Started By
Message

re: Man charged with murder after he shot and killed an armed home intruder

Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:41 pm to
Posted by BigNastyTiger417
Member since Nov 2021
5655 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:41 pm to
More to the story. If not, he’s not losing that case.
Posted by Dadren
Jawja
Member since Dec 2023
3270 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:42 pm to
quote:

Maybe- but the investigators are quoted as stating that the intruder was both armed AND forced his way into the home. How do you lure someone to force entry into your home?

My money is on the conversation going something like, “Yeah I’m banging your old lady, I got a chair over there in the corner for you when you get here”….from her phone.

In all seriousness though, fair point. There definitely seems to be some information here that’s not in the story.
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2008
11618 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:50 pm to
OK, I'll take a stab at it. Plot twist. The victim is actually the homeowner. He comes home early and realizes Jody is in his house. Jody and the woman try to keep the angry homeowner out, but he manages to force his way in, and Jody kills him. I'm quite sure I'm wrong.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
21760 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:52 pm to
quote:

OK, I'll take a stab at it. Plot twist. The victim is actually the homeowner. He comes home early and realizes Jody is in his house. Jody and the woman try to keep the angry homeowner out, but he manages to force his way in, and Jody kills him. I'm quite sure I'm wrong.


That's the only scenario I can see making sense.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476886 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:54 pm to
I just wonder if this is going to turn out to be like that father/son combo who killed the guy (shirtless) in an alley over a mattress
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
21760 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:55 pm to
quote:

I just wonder if this is going to turn out to be like that father/son combo who killed the guy (shirtless) in an alley over a mattress


Seems like two totally different scenarios... but who knows?
Posted by Sus-Scrofa
Member since Feb 2013
11068 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:56 pm to
quote:

That's the only scenario I can see making sense.


Im guessing it’s pretty simple. Somehow there’s evidence that homeowner had him neutralized, and then decided to kill him.

Maybe he neutralized him and someone called the cops, told them he wasn’t a threat or something, but still alive, and then cops get there and he’s got a bullet in the back of his head.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
21760 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:57 pm to
quote:

Im guessing it’s pretty simple. Somehow there’s evidence that homeowner had him neutralized, and then decided to kill him. Maybe he neutralized him and someone called the cops, told them he wasn’t a threat or something, but still alive, and then cops get there and he’s got a bullet in the back of his head.


That makes sense too.
Posted by dalefla
Central FL
Member since Jul 2024
4130 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:15 pm to
quote:

Now this guy is going to have to hire a Lawyer. And go broke. All to prove his innocence.


That's why I carry a $1M CCW insurance policy that covers bail, lawyers, etc... Cost about $274 annually.
Posted by salty1
Member since Jun 2015
5167 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:30 pm to
quote:

Found a different article that mentioned he was shot multiple times.

So I'd guess either he was shot in the back attempting to flee.....or that forensics showed that at least one of the shots was fired from much closer range than the others, like an execution shot after he was already hit and down.


none of this is a crime. When using deadly force to protect yourself, the victim can use as much force as necessary to ensure the aggressor is no longer a threat. Hard to imagine someone being charged for emptying the magazine or giving a final ending shot at close range. Who can say when the victim no longer felt threatened. My family is trained to keep shooting until they need to reload. Reload and decide if they need to keep firing.
Posted by cheobode
Member since Dec 2017
1545 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:50 pm to
quote:

Now this guy is going to have to hire a Lawyer. And go broke. All to prove his innocence.


There was a guy locally that shot two guys that were ringing his doorbell at 2am. One was armed with an AK-47 and the other took off running after his buddy got shot. The homeowner put a few bullets into the guy running and he was able to speed off, but they both ended up dying.

No charges for shooting the one with the AK, but he had to go to court over the one that was fleeing and wasn't armed. Not sure what came of it.
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
32885 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:53 pm to
quote:

see... you blame the person and not the media for setting him up. is society rage addicted? maybe. But the media is the one suppling the fuel.

