A San Antonio homeowner, Johnathon Vasquez, 32, faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after allegedly shooting a woman on his property Saturday morning. The case, reported by Fox San Antonio, has sparked a debate among locals about the rights of property owners to defend themselves and their homes under Texas law.
According to police, Vasquez was working on his car outside his West Side residence when he saw a woman, whom he had previously noticed peering into neighbors’ yards, step onto his property. Vasquez reportedly instructed the woman to leave, but she refused and walked toward the door of his home.
Police say Vasquez retrieved a firearm from his glovebox, warned the woman that he was armed and, again, demanded she leave. When she continued advancing, Vasquez allegedly shot her in the chest. The woman survived and was hospitalized, but the incident has people talking about the application of self-defense laws in Texas with many people supporting Vasquez and others, probably surprisingly to this audience, actually saying he went too far.
Legal Complexities of Using Deadly Force
Texas law allows for the use of deadly force in certain situations, including the defense of property, but the standards are strict. Criminal defense attorney Shannon Locke explained that deadly force must be “immediately necessary” to prevent specific crimes, such as burglary, robbery, or aggravated robbery, or to stop “theft during the nighttime” or “criminal mischief during the nighttime.”
“It’s not clear cut,” Locke told Fox San Antonio. “You have to be absolutely certain that you have to do this immediately to prevent something worse from happening to you.”
Locke also highlighted the potential consequences of using deadly force, stating, “If you’re going to shoot somebody, you have to be willing to go to jail. It has to be so necessary that you’re willing to take that risk.”
Divided Public Opinion
The incident has sparked divided opinions online. Supporters of Vasquez’s actions argue that he was within his rights to protect his property and deter a potential threat.
“I call bs day or night if someone is trying to enter [your] home, especially near [your] door after being asked to leave not once but twice… She obviously saw [the gun] and apparently still refused to leave so she was a danger,” Crystal Marie posted on Facebook.
Others questioned whether the use of deadly force was justified in this case.
“From what I read in the story, it’s not a case of self-defense, she was unarmed, she wasn’t threatening to kill him, and he is a big strong man, there wasn’t any need to shoot her in the chest, there were other non-lethal ways he could have used to handle the situation,” Matt Ganshow argued on the same thread.
A Reminder for Gun Owners
This case underscores the importance of understanding state self-defense laws and the legal risks involved in using deadly force. While Texas has robust protections for property owners, each situation is judged on its unique circumstances. Responsible gun owners should ensure they are well-versed in these laws to make informed decisions in high-stress situations no matter where they live. If you can get arrested protecting your home in Texas, you can damn near expect to get arrested almost anywhere else.
See the full Fox San Antonio interview with attorney Shannon Locke:
Based on the limited information in the article, he lacked justification for using deadly force. My opinion could change with more details, but the story lacks information. How far was she from the door, for example? How close she was to him is another. Generally speaking, using deadly force alone is not justifiable for protecting property. Texas is an exception, but that is strictly limited. The left will blow this up as another reason to restrict us.
Another article infers the perp and other men were likely casing the neighborhood. Three thoughts: 1. She refused to cease. (It appears the 45 year old perp wasn’t told “no” often enough during her formative years.) 2. Why would a victim allow a perp to get into their home, likely gain access to any other type of weapon that may be accessible (if perp was not armed), or to permit a situation that could likely escalate into a barricade or hostage status? 3. The perp is probably is “a lefty.”
This case Is a no-brainer.
There Are two types of force, deadly, and non-deadly.
In every state in the union, you are not allowed to shoot a trespasser.
You are allowed to use only non-deadly force to remove a trespasser on your property.
Only if the trespasser escalates to a deadly force response, can you use deadly force on a trespasser.
It’s that simple.
You know nothing about TX self-defense laws. Period.
I you use “non-deadly” force YOU are moron.
1. obviously were not actually threatened
2. setting yourself up for lawsuit.
Only a deranged person advances into a firearm while breaking the law (trespass). An obviously deranged person is a threat even if (at the moment) any weapon his/her person is concealed.
