Charges unlikely for Houston dad accused of shooting daughter’s boyfriend, prosecutor says


Fox News:

Charges unlikely for Houston dad accused of shooting daughter’s boyfriend, prosecutor says

The Houston father who police say fatally shot a 17-year-old boy who was inside his daughter’s bedroom early Thursday morning will likely not be charged, an area prosecutor told Although a grand jury will review the case, prosecutor Warren Diepraam said it is unlikely that the father will be charged.
“What was going on in the person’s mind at the time of the shooting, [not] what they found out after the fact” is key, Diepraam said. “They’re looking at what he was thinking when he made the decision to shoot.”

The investigation into the shooting is ongoing, and a grand jury will ultimately decide if charges are appropriate. But so far it appears the father, who was only identified as a 55-year-old in reports, was awaken by one of his other children at about 2:20 a.m. He was told someone was in his 16-year-old daughter’s bedroom and he grabbed his gun.
He reportedly found the teen in bed with his daughter and confronted him. His daughter apparently told him she did not know the boy.

The father said he told the teen not to move, but reportedly saw the teen reach for something, at which point police say the father opened fire. The teen did not have a gun. His daughter later confessed that she snuck her boyfriend, 17, into the house, the report said.

The daughter should be charged. Her lie got he boyfriend killed.


Why should the daughter be charged? She is just a stupid, teenage girl who was not thinking. It was 2:00 in the morning, and she probably could not think clearly. If an angry father barged into a room in the middle of the night, any teenage daughter would probably say, “I don’t know who this boy is,” because they would not want to be grounded.

Plus, it is not right to charge the daughter for the killing. She did not tell her father to barge in and shoot the boy.

Also, the father acted in self-defense, because he reasonably believed that the boy was reaching for a weapon.

So, all in all, no one should be charged. This is just a mishap.


Well her next boyfriend will be very careful what he does I suspect…

Assuming scenario is correct… an unknown male in a daughters room who daughter says she doesn’t know either is by definition an intruder and to be considered dangerous. If someone has the drop on you don’t go reaching for anything even if they haven’t told you to freeze. Because it could have just as well have been the other way. If he was an intruder and he did have a weapon he was reaching for a second later and it could have been pappy on the floor. Don’t put other people in the position of having to make life and death decisions at 2 am and you’ll reach old age.

Entering houses unannounced at 2 am is a dangerous proposition.

God rest the poor lads soul.


I guess it all depends on the situation, which is why a grand jury is being convened. It is his word that the boy reached for something - so his credibility has to be looked at. Also, did he or the sibling who called him know who the boy was? Was the boy’s state of dress supportive of a reasonable suspicion that he could be reaching for a weapon? To me those things are key to determining whether he was forced to shoot or whether he could have simply broken up what was going on in his daughter’s room.

On the face of it, without those facts, I don’t accept the premise that this was simply a mishap rather than an enraged dad (and which dad wouldn’t be enraged?).


This was not a “mishap”, an innocent man is dead.
He was an invited guest in the home (by there daughter). She lied and led her father to believe her father that he was an intruder. Her lie directly caused his death. Why are you making excuses for this little sociopath? What if he hadn’t been shot and be arrested, possibly going to jail and having a record for the rest of his life all ecause she didn’t want to get grounded?


Investigators and a grand jury will have to sort this out. If what the man is saying is true and his daughter denied knowing the young man, and the young man moved and reached for something when being told to not move, I think the father’s assumption that he was an intruder was warranted. Again, it’s “if” what they are claiming is true.

Sad situation all around.


I could almost not believe this, usually the police/ DA look for ANY and all possible reasons to charge someone with a crime in these kinds of cases…Im truly surprised they decided on no charges for anyone, although I would bet the girl is going to have a hard time dealing with guilt… likely for the rest of her life.


Yes. Do we know if a grand jury is being convened?
Consider the boyfriend’s situation. Your girlfriend sneaks you in and suddenly confronted by and irate, armed dad. You believe your life is in danger. The “reaching for something” or “sudden move” may have been him trying to make a break for it (unwisely). And, of course, once you’ve shot somebody it is in your interest to claim they made a threatening move.

I have nothing against folks owning guns for self-protection, but part of the licensing process should be some kind of shoot/don’t shoot training but good luck with that, even cops often lack such training.


It seems a bit harsh to call her a sociopath. She was probably in a state of panic and didn’t want to get in trouble. Not that it makes it right, but I don’t think it was a calculated move to cause harm…


So, from the boyfriend’s point of view.

You sneak into a house. The owner doesn’t know you are there and certainly wouldn’t want you there. But you do it anyway because, well, you are looking for sex.

Suddenly you are confronted by the homeowner. And he is upset that you are in his house in the middle of the night. IN BED with his daughter.

And he shoots you.

Gee, even from the boyfriend’s point of view, I am having a hard time finding fault with the father.

There are consequences for actions and sometimes those consequences are dire.


The father should be charged. There is a difference between self defence and shoot to kill.


Ah, yes, the ol’ “he should have aimed for the leg.” :rolleyes:


I wonder if all the keyboard commandos who like to go around advocating shoot to injure and warning shots realize that it’s usually illegal to do either? :shrug:


Or just fire a warning shot up into the air like Uncle Joe Biden advised. :rolleyes:


What state of dress would indicate that he was not an intruder in the man’s home? The boy’s weapon or lack thereof. Man finds an intruder in his teenage daughter’s room. Daughter says she doesn’t know him (which she has admitted, it’s not a fact in question) and man shoots intruder.

The question is not whether he was “forced to shoot” but whether the shooting was justified to safeguard his home and family.


:thumbsup: In Texas, discharging a firearm is often illegal, especially within city limits. But shooting an intruder rarely is.


I just love how all you good Christians are all for killing an intruder. You think Jesus would agree with you. You guys are all for calling abortion murder, but hey, this guy shooting to kill a young boy was ok. I’m not christian, and if I was in this mans shoes I would have shot to injured because I wouldnt want murder on my soul.


Have you read the Catechism?


No, no, no. Either the threat is severe enough to shoot to stop an attack or an imminent attack to yourself or someone else, or you don’t shoot at all. No warning shots. No shooting to injure. Shoot to injure is assault with a deadly weapon. Shoot to injure is attempting to maim someone. You stop the attack by shooting at a center of mass and nothing else. You do not aim at someone’s leg or arm. Do you have any training whatsoever on weapon usage, either tactically or in the law? I kindly suggest you don’t make it up as you go along.

Christianity and absolute pacifism are, in my estimation, not equivalent.


It was a sad and horrible accident. The boy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I’m sure the girl didn’t know her father was going to kill her boyfriend; she probably thought he was just going to yell at him and chase him out.

I’m also sure the father thought he was protecting his little girl from an immediate threat. You don’t have time and nor are you in the state of mind to take careful aim when someone appears to be raping your child - you just make them stop as rapidly as you can.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit