You are being pinged because of your interest in every-day citizens using firearms to save life and limb. Freep-mail if you want on/off.
Visit the Armed Citizen Archives!
Posted on 07/15/2006 8:51:05 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
A home invasion leads to a shootout in East Austin leaving one man dead, two others wounded.
It happened on the 6100 block of Duchess in a neighborhood off of MLK Boulevard and Highway 183 just after 2 a.m. Friday.
Detectives just took down the crime tape at the house, but they have a mess on their hands with three crime scenes, three people involved and one man dead and two others hospitalized.
Neighbors woke up to police dogs, flashing lights and a murder scene.
"I only heard gun shots, and then I heard people fighting and I didn't realize that they were gun shots. Nothing like this has ever happened here. Tis neighborhood has always been peaceful," neighbor Lorenzo Torres said.
Police say two men forced their way into the house and got into a gun battle with the man inside the home. The victim suffered life threatening wounds.
The suspects escaped one jumped through the back yards and collapsed in a neighbors yard. The second suspect was found dead about a block away.
I love a (sort of) happy ending. Too bad the guy was seriously injured while defending his home.
This is a good example of why "AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY". But the stinking socialists want to disarm you for another reason -- they are worried about being the target of the reason the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights!!!!
Murder? The way I read it, the victim has life-threatening wounds, but he's not dead. Now the criminals, the ones who broke into his home, at least one of them is dead, but that's not murder. That was the result of the victim trying to defend himself.
Must not have lived long in East Austin.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Must have moved in that evening.
Then it's the exception instead of the rule.
The service company my husband works for discourages any of their people from going into east Austin after dark.
---
Kudos to the homeowner and prayers for his speedy recovery!
Prayers for a speedy recovery for the victim. Congratulations to him for taking out at least one of the bad guys.
Ping
This kind of crime control sure cuts down on repeat offenders!!!!!
LOL! I agree with both of you.
We live in a sparsely populated area of the Hill country where hunting is common.
Our neighborhood was all a-twitter last night because the law had been called for 'some guy walking down the road with a shotgun'. Two Sheriffs officers, a local city officer and Game Warden all responded.
My husband and I were both amazed this caused such a panic since no one ever mentioned that he'd threatened anyone.... he was just walking down the road.
Privately, we had to wonder exactly which country our neighbors thought they lived in.
:-)
This is what one would call great gun control. Center mass. Good night nurse.
Don't get too carried away with this "homeowner." The stories I heard locally was that these people were involved in a some gang violence gone bad recently. It was NOT a quiet pleasant all-american neighborhood!
the good part of town, I'm sure.
For exactly this articles reason, it is always better to be prepared for anything.
Drug haven is in that part of town. I try to stay west of IH 35. That was on the east side close to the old Mueller Airport site.
Under the law in our great state, the surviving criminal could be charged with capital murder in the death of his partner in crime.
Yep, The good guy don't always get out of this kind of situation uninjured but, at least, he's alive! That is all you can pray for sometimes!
My prayers for the homeowner will join many others, I'm sure!
Like a posted earlier, don't get too carried away. This doesn't sound like a "good ol boy" exercising his "2nd Amendment" rights against the "bad guy." Sounds like derelicts all-round.
By Miguel Liscano AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, July 15, 2006
When police officers arrived at the far East Austin home early Friday morning, they found chaos and carnage.
...
Back at the house where it happened, investigators found shell casings in the front yard, a handgun lying under a broken front window and blood streaking a neighbor's fence, according to an arrest affidavit.
Police said they're still sorting out what sparked the 2 a.m. gun battle inside the house, where women and children ducked into closets and hid behind locked bedroom doors until the shooting stopped.
But they think it started when two men who knew someone in the house broke in, Lt. Pete Morin said.
"The individuals were associated with one another, one way or the other," Morin said. "We feel the motive was robbery."
Morin said a search of the home uncovered narcotics, but he did not reveal how much or what kind of drugs were found.
Police charged Christopher Neil Coleman, 26, with burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault, a first-degree felony punishable by up to life in prison. He is being held in the Travis County Jail with bail set at $50,000.
Coleman suffered a gunshot wound and was taken to Brackenridge Hospital with injuries that were not considered life-threatening.
The other suspect, whose name has not been released, died of gunshot wounds after fleeing the home, Morin said.
Police said that at least one person in the house fired a weapon but they didn't know who. No one in the house could identify who shot the intruders, according to the affidavit.
Alejandro Castelan, 25, who lived in the house with his mother and other family members, was taken to Brackenridge with life-threatening injuries, though Morin said his condition was upgraded Friday afternoon.
Police said no one else in the house was injured.
Morin said he's unsure how many people were in the home when the shooting started but added that there were at least five adults and several children.
According to the affidavit, here's how events unfolded:
Rolanda Castelan, Alejandro Castelan's mother, told police that she was awakened about 2 a.m. by a loud bang at the front door, then saw two men in the living room. She said she began screaming for her son.
Shannon Castelan, Alejandro Castelan's wife, said her mother-in-law's screams woke her. She told police that one of the men who had broken in ran past her and began wrapping Rolanda Castelan's head and mouth with tape.
When the shooting started, Shannon Castelan crawled into a closet with her daughter until the shots stopped.
Sara Garcia, who also lives in the home, said she heard at least 13 shots in all.
Rolanda Castelan said that her son chased one man out the front door and that she later found Alejandro bleeding from the chest. She called 911 and told police her home had been robbed.
Police found Coleman bleeding in a nearby back yard.
Neighbor David Dudley saw Coleman run through his yard, displayed a gun and ordered him to stop.
...
Public records show Alejandro Castelan was accused of domestic assault in 1999 and pleaded no contest, spending two days in jail. He also pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in 2003 and spent nine months in jail.
Police said that at least one person in the house fired a weapon but they didn't know who. No one in the house could identify who shot the intruders, according to the affidavit.
*(Thanks to the domestic assault conviction, Alejandro was not allowed to possess a firearm, even though he needed one on this day.)*
Alejandro Castelan, 25, who lived in the house with his mother and other family members, was taken to Brackenridge with life-threatening injuries, though Morin said his condition was upgraded Friday afternoon.
I read drug deal gone bad. Guy beats his wife and lives with parents. Kids exposed to gunfire with drugs in house. I don't see a hero here.
Ah ha! I knew it but didn't want to knee-jerk too soon.
Mostly, I agree. I didn't call him a hero.
On the other hand, he did stand up for his family, and rather effectively. He may not be a good guy, but he ain't all bad.
I don't read it as a drug deal. More like targets of opportunity. The perps were looking to score. They might have had a history with him, or not.
I'm considering the possibility that Alejandro is on the verge of going straight. If so, God bless him.
I'm not entirely sure how to read the presence of drugs. If I were the DA, I'd be tempted to say the invaders dropped them in the scuffle.
Never a good sign...
An optimist, and generous of you to boot. Cheers!
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The
justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use
of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by
the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious
bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the
circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he
installs the device.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept.
1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
" But the stinking socialists want to disarm you for another reason -- they are worried about being the target of the reason the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights!!!!"
Exactly!
Some conservatives believe drugs should be legalized. I have a simple argument against legalization. Just look how many Americans voted for Gore : )
Of course not, but that doesn't make everyone who lives there a scumbag. Just means they have way more than their share of scumbags.
Actually I took a look at the map. The location is definitely out beyond the "worst" part of town. It's possible that the burglars came out from closer in of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.