Elderly Man Charged for Shooting Boy

[fedupdon]

Last Edited: Tuesday, 03 Jun 2008, 7:40 AM CDT
Created: Tuesday, 03 Jun 2008, 7:29 AM CDT

W.C. Frosch, 74, demonstrates how he looked out the window before firing a shot through it at two teens whom, he said, he thought were burglars. SideBar


Related Items
Links
Get News & Sports Alerts


Pictures



DALLAS -- -- A Kaufman County man has been charged for the shooting of a teenager who was walking across his yard with a friend, whose mother was killed in a wreck while driving the teen to the hospital.

W.C. Frosch, 74, was indicted last week on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The felony is punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Frosch was in his home March 1 when he shot Brandon Robinson through a window, striking the 15-year-old under his left arm. Frosch said he believed Brandon and Devin Nalls, 16, were going to break into his home.

The teenagers told officers they had been cutting across yard to go to a property on one side of Frosch's. They ran back to Devin's home, next to Frosch's property, after the shooting.

Devin's mother, June Nalls, 41, was driving them to the hospital when another vehicle crossed the center line and struck the truck they were in head-on, police said. June Nalls was killed; her son Devin and Brandon survived.

Police arrested Agustin Renteria, 27, of Kaufman, on a charge of failure to stop and render aid. Other charges were pending blood alcohol test results.

At the time of the shooting, Kaufman County authorities declined to file charges against Frosch and cited the "Castle Doctrine." The law allows residents to use deadly force to protect their property in some situations.

"Self-defense claims are weighed on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts," Kaufman County District Attorney Rick Harrison said Monday. "We decided to take it to the grand jury, and they indicted him."
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[gripper]

"Walking in the yard"???"Thought they were GOING to break in?".....OK...I am as much a hard @ss as any RE thieves...Hell, that is one of the few points of agreement between myself and the Religion of Peace...that said; I don't think the courtroom proceedings will ( or should ) go well for this guy. Doe he have Alzheimer's type issues???
If there is more to th estory ,I hope it comes out ; because it does not look ( so far) like a justifiable shooting.

[Rich Z]

Yeah..... Unless there are extenuating circumstances not mentioned, his defense will likely fail the "reasonable man" test.

[cutter]

Unless there is a whole lot the news story wasn't saying about the boys' actions, the gentleman was way over the line. If they did do something to provoke him, then I hope it comes out and is enough to exonerate him. If all they did was cut across his yard without so much as damaging the landscaping, then it is my opinion that the court cannot throw the book hard enough at this guy.

One thing is for sure, I bet both of those boys stay on the street or sidewalk from now on.

One other thing, no matter what the old man did, he does not bear fault for the death of the mother. That is the fault of the driver that hit her car. Mr. Frosch should not be held responsible nor should the judge permit any mention of the mother or her death to be made during his trial.

[Old Snort]

Using the legal theory of "proximate cause" I believe he could be held responsible at least patially for the mother's death. Were it not for his actions the mother would not have been driving her son to the hospital and would not have been killed. Even if he beats a criminal charge he will be sued in civil court where the burden of proof is much lower. This is where it pays to have a very large, as in many millions, umbrella policy. Don't leave home without it. Respectfully.---OS

[Old Snort]

Allow me to modify the previous post. If he has no assets and no insurance he is "judgment proof" and would not be sued.----OS

[cutter]

It does not suprise me that the law might be read or applied in that way. I will say that such an application would be paramount to blaming the grocery store for an accident happening to a shopper on the way to the store. If the grocery would have delivered the groceries, the driver would not have been on the road. Better yet, it is the homeonwer's fault that the thief got shot while robbing the house. If the homeowner didn't have such good stuff, then the thief would not have robbed him.

On the topic of this thread, the man was so far over the line that he was in another time zone unless those boys posed an imminent threat to his life or safety, or were actively trying to break into his home or other buildings or was actively trying to steal something.

[brass hammer]

the sad part is THAT a fine 41{y.o.} M.I.L.F. IS GONE!

gramps, MUST SUFFER THE 'lock-down' ON THIS ONE!,,,by the SIMPLE-FACT!!!
OF "shootin'-thru-the-window",,,,,AIN'T JUSTIFIABLE.

[aw,hell, GANG! I walk/limp/stumble ACROSS peoples yards EVERY ****IN'-DAY!!!
and sometimes,,,I'M in the RIGHT-ONE.
signed, the GAS-MAN.]

[Old Snort]

It does not suprise me that the law might be read or applied in that way. I will say that such an application would be paramount to blaming the grocery store for an accident happening to a shopper on the way to the store. If the grocery would have delivered the groceries, the driver would not have been on the road. Better yet, it is the homeonwer's fault that the thief got shot while robbing the house. If the homeowner didn't have such good stuff, then the thief would not have robbed him.

On the topic of this thread, the man was so far over the line that he was in another time zone unless those boys posed an imminent threat to his life or safety, or were actively trying to break into his home or other buildings or was actively trying to steal something.

If the grocer had a policy of delivering groceries and refused to deliver to a customer and that that customer was subsequently injured while traveling to the store to purchase the groceries that otherwise would have been delivered the grocer would be held at least partially liable. If it was a large grocery chain with "deep pockets" the lawyers would be schooling like sharks in bloody chum.
I agree that the shooting appears unjustified, but would reserve final judgment until more facts are known. God help his sorry ass if he is white and the boys are black. Respectfully.---OS