SAPD: Man defends girlfriend; shoots robbery suspects

[branford]

23. If the robbers drove away, it would still be perfectly legal to pursue them

to their home or anywhere else, with or without a firearm. Criminals do not receive any form of legal immunity from pursuit from their victims during their escape.

The laws of self-defense also do not change because a pursuit is initiated. In your hypothetical, if the boyfriend followed the thieves by car to their home, he would still only be able to employ lethal force if reasonably endangered, just as he didn't fire until the thieves turned on him during the actual chase. The boyfriend would not be able to break into or trespass upon private property, but could wait and observe them on public property or, if allowed, other private property.

Your really have no understanding of basic criminal law and the rules of self-defense, regardless of whether or not a firearm is involved, including the fact that in some localities, such as Texas, lethal force is permitted to stop property crimes. You're hatred of guns is blinding you to centuries of jurisprudence in both liberal and conservative jurisdictions.

Lastly, the only "stupidity" of display was that of the thieves. They should never have turned on the boyfriend, were lucky they survived the encounter, and hopefully will display better judgment in the future.

The efforts defending repeat, often violent, criminals, and then trying to criminalize innocent victims, all because of a dislike of firearms, is one of the reasons for the failure of gun control as well as increasing numbers of people carrying firearms for defense.