The problem is, the media doesnt ever just report the new anymore. Thats something everyone is so accustom to. They paint the picture THEY want YOU to believe. Thats the problem.

I 100% blame the media. But they are, presumably, an adult with agency. We blame drug dealers, but we also hold drug addicts accountable for their actions. I don't see why this would be any different.
Posted by tigerpimpbot
Chairman of the Pool Board
Member since Nov 2011
69091 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:57 pm to
quote:

If the guy wants to tie you up and keep you as a sex slave in his basement oh well, you broke in.


Was that wrong:gif
Posted by mdomingue
Lafayette, LA
Member since Nov 2010
47507 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:02 pm to
Question for you, Josh, does armed mean he was brandishing his weapon, or could it mean he had it holstered?

If Lozano forced his way into the house and had a confrontation with Florez over the 40-year-old woman, that never escalated to Lozano pulling his weapon, and Florez grabbed or pulled a gun and shot Lozano, would that not be murder regardless of the forcible entry? Or if he shot him in the back as he was walking toward the door, gun holstered?

There is just not enough info in the articles I find to figure out why he would have been charged.ged.
Posted by dgnx6
Member since Feb 2006
89803 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:04 pm to
The problem here is the prosecutors have hindsight.


In real life: “If I hesitate, we might die.”

In court: “Could you prove a jury would see it that way?”



You still have to prove the guy with multiple gun shots was a threat to your life. It sucks, because I think you should be able to shoot any intruder even if you don't fear for your life.





Just remember the Judge has armed guards and panic buttons but a intruder in your home doesn't mean you can fear for your life.
This post was edited on 1/13/26 at 4:13 pm
Posted by HarryHoudini
Member since Oct 2025
993 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:10 pm to
quote:

Now this guy is going to have to hire a Lawyer. And go broke. All to prove his innocence. Pisses me off.


There’s def more to the story my friend. People don’t go to jail for shooting an armed intruder in TX. End of the post says officers had probable cause.

If this were CA or something I’d be skeptical.
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
32885 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:10 pm to
quote:

Question for you, Josh, does armed mean he was brandishing his weapon, or could it mean he had it holstered?

If Lozano forced his way into the house and had a confrontation with Florez over the 40-year-old woman, that never escalated to Lozano pulling his weapon, and Florez grabbed or pulled a gun and shot Lozano, would that not be murder regardless of the forcible entry? Or if he shot him in the back as he was walking toward the door, gun holstered?

There is just not enough info in the articles I find to figure out why he would have been charged.ged.

The issue is that we're looking at a news article written by a non-attorney, not a charge that has an actual definition. In this context, it could mean literally anything. He could be John Wick "armed" with a fricking pencil for all we know
Posted by HoustonGumbeauxGuy
Member since Jul 2011
33515 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:13 pm to
The question is, if he didn’t kill the guy, would the intruder have been charged with felony home invasion?

This seems totally fricked up and that there was a piece of the story we are missing
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
32885 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:14 pm to
quote:

In real life: “If I hesitate, we might die.”

In court: “Could you prove a jury would see it that way?”

In every jurisdiction I'm familiar with, the State has to prove that your actions were not justified, not vice versa.
quote:

You still have to prove the guy with multiple gun shots was a threat to your life. It sucks, because I think you should be able to shoot any intruder even if you don't fear for your life.

As a general rule, no, you don't. I cba to look up Texas' statute again, but this is Louisiana's. I bolded the relevant part:



quote:

§20. Justifiable homicide

A. A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1.

Posted by jchamil
Member since Nov 2009
19496 posts
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:14 pm to
quote:

You still have to prove the guy with multiple gun shots was a threat to your life. It sucks, because I think you should be able to shoot any intruder even if you don't fear for your life.


Pretty sure that burden is on the prosecution in Texas to prove the homeowner did not reasonably fear for his life once an armed intruder breaks into the home.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram