The shooting happened at 3:42 a.m. in the 100 block of Tina’s Trail in Martindale. The sheriff’s office reported a homeowner had “confronted a suspicious vehicle parked outside the residence.” According to an incident report, a gray 2016 four-door Audi was towed from the scene.
…Turner told investigators he had woken up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night and on the way, realized a car he didn’t recognize was parked in his driveway next to his truck. Its headlights were off.
Turner told police he ran to get his gun from his room and when he came out the headlights were back on and the car “began to rapidly accelerate in reverse.” According to the affidavit, Turner chased it, hit the driver’s side window with his gun and then shot through it. He ran back inside to call 911, he told police.
With the usual caveat of only having the information provided by this article (actually one with a lot of information compared to the rest) I have to say Turner screwed up big time.
From a “tactical” point of view, why the heck are you breaching the safety of the house and go out in the middle of the night alone by yourself? It does not make sense. This goes under the principle “I am not afraid of the dark, but I am scared what is in the dark.” The victim turned out to be possibly and innocent driver, but could have been part of a Home Invasion crew about to hit your place and you just made the job for them so much easier. You wanna scared trespassers away? Turn on house lights, hit the panic button of your vehicle’ remote and raise unholy hell, jus “never get out of the boat!” to quote Apocalypse Now.
And from the legal standpoint (IANAL WARNING HERE) Turner has little chance to claim self-defense in any of its forms. Again and going only to what’s in the article, he was not in immediate threat, but he went after the victim and even shot when he was retreating. Some may claim that Turner was within the curtilage of his home this Castle Doctrine applies, but the little I have read about the use of curtilage tells me is a risky proposition even when all other elements of self defense may be present.
And the end of the investigation, Turner was arrested and charged with First Degree Murder.
Stick this one in your memory banks because the lessons here are mandatory to be remembered.
Hat Tip Rick N.
With the same disclaimer you give, that it’s a single press report and the odds of it being wrong are pretty high, I agree. I’d say that Turner was in the wrong legally and tactically.
Cannot speak for all states, but it is clear in my state. The moment the threat starts leaving, you lose any self defense argument. It requires an immediate and direct threat to yourself or someone within your mantle of protection. (IANAL statement.)
If this guy lived in my state, he would be charged, and would end up in jail. The criminal code covering use of deadly force is clear. Not a justification unless there is a direct and immediate threat to your life or health. Property crimes, or suspicion, do not warrant use of deadly force.
Lesson to learn here. While most gun owners know the rules and regulations about owning guns, it is equally important to learn about the criminal code. No good knowing that you cannot carry into a liquor store, but have no idea what constitutes justified use.
A friend of mine took a gun course some months ago, which included a full day of classroom instruction. Much of it had to do with NH law relating to justification. They are moderately strict, with some interesting surprises: the fact that arson or attempted arson justifies deadly force is one example. (No other property crimes do, however.)
It’s so in Oregon, too. Arson and attempted arson to occupied buildings justify deadly force responses.
I can imagine, nobody passing that addendum to the statute wanted to be the one to require victims to burn before they could fight back effectively.
Also, if the arson happens at night, a sound sleeper could be dead (probably of smoke inhalation) before they realize anything’s wrong. And arson doesn’t just endanger the one structure; it endangers all structures around it (and the people inside them), too.
Thus, it’s treated as a very serious crime.
Unless the arsonist is affiliated with Antifa. Then it’s no big deal.
In Texas, when the person starts walking away, you better not shoot or chase them. If they’re on your property or your neighbor’s property and stealing, free fire zone. A wrecker was towing a guys vehicle away, he shot the wrecker driver, not charged. But,,,,, he couldn’t live with what he’d done and committed suicide. F-ed up all around.
[IANAL warning]
Turner told police he ran to get his gun from his room and when he came out the headlights were back on and the car “began to rapidly accelerate in reverse.” According to the affidavit, Turner chased it, hit the driver’s side window with his gun and then shot through it.
So the car and driver were exiting the scene and not an immediate threat?
Also: How long is your driveway that a car “rapidly accelerat[ing] in reverse” is still on your property by the time you can catch up with it, on foot?
In my AO, most driveways are just a little longer than the cars parked in them, maybe 5-10 feet, depending on the car. “Rapidly accelerat[ing] in reverse” puts you completely on the street — IOW, outside the curtilage — in about two seconds. (I’d barely be off the front porch in two seconds, let alone around the garage and past my own car to where a second, “suspicious” car would be.)
At that point, when the “suspicious” car is off the driveway, even if your state’s Castle Doctrine includes the curtilage, the homeowner becomes the aggressor when he keeps chasing into a public street.