Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 78

Thread: TX - Burglar shot through the door, don't leave it up to the parents.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    http://www.terrelltribune.com/articl...ews/news02.txt
    An elderly couple remains shaken by a Monday incident where seven people threatened to kill them as they tried to break through the couple's front door - to the homeowner's son shooting through the door as it was coming off the hinges.

    “We don't want any trouble,” said Shirley Ashby, 67, who has lived in the home her entire life. “We don't know what brought this on.”

    Four people are being held on $50,000 bonds in the Kaufman County Law Enforcement Center in connection with the incident on the 1300 block of County Road 319. One was shot in the right foot during the attempted thief.

    According to Kaufman County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Bryan Francis, Glen Lilly, 18 of Terrell; Candace Beam, 20, of Terrell; Jonathon Emory, 18, of Terrell; and Lloyd Gipson, 36, of Forney were arraigned Wednesday morning and are charged with attempted burglary with intent to commit another felony.

    A warrant was issued for a 31-year-old Hunt County woman in connection with the attempted burglary. Two other suspects are at large.

    Francis said the homeowners called 911 at approximately 10 p.m. Monday when a group tried to break in. The family was watching television when they heard a commotion outside.

    As the door was coming down, the homeowner's son, Don Ashby, grabbed a shotgun and shot through the bottom of the door striking Lily in the right foot.

    “I didn't know anybody had been shot,” Ashby said.

    After the shooting, Ashby got a call from Lily's mother who reportedly told him she didn't appreciate him shooting her son.

    Shirley Ashby told the teen's mother she was sorry, but that the man shouldn't have been trying to break into their home.

    “They were screaming they were going to kill us,” Ashby said. “I'm so sorry I hurt another human being, but I was protecting my family.”

    Trying to break in a house and the mother tellshim she doesn't appreciate him shooting her son. I dount that they appreciated him breaking down their door.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    Crikey. She should be thankful that he didn't aim higher, which he certainly should have under the circumstances.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    After the shooting, Ashby got a call from Lily's mother who reportedly told him she didn't appreciate him shooting her son.






    Trying to break in a house and the mother tellshim she doesn't appreciate him shooting her son. I dount that they appreciated him breaking down their door.
    Once again the criminal commiting the crime is now the victim. Not the person who the crime was being commited against.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    326

    Post imported post

    I hope the Castle Doctrine in Texas prevents all civil liability!! Otherwise the "caring mother" of the burglar would sue the homeowners.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Those 7 people were very lucky indeed that he didn't pump several rounds through the door at chest level.

    edit: I agree with Crimsontide, too.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Anyone else concerned that the son shot through a door? Or are we too busy patting ourselves on the back about how macho it is to shoot people?

    There are few instances where shooting through a door is justified. From the facts we have, this isn't one of them. "Warning shots" are best left to the movies. If the door was breached, by all means the son had a right to use deadly force to stop an immediate threat. But using deadly force to defend against pounding on a door is little better than shooting someone who yells "I'm gonna kill you". Unfortunately, with overly-permissive "castle doctrine" laws, we end up emboldening people to use any opportunity to use a gun to settle a dispute, regardless of whether or not there was a real threat to the homeowner's life.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Anyone else concerned that the son shot through a door? Or are we too busy patting ourselves on the back about how macho it is to shoot people?

    There are few instances where shooting through a door is justified. From the facts we have, this isn't one of them. "Warning shots" are best left to the movies. If the door was breached, by all means the son had a right to use deadly force to stop an immediate threat. But using deadly force to defend against pounding on a door is little better than shooting someone who yells "I'm gonna kill you". Unfortunately, with overly-permissive "castle doctrine" laws, we end up emboldening people to use any opportunity to use a gun to settle a dispute, regardless of whether or not there was a real threat to the homeowner's life.
    imperialism2024 Is Correct. Remember rule #4 "Know your target and what is behind it." When the door falls, so do they, but not until.

    Tarzan

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Forest, VA USA, ,
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    I don't think I would shoot through my door if they were pounding on it. (definetley wouldn't!)

    However if it was coming off the hinges, as stated in the story, I just might. I doubt someone is going through all that trouble to tell me I left my sprinkler on.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    occva wrote:
    I don't think I would shoot through my door if they were pounding on it. (definetley wouldn't!)

    However if it was coming off the hinges, as stated in the story, I just might. I doubt someone is going through all that trouble to tell me I left my sprinkler on.
    If you remember the 4 rules of gun safety then it is easy to know what to do.

    1.Treat every gun as it is loaded

    2. Never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy.

    3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you have identified your target.

    4. Know your target and what is behind it.

    Be ready and don't jump the gun.


    Tarzan

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Burglar shot thjrough the door nut leave it up to the parents.
    Fot those wanting to leave decisions up to the parents.
    This statement goes back to a discussion we had about the age at which a person should be allowed to carry a gun.

    Some of us felt that the age should be left up to the parents, who are the best judge of the maturity of their children.

    In all things there should bo choice and accountability.

    If we don't chose wisley we should pay the penelty for that choice.


    Tarzan

  11. #11
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    occva wrote:
    I don't think I would shoot through my door if they were pounding on it. (definetley wouldn't!)

    However if it was coming off the hinges, as stated in the story, I just might. I doubt someone is going through all that trouble to tell me I left my sprinkler on.
    Exactly, why would you want to wait until they're "in" your house? If the door is coming off the hinges and they're yelling that they're going to kill you what are you waiting for?

    If they burst through the door you could get one, maybe two shots off before they are on you. If there were four of them as I believe the story stated, you'd be in trouble.

    I'm not so sure a warning shot is wrong in this situation. If you yell that you have a gun and they continue their attempts to break the door it may just be because they don't believe that you actually do have a gun. In which case you would be forced to shoot them if they made it through. But, if they hear the gun, then they know you really do have one and may decide to go elsewhere. And at that point if they don't you can be assured you're dealing with some really crazy bad guys :^).

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    acrimsontide wrote:
    I hope the Castle Doctrine in Texas prevents all civil liability!! Otherwise the "caring mother" of the burglar would sue the homeowners.
    It does if it is a good shoot:

    Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 83.001

    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
    defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
    that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
    justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
    Chapter 9 Penal Code

    Regarding shooting through a door--I think one is justified in assuming that a person has foul intent if they are in the process of breaking down your door;we also don't know if there may be glass panes in the door in question that allowed the homeowners to see who was outside.

    In terms of rule 4 (know your target and what is beyond it) in this case, this is the address where the incident occurred (click on Aerial Image). Obviously, no neighbors to worry about being hit by a stray round, especially using a shotgun.


  13. #13
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    Or better with a satellite image use this link:

    http://tinyurl.com/yuppk2

  14. #14
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    hirundo82 wrote:
    In terms of rule 4 (know your target and what is beyond it) in this case, this is the address where the incident occurred (click on Aerial Image). Obviously, no neighbors to worry about being hit by a stray round, especially using a shotgun.
    I disagree! If I must shoot to defend myself against harm and my (even halfway) responsible shot injures an innocent bystander then it is the BG's guilt!!! The same principle applies to a cop who in rightfully chasing a criminal in a high speed pursuit causes injury to an innocent bystander it is the guy he was chasing that is charged!

    Now it would be different if you "knew" that your shot would definately injure someone. But I'd say that is rarely the case.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    hirundo82 wrote:
    In terms of rule 4 (know your target and what is beyond it) in this case, this is the address where the incident occurred (click on Aerial Image). Obviously, no neighbors to worry about being hit by a stray round, especially using a shotgun.
    I disagree! If I must shoot to defend myself against harm and my (even halfway) responsible shot injures an innocent bystander then it is the BG's guilt!!! The same principle applies to a cop who in rightfully chasing a criminal in a high speed pursuit causes injury to an innocent bystander it is the guy he was chasing that is charged!