Better to have a fence/gate at the property line to reduce the question of curtilage. (NO, you may NOT freely approach MY front door on MY sidewalk).
“In every state in the union, you are not allowed to shoot a trespasser.”
Why not? Especially if they have been put on notice that they are trespassing?
THIS is why we have so much crime. Nobody believes you can do anything about it. And in San Antonio, apparently you can’t.
“You are allowed to use only non-deadly force to remove a trespasser on your property.”
She survived, so it was by definition not deadly.
I know what you’ll say next, and I don’t care. If I’m on that jury, sure…I’ll listen to the evidence. But I’m probably voting “Not Guilty” for him, and “Serves you right” on her.
The problem is that I’ll say that in Voir Dire, and so I’m not usually selected.
The Case of Daniel Penny: Lessons on Self-Defense.
h ttps://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2024/12/27/the-case-of-daniel-penny-lessons-on-self-defense-n2649580
If I shot everyone who I didn’t want on my property I’d be a mass murderer. Then again I’m not a mexican american(?) in Texas. There’s a lot of lunatics wandering around these daze🙄
I see people walking across my property several times a year. They walk past “no trespassing” signs and bypass barb-wire fences to do so. I’m sick of it. The same thing happens to my neighbors. If I give a warning that is ignored, I have the right to take more robust measures to defend my property, but that right has been taken from us.
“I see people walking across my property several times a year. They walk past “no trespassing” signs and bypass barb-wire fences to do so.
Kinda like how the “gun free zone” and “no weapons allowed” signs are obeyed.
You have difficulty understanding the 2nd (IE your unconstitutional GFZ/NWA BS)?
neiowa:
My comment wasin reference to Johnny LeBlanc’s comment about “no trespassing” signs. The comparison between “no trespassing” and GFZ/NWA signs not being obeyed by criminals. Sarcasm.
BTW, I have no problem understanding the 2A; however, I do have problems with some making totally unnecessary comments about persons whom they know nothing about.
Happy New Year.
Being sick of a behavior and having the justification to resort to potentially lethal force are not the same thing.
At what point does a third party have the right to tell you when you are in danger and that a person violating your property constitutes a threat to you and your family? A 6’5″ 270 man passing by my wife and making for the front door constitutes a what? My wife is 5’2″.
Once you violate the law what occurs is you’re resobsibility. Our judicial system has gone crazy. There was a case we were taught in school. A man decided to break into a high school. He climbed to the sixth floor tried to break through the sky lights and fell three stories into a pool. He sued and won. This was insane but our legal system is insane.
Replace the no trespassing signs with active minefield warning signs. Dig a bunch of holes and fill them in (visibly disturbed earth) and place some de-milled ones where they can be seen.
An interesting step 1.
Step 2: Don’t be shocked when a ton of Federal and State resources show up ready for open warfare and, aside from some of the grunts, don’t find this amusing at all.
Just say it was a leftover Halloween lawn decoration motif. After all, people hang fake dead bodies from trees and display bloody medieval weaponry during the latter half of October, amirite?
Two kinds of private property : regular and high crime. If you show the sheriff evidence that more that ___ number of crimes has been committed in ___ amount of time, the sheriff will declare your property a high crime zone. Trespass is then considered prima facie evidence of criminal intent – which will help you immensely in the event of civil or criminal action.
This law only exists in my little fantasy world. It is a good and reasonable idea, and should be in the conversation.
But do they generally leave with a verbal warning?
Nobody is saying you should shoot somebody for walking past a sign. After all, most young people can’t read big words now anyhow, due to the lasting societal scar that is the government school system.
History (kind of?) repeating itself…
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/montana-verdict-stand-ground-law-not-license-kill/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/markus-kaarma-montana-man-convicted-in-german-exchange-students-death/
No enough information. Were there people in the house? Children maybe? What was her apparent state of mind, confused or belligerent? Maybe he has medical issues that prevent the hands on method. Maybe he’s just an asshole.
