Posted on 07/29/2022 4:54:41 AM PDT by marktwain
These savages took a 9 year old to an armed robbery?
L
Cmon man , cant leave the kid alone at home... DSS would be all over it /s
No, the 9 year old was was in a truck with her family who had nothing to do with the robbery. Earls thought the truck was the getaway vehicle and lit it up.
Frankly, I’m surprised at the no bill.
Apparently, the Alvarez’s weren’t involved.
The ONLY WAY for for an armed populace to be able to effectively control crime is to ALWAYS give them the benefit of the doubt in tough situations, and that means, at least in Texas, Grand Juries looking at the what instigated the situation, rather than holding armed civilians to the same standards as, say, SWAT officers.
In this case, it was a robbery, so assuming that the victim of this robbery was otherwise not a criminal himself (as was the case here), the ONLY person that should be held liable, either criminally or civilly, is the person committing the robbery.
So glad to see the Grand Jury agrees with me (and most here) and told the Soros prosecutor to STUFF IT.
BTT!!
The robber was smart enough (or maybe stupid enough?) to demand the car keys but not the car. He threw the keys a distance away presumably so the victims could not follow him in their car. Then things got messy. Firing a weapon into a motor vehicle under any circumstance is reckless in my view. Earls should have been charged with something.
He will now try to defend his actions in a civil action that will destroy him just the same. Shooting without knowing what you are shooting at is “no bueno” even in Texas but the fact that the robber apparently shot at him may mitigate this somewhat.
I believe Texas grants immunity from civil suit in self defense cases.
Several states do so.
I agree. In my CHL class (in Houston) I was taught that collateral damage is on the shooter.
Don’t forget that lawyers write the legislation, pass the legislation, and judge actions arising out of the legislation. Thus, it really is just a fluid game of who has the best argument or can bring an action before a friendly lawyer-judge, and the law is beside the point, not the point. I have no doubt some lawyer will argue that a jury, and not a prosecutor or judge, should be the one to decide if this meets self-defense standards or is a reckless endangerment, bla bla bla.
All the more reason not to shoot if you’re not in immediate danger, and to have shooter’s/CCW insurance.
I’m surprised not riots.
In Texas, you have the right to kill a thief attempting to steal your property. At least one older case enabled this when a defendant shot and killed a thief from an apartment window, the thief trying to steal his property (e.g., car, contents, etc.). In view of such a law, the maimed or fatality due to collateral damage might also be viewed lightly.
I always back up slowly into the middle of an ongoing gunfight. You've got to if you want a good view...maybe get video to upload to YouTube.
Under cover of darkness
Which I always thought was an odd distinction.
You can only defend your property with deadly force at night.
I guess those that wrote that law figured during daylight you should be able to identify the culprit to the police.
Or stealing at night it more deserving of death.
Rubber Necking is not without risk.
He was shooting to be shooting and had no idea, nor cared, where or whom the bullets ended up at. Both parties should be charged with murdering a little girl.
I guess then that anger and stupidity are valid mitigation.
The life of a little girl was snuffed out by this individual's anger and stupidity and The Law decides, "He didn't *mean* to do it."
I live in a Constituional Carry state, WV. I am very happy my rights are validated by state law. But people acting as Mr. Earls did will aid the tyrants in rescinding those rights.
From the information provided, the victim made a decision to fire indiscriminately at a vehicle without a visible, identifiable target...to state nothing of a target with a weapon.
I’d have voted to charge him. It’s this sort of recklessness that gives ammunition to the antigunners (pun intended).
At a bare minimum he should barred from carrying until certain conditions are met (training among them).
Carrying a firearm bestows the owner with benefits, risks AND responsibilities. It is NOT a license to be reckless, as so many before him have demonstrated for us all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.