Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
In a tragic incident Aleah Wallace, a Fort Worth resident, fatally shot a 14-year-old boy, Devin Baker, who she claims was attempting to break into her rental home.
The incident, which took place on December 14th, has not only changed Wallace’s life but also raised questions about tenant rights and firearm possession in subsidized housing.
Wallace, a mother of four, recounted the harrowing experience.
“I was cleaning my living room, sweeping my floor, and I heard her window start going back up,” she told Fox 4 in an exclusive interview. “So, I went and I looked in the hallway and I could see him standing at the window, lifting it up, and I just shot.”
The shooting occurred early in the morning, not long after the police had left Wallace’s home, responding to her 911 call about a break-in attempt.
“It’s bothering me that he was a kid,” Wallace expressed, visibly shaken by the events.
“I hate that I literally do, and I’m so sorry. But at that point, I had to think about my babies. I didn’t know he was 14 when he was on the other side of that window. All I knew that somebody could come in here and hurt me or my kids.”
The Fort Worth Police Department has yet to file charges against Wallace and plans to submit the case for a grand jury review.
SEE ALSO: Gaston Glock Passes Away at 94
Wallace’s actions followed a series of break-ins at her apartment, which prompted her to purchase a gun for protection.
This decision has led to unforeseen consequences, as her apartment complex informed her that she violated their policy against firearms and must vacate within 30 days.
“I feel like I’m back at square one,” said Wallace, who has lived in the complex for six years. “I’ve been there for six years, so now I don’t know what to do.”
The case, now pending a grand jury referral, underscores the dilemma many law-abiding citizens face when choosing to arm themselves in anti-gun neighborhoods.
Wallace’s concern extends beyond the legal repercussions, as a conviction could severely impact her ability to find new housing for herself and her daughters.
Wallace’s story serves as a poignant reminder of the issues surrounding self-defense, tenant rights, and firearm ownership.
Stay tuned for updates.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
I believe that with the information you share, it will bring a lot of value to the readers and I hope that they will absorb the good and useful things.
As always the mother says my son was a good boy he would not do this. The only problem with her story is he was shot at two o’clock in the morning while trying to break into someones home. But he was a good boy he would not do this.
Unlawful to evict her after the Bruen decision by the US Supreme Court. The 2nd Amendment is not a second class right anymore. It a fundamental individual right as recognized by the US Supreme Court.
Amen, good job at protecting your girls and yourself. I too hate that he was 14, but he should have not been trying to break in and harm your family.
No sympathy for you here! Your son was absolutely a criminal and caused his own “demise”. Maybe if black people spent as much time teaching their kids the difference between right and wrong, and contributing to society in a positive way instead of terrorizing it, the BLM’s wouldn’t have to go through this every day, all over the country. Criminals deserve what they get. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And to the home owner; thank you for cleaning the gene pool.
How can Public Housing take away your 2nd Amendment rights?
Being evicted because she chose to use her 2A right to self defense, should carry the same penalties of being evicted because she is black. Subsidized housing is not a ‘Constitution Free’ zone.
Not everyone should own a gun, but every gun owner should know and understand when lethal force is justified.
There was, at that time, no action which would likely result in serious injury or death. The perp was not yet inside the residence. The concern about “recent break-ions” does not justify taking a life. The fact that she is in Texas may save her. She is not someone I would want to live next to. Knocking on her door to give her some wrongly delivered mail could get a person killed.
The ongoing discussion about people living in subsidized housing owning guns is absurd. If they have the proper background to own a gun, they have the right to own a fun. Being in subsidized housing does not deny your right to protect yourself.
Most state’s castle doctrines allow you to use lethal force to prevent your home from being breached.
I can’t imagine Texas of all places would be one of the few that would prohibit this.
The whole grand jury thing is standard operating procedure.
Allow me to address your blatantly absurd scenario of knocking on one’s door to deliver wrongly delivered mail is absolute BS and you know it, unless beating on and kicking the door to break it down is your idea of knocking, then perhaps you should get shot.
Actually, sir, you might recall the fairly recent incident when someone simply pulled into the wrong driveway, and was shot dead for that mistake. Do not call BS on me for portraying a very possible outcome based upon similar factual incidents. BTW, there are numerous incidents of someone being shot when they knocked on the door. I accept your apology in advance…
Apples to oranges. I’ll call BS on you because under no circumstances is driving into the wrong driveway in any way comparable to attempted breaching of the home. Just like in Ohio when that father shot through his front door killing his daughter’s ex boyfriend who was attempting to breach the door. Determined by the DA as clear self defense. Almost every castle doctrine state expands the castles boundaries to prevent breaching, not trespassing. Go peddle your BS elsewhere and actually learn the law while you’re at it.
USMC…the last line was not meant for you…I somehow blended two comments into one. To you, I salute, and thank you for your service.
You’re a pompous, self-righteous ass. There’s a world of difference between someone calling at the front door versus gaining uninvited access through a window.
I laughed at your comment. Perhaps you will gain some insight by reading further. If not, I still laugh…
BTW, Happy New Year to all. I only hope that 2024 has a better ending than 2020.
In Texas the law recognizes that if someone is entering a dwelling without the owner/lessee’s consent, deadly force is justifiable. The young man who got shot was entering through a closed window, from which the tenant reasonably assumed criminal intent. The grand jury should return “no true bill.”
Yes, jimmying a window in the night is exactly the same as knocking on a door to deliver mail( in the middle of the night ?) You certainly know how to make an analogy. She saw the creep meaning he could see her. He had tried to break in earlier and was spooked when the cops arrived. He got a second chance at life and threw it away. Good riddance. I would love to have her for a neighbor.
And, you certainly know how to parse a comment so it fits your narrative.
The comment I made about knocking on the door was not used for comparison to breaking and entering. It was used to illustrate the potential for harm being done by people who too quick on the trigger. Not to change the commentary…you and I both know there are numerous incidents of people being shot through the door after simply knocking. My point is I do not want to have anyone like that as a neighbor. If I mis-characterized the woman in the story, then I am wrong.
So what would you do if there was six intruders coming through six different windows would you wait until every one of them was in your house with your three kids and your wife or would you take action before that occurred? Sounds to me like you would wait until you are overwhelmed and put your family in harm, That’s not too smart maybe you should rethink what your actions would be!
Sammy, you pose a situation which I, too, have posed to someone who did not think guns in homes are needed.
My entire comment was referring to the legal standing this woman would face in “most states”, which I made clear from the very beginning of the comment. It was not addressing “what ifs”, to which I would have a different answer.
So, I will re-state here so all who made, or will make, comments have a clear understanding. IN MOST STATES, IF YOU KILL AN UNARMED PERSON OUTSIDE YOUR HOME, WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS “RAISED THE WINDOW”, YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH A FELONY, LIKELY MURDER. However, though you will be charged, if you have a good reason, or justification, for shooting, you may not be convicted.
I do believe that a DA would consider 6 intruders forcing their way into your home at 6 different openings, at the same time, legal justification for self defense.
an unknown, uninvited person around your abode should justify reasonable cause for self defense!
Just another day in the hood.
Unfortunately this lady made a huge mistake. She fired on this kid lutside of her home through a window. Generally to be legal the individual must physically be in your home. This small thing could land her in prison.
Depending on the state. Most states have that wording in their laws. Not sure about Texas.
Most states allow the use of lethal force to prevent the breaching of your home.
Even being in the home DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL in all but a few states. In all but those few states, there must also be some form of threat that a person could reasonably consider like to result in serious injury or death.
If the dumb ass had made it through the window before she killed him, she would have to be pretty inventive, and composed, to create a story that conveyed such a threat. She is not that smart about laws. She even is quoted as saying she is sorry, which any prosecutor will claim to mean she is sorry she used a gun on the little cretin. Again, maybe in Texas, she will be okay. In most states, even red states, she may be found guilty of manslaughter, at least.
Most state’s castle doctrines consider one who has or is attempting to breach the home a threat by default.
So, unless you shoot someone in the back or execution style, it is unlikely to result in charges in states with such laws.
Don’t misinterpret the “castle doctrine”. In most case I have seen, the “castle doctrine” also contains “reasonable threat to use deadly force”, as being the deciding factor in a shooting. My purpose in citing that is that most castle doctrines are sufficiently vague, resulting in many grand juries, which sometimes lead to formal charges and arrest.
No castle doctrine states, “Any person who enters your home without being invited can be killed”, which is the interpretation too many people believe. I am not at all saying you believe that, only stating the obvious flaws present in castle doctrine law.
SO glad i do not live in substandardised housing.
“I don’t get it”
I do.
Where the fuck is that dead eyed dipshit Ken Paxton at when the constitutional rights of my fellow Texans are being trampled on. That corrupt clown spends endless taxpayers dollars frivolously litigating his twisted self righteous version of morality against any Texan woman who dares attempt to terminate a pregnancy even if it presents an unacceptable threat to their health, but he’s nowhere to be found when a Texan woman actually needs the help of a legitimately conservative attorney general.