State Rep. Borris Miles shoots burglar!
State Representative Borris Miles got a big surprise while working on his mega house at Scott and South MacGregor on Sunday night. According to the Houston Police Department, Miles was working on the house when he heard some noises downstairs. He went to check it out, and saw two people stealing some kind of pipes. Police say Miles tried to stop the suspects, but one of them threw a knife at the State Rep., which causes Miles to shoot one of the suspects in the leg. The suspect who was shot was transported to the hospital, the other one got away. Reached on the phone Sunday night, Miles just said that he'd have to get back with me. Most people know that Miles is a successful insurance guy and has been working on that house on Scott street for a while. Confronting burglars is the last thing anyone wants to do... we'll see if the cops catch the other guy!
Well done, State Rep. Miles took the bull by the horns and didn't allow himself to be a victim. This just shows that guns really do have a place in society and Texas is much better off because of it.
Posted by: adam | July 09, 2007 at 12:01 AM
I agree. This proves further that being able to defend yourself means you more than likely will around to tell the police what happened! They do a great job but no one can expect them to be there beside you in a case like this. Representive Miles is probably alive now because this state has avoided letting the very narrow minded individuals who are against the right to lawfully carry a gun get their way.
Posted by: Steve | July 09, 2007 at 09:33 AM
Kudos for Rep. Miles for effectively asserting his personal property rights.
For once, a Democrat acting on conservative principles.
Seemingly a little out of character for a Liberal Democrat to carry a gun when most favor "gun-grabber" legislation.
GUN CONTROL = HITTING YOUR TARGET
Posted by: Royko | July 09, 2007 at 01:50 PM
That's funny - Miles voted against SB378 (Removed the requirement to retreat before using force if the other person is entering your home, auto, or workplace) at the 80th Legislature.
Nice to know he still benefits from the protection that Bill provides though.
Posted by: Brit in Texas | July 09, 2007 at 03:56 PM
Brit -
He doesn't benefit from that bill, it doesn't go into effect until September 1. There are already self defense laws on the books, however, that afford him the ability to protect himself, as he did.
Posted by: Joe | July 09, 2007 at 07:43 PM
Royco, isn't it also funny that a search on the net will render little results about this event. It certianly merits publicity, yet the story isn't even mentioned by most media networks or newspapers.
Kudos to News13 for outstanding news coverage.
Posted by: Ronnie Smith | July 09, 2007 at 08:24 PM
Mr. Miles should be ashamed.
In this past legislative session, Miles voted against the so-called Castle Doctrine, which would protect Texans who stand their ground and defend with deadly force, their lives or their property.
How dare he try to reserve for himself, rights he would deny law-abiding Texans. Perhaps he considers himself more privileged or more important that the rest of us. Why indeed did he stand his ground and defend his property? According to his vote, that is a right Texans should be denied.
Perhaps again, his property is more important than the property of the average law-abiding Texan.
If he still has any personal honor left, he should resign his position in our legislature immediately. Texas has had quite enough of self-serving hypocrites.
Posted by: Damaso Torres | July 09, 2007 at 09:25 PM
The man is a hypocrite! I believe that there is more to this story than what is being reported and the people of Houston really should have all of the facts before they form an opinion.
Miles voted against the Castle Doctrine bill (SB 378). SB 378 basically says that if a criminal breaks into your home (occupied home), you can use any means of force against that person and you do not have a duty to retreat. The bill doesn’t take effect till Sept. 1 of this year. Did Miles, knowing it had passed despite his vote, react any differently than if it had not passed?
Did you know that Miles also has assault charges filed against him with the Harris County DA? It's true and the case is still pending.
It would behoove you all to learn more about this guy before you make him some kind of a hero.
Respectfully,
Tony
Posted by: Tony W. Smith | July 10, 2007 at 05:52 AM
Perhaps the perpetrator who was shot will sue him? Since he was against the protections the Castle Doctrine would afford him he deserves to be sued.
Posted by: Joe Mama | July 10, 2007 at 06:30 AM
Joe - yes you are correct; SB378 is effective after the 1sp Sept - my mistake.
So Miles does have to prove that he actively tried to retreat before using deadly force, and is, of course, still open to a civil suit for damages by the person he shot.
Those are the two key issues that SB378 rectified - and which he voted against.
Posted by: Brit in Texas | July 10, 2007 at 09:26 AM
Wow, this guy is the ultimate liberal hypocrite! I hope the criminal sues him.
Posted by: matt | July 10, 2007 at 09:36 AM
Amazing, just amazing that another liberal politician has the right to use a law he is against. It will be great if his negative vote comes back to bite him in the tail end
Posted by: arnold | July 10, 2007 at 01:35 PM
Apparently he is 'more equal' in the eyes of the law. Scumbag sellout.
Posted by: Joey | July 10, 2007 at 05:44 PM
I'd like to hear more about the assault charge. If he is convicted, he will be unable to serve as he will be a felon.
The simple fact of the matter is that he fired on an unarmed man. once the knife was thrown, there was no obvious weapon. and had he truly felt his life was in danger he would have fired for center of mass. He is a former cop and a chl holder, he was trained to fire for center of mass and not to shoot to wound. He violated his training and violated the law and should be indicted for the shooting.
Under any normal circumstances I would shake the man's hand and tell him "well done" but there are too many things wrong with this story and from my perspective this does not appear to be a justifiable use of deadly force. There is also the question of the time of day for the shooting. the law changes "after dark" but from the timeline I have seen, it does not appear to have happened "after dark", which again means it was not a justifiable shooting. He is a ex-cop and a CHL holder. he has been trained in the proper use of deadly force. he cannot claim he didn't know the law. Besides, ignorance of the law is no excuse anyway.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 10, 2007 at 09:43 PM