It sounds like he should have shot the prosecutor...

Most people would likely be sorely tempted to take a pot shot at a car carrying people who tried to break in to your house with a crowbar.

This article caused my stereotypes to kick in regarding the residency status of the burglar and the at large accomplice who drove the get-away car.

I don´t think even Texas would allow shooting a fleeing suspect.

To expect the victim to quit going after the perpetrator once the tables have turned goes against human nature.

Sounds like the locals at least have a little sense and are sympathetic to the guy´s situation. Some disagree, but I believe that anyone who attempts to take what belongs to another - no matter what it is - should understand that they no longer deserve the civility we normally treat others with. I REALLY don´t want to go down the UK´s road, as they are apparently expected to stand passively by while they are robbed blind or assaulted - not gonna happen here.

Drag ´em back onto your property and give them your throw down.

Carefully wrap it in their cold dead hand.

We have rules and procedures for these things in Texas.

Deadly force is only permitted in defense of yourself or another person, or in some states to prevent a person from entering your home or vehicle. This is what I teach in CCW courses.

Once the criminal is fleeing and no longer a threat, you must stop your use of deadly force. I am a GREAT supporter of self defense and CCW is the solution to much of our crime problems. HOWEVER - there are reasonable limits on deadly force that are necessary for a civil society.

In some cases, for example Miami in the 80s and 90s, the rules were bent by the jury pool because they were sick of the rampant violent crime. Then and there, it was basically if the dead guy had a rap sheet and the shooter did not, end of review by the prosecutor because he knew that the jury pool would not convict a honest person who shot a bad guy, regardless of circumstances.

Most jurisdictions today are far from that violent mess, and we demand more care in application of deadly force. In MUCH of the country, this knucklehead would spend a good bit of time in jail, which would be wrong. I think he got fairly treated for stepping WELL over the line.

May the judge suffer gravely from a home invasion.

If he was a cop, he would have received a commendation.

Once the criminal is fleeing and no longer a threat, you must stop your use of deadly force.

Except when the police fire at a moving vehicle. If they can do it then so should I be able to.

Let this be a lesson. Next time, wait in silence, allow them to break in and then blow them away.

Nobody is going to question that!

That´s exactly what we were taught in the CC class I took recently, #7. If you are in fear of your life or those of others shooting is justified, shooting at someone who is running away isn´t. Leave that sort of thing to the police.
Mrs. Cow

To my mind, the problem with shooting at a fleeing car is that if you miss, that bullet is going to go some place. There is no telling where. Whatever damage you cause could be costly, especially if you wound or kill a neighbor.

The advice by #6 to tamper with evidence and lie to the police is not "how they do it in Texas". It´s a felony, and the police can easily prove that they are being lied to in this kind of situation.

Once you or the person you are trying to protect is no longer in danger of imminent bodily harm, you cannot shoot in self defense. It´s the cops´ job to find the perp, charge them, etc. not the citizen´s.

I frequently carry concealed and shoot regularly. But I do not support firing shots at a perp who is fleeing. Bullets can penetrate several rooms of a home, injuring or killing the occupants. If you miss the perp, as is likely, you have no idea where that bullet will end up. Firing wild shots is absolutely reckless endangerment of everyone in the area of the shooter.

Mr. Niederhauser was treated leniently and given a big break by the judge. He seems to generally be a law abiding individual and fortunately didn´t hit anyone. I´m glad he was treated leniently. I hope he pays attention in the concealed carry class. It doesn´t sound from the article that he got the message yet.

Buffalo Springfield warned us a long time ago:

There´s something happenin´ here
What it is ain´t exactly clear
There´s a man with a gun over there
Tellin´ me I got to beware

I think it´s time we stop, children
What´s that sound?
Everybody look what´s goin´ down

We are being conditioned and increasingly restrained, folks!

FTA: "Niederhauser, a legal gun owner, had a concealed weapons permit for the .357 ... he used to intercept the burglars.

"He was charged with two counts of reckless endangerment.

"At a plea deal hearing,
He apologized for firing the shots,
Agreed to pay a $700 fine,
Take a weapons class, and
Forfeit the weapon he used.

[An apology, $700 to the state, insulting need to take a weapons class...and confiscation of his weapon!]

Who was the victim in this case? Think he´ll ever get a CCP again? Did you think of George Zimmerman when you read this story? [You should have.]

"Many are calling this arrest an unnerving warning of a precedent that will disallow other residents from taking similar actions in self defense."

This is frightening, folks.

I know you can´t or shouldn´t shoot somebody in the back. But what is forboding about this is that guns are going to be confiscated from U.S. citizens. It will happen here.

The irony is that he probably would have had a lesser sentence if he didn´t have CCW. By virtue of his training he is held to a higher standard.

How do I know they are no longer a threat?!! A person breaks into my house and I don´t have the right to apprehend the criminal? As far as I´m concerned, you are a threat to my life until you are captured. How do I know they don´t have a weapon in the car down the street? How do I know they won´t be back for revenge?

I don´t see why they are taking his gun. That is just wrong. They are making him pay a fine AND give up an expensive weapon??? I am so sick of government and the stupid laws. Okay, maybe it was reckless but in the old days, the cops would have just slapped him on the wrist and said "don´t do it again". Nowadays, we have become so over-regulated and over-controlling that people defending themselves are now the criminals. Sick

There used to be a law that it was not illegal to shoot a perpetrator fleeing after committing a felony. I remember reading about it after a son shot a guy fleeing from a break-in at his mother´s house, after several past crimes where he had done a home invasion on her. This was in California - times have sure changed.

To me it´s common sense that someone who has committed a felony on you shouldn´t be allowed to run free to victimize again, as if it were a children´s game. It´s sad to hear the repeated warnings to CCW holders, but the restriction is current law in most places.