassing sign on it meant to keep uninvited persons from wandering onto the property. I think it is more than reasonable for the woman to presume that anyone trespassing on her property by climbing her fence in the middle of the night was out to do her harm. But because this person was not trying to break into her dwelling at the time deadly force was used (though he did trespass on her land), pursuant to the Penal Code @ASHES cited, has her use of deadly force is not automatically presumed reasonable. She will have to demonstrate the reasonableness of her use of deadly force. I am inclined to side with her, but more facts will have to come out.

Sec. 9.31
Self-defense

(a)Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor 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
(3)was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b)The use of force against another is not justified:
(1)in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2)to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3)if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4)if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A)the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B)the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5)if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor’s differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A)carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02 (Unlawful Carrying Weapons); or
(B)possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05 (Prohibited Weapons).
(c)The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1)if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2)when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d)The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32 (Deadly Force in Defense of Person), 9.33 (Defense of Third Person), and 9.34 (Protection of Life or Health).
(e)A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f)For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Just watch the video in the OP. You will see its accurate.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,465
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If Lord of Planar's photograph of the house is accurate, the woman's property was surrounded by chain-link fence with a no-trespassing sign on it meant to keep uninvited persons from wandering onto the property. I think it is more than reasonable for the woman to presume that anyone trespassing on her property by climbing her fence in the middle of the night was out to do her harm.
That is not an unreasonable assumption.

But because this person was not trying to break into her dwelling at the time deadly force was used (though he did trespass on her land), pursuant to the Penal Code @ASHES cited, has her use of deadly force is not automatically presumed reasonable. She will have to demonstrate the reasonableness of her use of deadly force. I am inclined to side with her, but more facts will have to come out.
My property is also posted, and a bit more aggressively than her No Trespassing sign. Mine says "No Trespassing. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

However, I would still confront the individual to determine their intent before actually shooting anyone. The only purpose of the signage is to make them think twice.
 
Last edited:

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
1,048
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If Lord of Planar's photograph of the house is accurate, the woman's property was surrounded by a chain-link fence with a no-trespassing sign on it meant to keep uninvited persons from wandering onto the property. I think it is more than reasonable for the woman to presume that anyone trespassing on her property by climbing her fence in the middle of the night was out to do her harm. But because this person was not trying to break into her dwelling at the time deadly force was used (though he did trespass on her land), pursuant to the Penal Code @ASHES cited, has her use of deadly force is not automatically presumed reasonable. She will have to demonstrate the reasonableness of her use of deadly force. I am inclined to side with her, but more facts will have to come out.

I also noted crimes other than a class c misdemeanor, which I'm not sure trespassing is considered.
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
21,752
Reaction score
10,441
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,781
Reaction score
1,957
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If Lord of Planar's photograph of the house is accurate, the woman's property was surrounded by a chain-link fence with a no-trespassing sign on it meant to keep uninvited persons from wandering onto the property. I think it is more than reasonable for the woman to presume that anyone trespassing on her property by climbing her fence in the middle of the night was out to do her harm. But because this person was not trying to break into her dwelling at the time deadly force was used (though he did trespass on her land), pursuant to the Penal Code @ASHES cited, has her use of deadly force is not automatically presumed reasonable. She will have to demonstrate the reasonableness of her use of deadly force. I am inclined to side with her, but more facts will have to come out.
Did the woman in question read through the Penal Code in question? If so did she analyze each section and subsection of the law?
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,781
Reaction score
1,957
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Unless I saw a weapon, I personally would not be in fear for my life or grievous bodily harm. As I previously posted, I would arm myself and confront the individual to determine their intent, then instruct them to leave the property immediately. However, I'm also not a woman.

The home was clearly posted with No Trespassing, and he was on the property when he was shot. So it all depends on the woman's state of mind at the time, and her relationship (if any) to the victim she shot. If there was no relationship between the shooter and the victim, then we have to accept that she felt genuinely threatened and in fear of bodily harm.
It's also unknown (to me anyhow) if she had any children which would be a game changer.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
76,444
Reaction score
32,355
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You've always struck me as a person (there's others) that would rather let themselves be severely injured or worse than fight back.
Many of them present as the type of people that would say "I'm so proud you arent defending yourself with a gun, honey!" as their wife or kids were getting raped.
 

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
13,256
Reaction score
5,396
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Lots could. That will most certainly be a point against her.

Fear and adrenaline though. Her lawyer can still make a good case, assuming things are as they appear so far.
Let's see if they determine the victim was in fact a criminal.
Clip an electrical wire or worse a water pipe.
Or hit someone outside that wasn't involved in a crime.
 

natman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
516
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
When did he say "shoot through the door?" Please provide an actual quote.
V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is–I think most scholars would say–is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,465
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Pretty good chance but as yet we don't know.

Depends on the rifle and bullet. As of yet we don't know shit.
We do know that she used a rifle capable of penetrating an exterior wall and killed a human standing outside. That would suggest something bigger than a .22 LR. If she is blindly shooting through a wall and already killed one individual as a result, who is to say she could not have killed someone else other than her intended target?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
48,277
Reaction score
14,116
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We do know that she used a rifle capable of penetrating an exterior wall and killed a human standing outside. That would suggest something bigger than a .22 LR. If she is blindly shooting through a wall and already killed one individual as a result, who is to say she could not have killed someone else other than her intended target?
I'm thinking a hunting rifle like a 308 or 270.

I hope she got her peeping tom tag first, or she might get a ticket.
 
Top Bottom