    Now it would be different if you "knew" that your shot would definately injure someone. But I'd say that is rarely the case.
    I believe you're referring to the felony murder rule. If someone is committing a felony and someone dies as a result of it, and it is a reasonably foreseeable result, the felon is charged with the murder.

    There is some degree of reasonability attached to the responders to the felony. Otherwise, LEOs could conduct a drug bust by cluster-bombing a city block or two, and charging the participants with all the deaths of the bystanders.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    I disagree! If I must shoot to defend myself against harm and my (even halfway) responsible shot injures an innocent bystander then it is the BG's guilt!!! The same principle applies to a cop who in rightfully chasing a criminal in a high speed pursuit causes injury to an innocent bystander it is the guy he was chasing that is charged!

    Now it would be different if you "knew" that your shot would definately injure someone. But I'd say that is rarely the case.
    Even if I wasn't held legally responsible, I imagine I'd still feel guilty if a round I fired injured an innocent person.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    If they had been laying dead INSIDE the house with the door busted it would have been better from a legal standpoint. From a practical standpoint, if he had waited until they were in, one or more of them would have been dead. Personally, before the door comes completely down, I'm going to want to know the gun is running properly and havesome use of the door as abatus to slow the multiple attackers. He did not know if he was facing multiple ARMED attackers. I would have assumed so because of their brazenness. I cannot believe the armchair quarterbacking. I personally don't even expect perfection from the police. Ace

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    "As the door was coming down, the homeowner's son, Don Ashby, grabbed a shotgun and shot through the bottom of the door striking Lily in the right foot."

    So, the door was being broken down, and he shot through part of the door?

    Sounds good enough to me.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  19. #19
    Regular Member mmdkyoung123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Independence, and Kansas City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Several members have criticized the son for his attempts to protect his family which amazes me. There argument seems to be that "he Should have fired a warning shot" Based on the story, I would say that he did, or atleast fired a shot with the direct intention of NOT killing anyone. Otherwise why would he shoot the bottom of the door and hit the Perp in the foot??? Personally, if multiple people are trying to force their way into your home, with verbal threats of killing you when they get in, and the door is in the process of coming down, I am firing. Why would I wait for multiple, possibly armed, attackers to be inside my house? I would probably get a good shot on the first one, and maybe even the second, but what happens when the third and fourth guy shoot me? Who is there to protect my family then???. I think the son did a great job in a truly stressful and frightening time.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    mmdkyoung123 wrote:
    Several members have criticized the son for his attempts to protect his family which amazes me. There argument seems to be that "he Should have fired a warning shot" Based on the story, I would say that he did, or atleast fired a shot with the direct intention of NOT killing anyone. Otherwise why would he shoot the bottom of the door and hit the Perp in the foot??? Personally, if multiple people are trying to force their way into your home, with verbal threats of killing you when they get in, and the door is in the process of coming down, I am firing. Why would I wait for multiple, possibly armed, attackers to be inside my house? I would probably get a good shot on the first one, and maybe even the second, but what happens when the third and fourth guy shoot me? Who is there to protect my family then???. I think the son did a great job in a truly stressful and frightening time.
    Only one person on this thread so far has advocated firing a "warning shot". "Warning shots" are generally taboo for self-defense, as they tend to make people both legally and tactically disadvantaged. The primary argument here is that he was wrong for shooting at something he couldn't see. If someone is try to break down my front door and I shoot through the door and miss, that round is going through a small park across the street and, beyond that, a row of single family homes. I imagine very few of us live in concrete-walled apartment buildings or at least 5 miles from any other people... therefore, it's a bad idea to shoot through a door when you can't see through it.