Right. I know folks who may appear able to take damage in a fight, but due to their health, prior injuries, or age, they are much less capable than they would appear.
They live in their own skin every day. They wake up with the same physical challenges every morning, and they have to deal with them all day long. So it would stand to reason that they would know this about themselves.
They might gravely fear a fall to the ground. A punch to the face could be deadly due to prior concussion history. Or maybe they have really advanced osteoporosis, and know that they have a fragility that would preclude even trying to redirect a woman away from the front door.
We need more information. Until then, I say he’s not guilty.
I’ve said this many times before on TTAG. A property owner should be able to kill a trespasser. Just like the government kills to protect government property, from anyone who is a trespasser.
The libertarians liberals and the left, are big supporters of the Klu Klux Klan. When they walk onto a black person private property. And burning a cross on it.
They call it an act of the 1st amendment. But they don’t support christian bakers.
Now go educate yourself and look up the court cases. The three L’s have never supported ptivate property rights. They are comfortable when private property is violated by a so called “graffiti artist.”
btw
When an American traveled to Singapore. He thought he could violate their laws and social norms. By spraying graffiti onto private property. He was caned for that.
And I recall the three L’s screaming, saying how terrible it was, that he was punished in such a way for that.
I guess these people believe you can travel to another society and violate that countries laws. They have a long history of not supporting private property rights, either in the United States or outside the United States.
I’m in total agreement that we should be able to shoot trespassers, especially if they have been warned and put on notice. Anything the .gov can do, I should be able to do.
I remember that caning case, Chris. The dude was in the wrong. He was not innocent, and he was not unjustly tried or convicted; they had him doing the deed (whatever it was; I’ve long since forgotten).
As I remember it, the caning he received was somewhat more gentle than it customarily would have been. It shouldn’t have been.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
When in Singapore, get caned as the Singaporeans do. If you do a crime for which that is the punishment.
I always thought that James Lindsay was a bit overboard with his “woke Right” thing.
Apparently not.
I don’t believe James Lindsay supports the Second Amendment. I know he doesn’t support the 1st amendment. He supports P orn. But he doesn’t support the 1st amendment.
Um, OK… cool, I guess.
I’m not exactly sure what that has to do with graf “artists” visiting other countries and being subject to corporal punishment, private property, shooting people or the KKK but I’ll take it under advisement nonetheless.
And if traveling to Singapore, leave the bubble gum and chewing gum behind. Possession of gum is a criminal offence.
Don’t even talk about the penalty for drug possession in Singapore.
There aren’t enough details here to make an informed judgement as to whether or not he was justified, especially since unverified opinion offered in response to the original story doesn’t actually add information about the original circumstance(s).
Clearly the cops have reason to think he was not justified and at this point I have no choice but to kind of take them at their word on that.
“If you can get arrested protecting your home in Texas, you can damn near expect to get arrested almost anywhere else.”
There’s the rub. Was he protecting his home? Can he articulate why and how he was doing so? In reality is that, in and of itself, a justification in many circumstances? The nuance of these situations seems lost on many who look at/comment about them.
I’ve pointed out before that from a philosophical point of view, outside some very limited possible cases, shooting people purely over property undermines the entire theory of self-defense. Over time that will lead to PR victories for the other side and enough of those PR victories will undermine the 2A significantly whether you like that or not.
It’s not a popular point of view but the logic is basically airtight and I’ve not seen a rebuttal that doesn’t center on ad hominem, go entirely off topic or offer one of the extremely rare circumstances where this might be the case but do so where such a circumstance is not applicable.
Was he in the wrong on this one? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I absolutely love how you can swear like a sailor without moderation but if you say anything remotely interesting and use a quote from the story you’re going to get modded for hours.
It’s a lovely system that gets more lovely the longer it goes forward.
The degrading of the language and normal social discourse has always been the goal of those who hate the United States. For example swearing in movies used to get you an X rating. Then it was down graded to an R rating. Now it’s been down graded to PG13.
ps
Check out the Karlyn Borysenko YT channel. She has spent a great deal of time showing how James Lindsay is not the man he claims to be.
In fact he maybe one of the biggest academic frauds in history.
I can find a YT or X channel of people drafting off just about anyone and calling them a “grifter” or a “fraud”. Such things are utterly unimpressive to me, as are the self-depreciating people doing it. Rappers have a great term for such behavior, but that’s neither here nor there.
However, even if it’s true that Lindsay a fraud and a grifter (which would be ironic since he’s known for fraud perpetrated against Leftist journals and using said fraud to expose them as being frauds themselves) overall, it doesn’t mean he wrong in his assertions about the authoritarian tendencies of a section of the Right which the Right at large tends to ignore because of tribalism. In this assertion he can’t fail to be correct given the mountain ranges of evidence for the claim.
In that regard, honestly, Lindsay himself is a sidebar and, quite frankly, not a particularly interesting one.
The more interesting discussion is how the Right intentionally blinds itself simply because the Left told it to do so. Which is exactly how the Right ended up where it did, no different from the Left at base but with a different set of policy preferences.
A neat trick that was pulled, and pulled so well that Meerloo himself would be surprised at the efficaciousness of it surviving the many decades that it has.
Reading “Liberal F’ a.s ci.s m” and it’s bibliography in the back of the book, was really quite an eye opener.
The Left has a very well established record of very strict gun control. The “Liberials” however they are defined, have never supported the Second Amendment. People like to say the right wing passed the Mulford Act.
And then they neglect to say the left wing publicly endorsed it and refused to repeal it.
I’m not a utopian. There are no perfect politians. But the Right is much better on the 2A and now better at the 1st amendment too.
If I see an alleged utopia, I wonder what is the dark secret behind the shining facade.
Usually some form of oppression.
So, we’re going to run with the claims of a YT channel about Lindsay but then cite Jonah “excuse me while I work for CNN and MSNBC because I’m so Conservative and they’re the ones who let me prattle on about how endless wars are a good thing as long as my fat ass doesn’t have to fight them” Goldberg?
Pardon me, I need to detox from the iron-y overdose. Hopefully this Deferoxamine works as I wish it was advertised.
You’ll also have to pardon me for saying that I’m hardly impressed that the Right is “better” on the 1/2A given that the other side is, and has been for some time, actively attacking both. What’s next, surgery, hormones and joining the women’s league? Claiming to be more law abiding and a better cook than Dahmer?
Personally, I’m not interested in being better than the worst, I’m interested in a functional Constitutional Republic. It’s highly, highly questionable if the Right can provide that at this point given the fact that their reaction to virtually everything outside their own preapproved tribal narratives is like that of cesium to water, just as it has been for my entire life.
“Well, at least we’re not last and we got to destroy some shit we didn’t like” isn’t an adult reaction to anything and given the overall situation we can’t afford the childlike nonsense mixed with willful blindness that the Right has gleefully engaged in for the past 30 years.
The Right’s not winning because the Left fell on its face. And, if history’s any guide, we’re going to go through another cycle like the 1990’s in Europe where the Left’s unalived like a doornail in 1991, back in full control by 1999 and has basically 25 years of unbroken wins after that because the Right can’t find its ass with both hands.
I can’t imagine feeling threatened by any unarmed woman. Shooting someone always has to be a last resort. I don’t care if it’s on your property or not. How do we know he asked her to leave twice? Is there video and clear audio proof? Are we certain she heard him? Even if she heard him, what was he protecting exactly, foot imprints on his grass? How about locking your doors and calling the police? It’s a woman. Jeez.
Hmmm, six or eight comments got ” disappeared ” that were posted earlier….. glitches or ???
Whole conversation disappeared. Oh, dear…
The major takeaway, as noted in another comment,is “know the law”.
My “takeaway” is the that if the property owner had used a proper calibre (.500), there would have been no “other side of the story”, or “victim testimony”; take it as you will.