mySA:

A Converse man who used his AR-15 rifle to detain four men he thought were going to burglarize his neighbor’s home last month now finds himself on the wrong side of the law.

Coty Bob McDonnell, 31, made his initial appearance Monday on a charge of deadly conduct, a misdemeanor, but the case was reset for next month.

Converse police arrested McDonnell on the night of Oct. 22 or early Oct. 23 after he detained the men, believing they were burglars, according to an account provided by his neighbor, Doug Stearns, and his lawyer, Daniel De La Garza.

Charging him might have a chilling effect on Texans who want to protect their property, they argued. McDonnell himself declined comment, citing the pending case.

Texas law gives some leeway to persons who believe they have been asked to protect the property of a third party, allowing the use of deadly force to prevent theft or criminal mischief, but the circumstances of McDonnell’s case differed considerably when described by police and his neighbor.

Converse police say McDonnell went too far when he chased the four down the street and blocked their way out with his vehicle. The four were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, but not burglary. They told officers they were on their way to a party, according to a police report.

A Converse man who used his AR-15 rifle to detain four men he thought were going to burglarize his neighbor’s home last month now finds himself on the wrong side of the law.

Coty Bob McDonnell, 31, made his initial appearance Monday on a charge of deadly conduct, a misdemeanor, but the case was reset for next month.

Converse police arrested McDonnell on the night of Oct. 22 or early Oct. 23 after he detained the men, believing they were burglars, according to an account provided by his neighbor, Doug Stearns, and his lawyer, Daniel De La Garza.

Charging him might have a chilling effect on Texans who want to protect their property, they argued. McDonnell himself declined comment, citing the pending case.

Texas law gives some leeway to persons who believe they have been asked to protect the property of a third party, allowing the use of deadly force to prevent theft or criminal mischief, but the circumstances of McDonnell’s case differed considerably when described by police and his neighbor.

Converse police say McDonnell went too far when he chased the four down the street and blocked their way out with his vehicle. The four were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, but not burglary. They told officers they were on their way to a party, according to a police report.

“These kids just stopped in the roadway to change drivers,” said Assistant Chief Rex Rheiner. “He pursued them, and when he pursued them down the road is when he left the realm of protection of property.

“He pointed the weapon at them,” Rheiner added. “He was out there acting as a police officer, when he has no police powers.”

Stearns, 51, an Air Force retiree, said he had asked McDonnell to keep an eye on his house while he was out of town and gave him a key. Their subdivision has had a rash of burglaries and recently saw a Converse school vandalized, he said. McDonnell even mowed his lawn and took care of his cat, Stearns said.

Stearns said McDonnell told him he had noticed a car coming down the street with its lights off and when it stopped near Stearns’ home, three men got out and approached or entered Stearns’ driveway. McDonnell grabbed his rifle and approached them and, “They said, ‘Oh (expletive), there’s somebody here,’” Stearns said.

McDonnell prevented the group from leaving in the car they arrived in, but had put away his weapon by the time police arrived, according to Stearns.

He called the prosecution a waste of time and money.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Stearns said. “We should be able to protect our homes and do so in a way that doesn’t cause a loss of life.”

Most states don’t recognize the right to deadly force to prevent theft, but Texas does if I’m not mistaken.  So does Missuouri, to some lesser extent.

The police chief doesn’t really know how this all went down, since he wasn’t there.  I don’t know either, but there’s just something that tells me the founding fathers would have looked askance at the notion that a blue costume somehow grants powers that other men don’t have.

It seems to me that the real problem here is that the chief is offended that someone else out there sees himself empowered.  The chief would have defended until his dying breath the right of his officers to wield weapons at night in the presence of suspected thieves and detain anyone they deemed appropriate.

It’s the blue costume, folks.  It’s special.