    Take a re-read of the thread

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    mmdkyoung123 wrote:
    Several members have criticized the son for his attempts to protect his family which amazes me. There argument seems to be that "he Should have fired a warning shot" Based on the story, I would say that he did, or atleast fired a shot with the direct intention of NOT killing anyone. Otherwise why would he shoot the bottom of the door and hit the Perp in the foot??? Personally, if multiple people are trying to force their way into your home, with verbal threats of killing you when they get in, and the door is in the process of coming down, I am firing. Why would I wait for multiple, possibly armed, attackers to be inside my house? I would probably get a good shot on the first one, and maybe even the second, but what happens when the third and fourth guy shoot me? Who is there to protect my family then???. I think the son did a great job in a truly stressful and frightening time.
    Only one person on this thread so far has advocated firing a "warning shot". "Warning shots" are generally taboo for self-defense, as they tend to make people both legally and tactically disadvantaged. The primary argument here is that he was wrong for shooting at something he couldn't see. If someone is try to break down my front door and I shoot through the door and miss, that round is going through a small park across the street and, beyond that, a row of single family homes. I imagine very few of us live in concrete-walled apartment buildings or at least 5 miles from any other people... therefore, it's a bad idea to shoot through a door when you can't see through it.

    Take a re-read of the thread
    You are so right on this one.



    On another note, I have had my own personal experience with bad guys and multiple attackers. In my experience all the situations were un-armed, but I think that the same principles apply.

    In general bullies are cowards and they attack people they perceive as weak and non-combative. In at least three instances whereI have been forced to defend myself from multiple attackers, I have done the same thing.... I laid into the biggest guy of the group, the one logic would dictate, I should have the most to fear. In every instance the guys wanted to hurt me, but they were not willing to get hurt themselves to do it. They retreated, cut their losses and looked for an easier target.

    I am of the opinion that armed bad guys, meeting armed resistance would act the same. The door falls and you and your 12 gauge, or your .45, or your .38, or even your .22put holes in the first couple of guys you see, and the rest turn tail and head for greener pastures.

    The logic is this; They operate on immediate. They want immediate gratification with out working for it, and that is why they want to take what they want from you.

    Immediate has a flip side; They understand immediate punishment too. If you have a gun, even a .22, and you start shooting they could die immediately. They don't want that, even if they have a bigger gun. They run because running changes immediate to maybe. Maybe they are caught, maybe they go to trial, maybe they go to jail, and so on. When it comes to punishment they don't want immediate.

    Just my thoughts.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    Well, folks, there are a few things being overlooked here.

    1. These were elderly people and there were multiple young perps -- disparity of force.

    2. The weapon was a shotgun -- not much if any danger at allof damage from a stray bullet. That is the beauty of a shotgun for self defense.

    3. This is in Texas. In Texas, you can employ deadly force to defend your property. That door is their property.

    4. The vocal threat of death causes fear.

    5. Texas has not only the castle doctrine but the stand your ground law.

    Sounds like a good shoot to me. I find no fault whatsoever in the shooter's actions.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Colt 45 wrote:
    Well, folks, there are a few things being overlooked here.

    1. These were elderly people and there were multiple young perps -- disparity of force.

    2. The weapon was a shotgun -- not much if any danger at allof damage from a stray bullet. That is the beauty of a shotgun for self defense.

    3. This is in Texas. In Texas, you can employ deadly force to defend your property. That door is their property.

    4. The vocal threat of death causes fear.

    5. Texas has not only the castle doctrine but the stand your ground law.

    Sounds like a good shoot to me. I find no fault whatsoever in the shooter's actions.
    Take a look at http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm. Not quite so accurate...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Colt 45 wrote:
    Well, folks, there are a few things being overlooked here.

    1. These were elderly people and there were multiple young perps -- disparity of force.

    2. The weapon was a shotgun -- not much if any danger at allof damage from a stray bullet. That is the beauty of a shotgun for self defense.

    3. This is in Texas. In Texas, you can employ deadly force to defend your property. That door is their property.

    4. The vocal threat of death causes fear.

    5. Texas has not only the castle doctrine but the stand your ground law.

    Sounds like a good shoot to me. I find no fault whatsoever in the shooter's actions.
    Take a look at http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm. Not quite so accurate...
    Huh??? (BTW -- the boxotruth address does not work)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    good shoot

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •