Posted on 01/28/2024 4:27:10 PM PST by TigerClaws
Good analysis.
Hope some reasonable folks are on the grand jury.
Also: the perp was Latino. Blacks HATE Hispanics. So blacks on the grand jury = shooter walks.
Problem is that the robber was running away and was no longer a threat to anyone unless he turns and you can’t assume he will.
I can assume he’s running to his next victim.
NOT fleeing, but, moving on.
I agree with the bystander …. the threat was STILL REAL.
Did the perp still have his weapon, when running??
The threat was still real.
“I can assume he’s running to his next victim.”
Assumption is not within the law. The stand your ground laws all have the same theory of use in that if there is no threat, you can’t open fire on them. The shooter shot a fleeing criminal who was no longer a threat. He doesn’t become one until he is making an effort to harm somone.
I don’t make the law, but I do understand what it is saying. And right now before the decision of the court, he shot a fleeing person who was no threat. And that’s not stand your ground.
wy69
As long as the perp still had his gun, he’s a threat. Houston maybe a blue city, but it’s still Texas and the people are getting tired of the increased crime.The shooter won’t be convicted of anything.
The guy in the red car deserves a medal.
Should anyone ever find themselves in such a situation, Massad Ayoob has done research showing that the way the brain works, it takes a set amount of time, once you enter “Act!” mode, and decide on a course of action, to reassess new incoming data. He has, as a defense witness, freed men who shot other men in the back, based upon the principle that when they made a decision to act, there was still a threat ongoing, and while the perpetrator did cease the attack and begin to flee, the shooter’s brain did not have time to process that newly incoming data, creating a window after fleeing began in which he could still be legally shot in the back while fleeing by a defender who was still operating on the older information. It is something like the Tueller drill, only instead of initiating action, it has to do with deciding to stop action, and then implementing that decision.
Under Texas Penal Code § 9.32, which is the code used for definition, it states:
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.
The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(4) if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;
The perp was running away from the illegal act, not aiming or firing his weapon. He was not eligible to be fired upon while he was fleeing. And that’s where the shooter will have his problem. The film indicates he was not not faced, yelled at, or threatened by the perp, and that the perp was running away. Getting that past a jury is going to be tough at best as it clearly doesn’t justify firing on the perp with the above law.
wy69
I am happy that he is also a late robber.
That may be the law, but this is still Texas. There have been worse shootings where the shooter has walked away. It has to get past a grand jury and then a jury to get a conviction. If the perp had stopped and dropped his gun, maybe the shooter would be charged, but I’d be really surprised.
You mentioned Massad Ayoob. In this article he indicates his thought son use:
Ayoob: The use of deadly physical force is only allowed in a situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or other innocent people. That situation is determined by three criteria, which have to be simultaneously present. Ability: the opponents possess the power to kill or cripple; Opportunity: they’re capable of immediately employing it and third, Jeopardy: their actions and/or words indicate to a reasonable and prudent person that their manifest intent is to kill or to cripple.
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/our-journal/2011-journals/955-october-2011-network-journal
Concerning the three simultaneous needs:
He did possess the power to kill or cripple. However, the second and third criteria were not there as the perp was running away from the crime and was not indicating he was going to return to the victim and his action of running away did not display for a reasonable and prudent person that the perp’s manifest intent was to kill or to cripple. At the time he was shot, he was fleeing with his back to the victim. There was no immediate need for defence there.
wy69
You mentioned Massad Ayoob. In this article he indicates his thoughts on use:
Ayoob: The use of deadly physical force is only allowed in a situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or other innocent people. That situation is determined by three criteria, which have to be simultaneously present. Ability: the opponents possess the power to kill or cripple; Opportunity: they’re capable of immediately employing it and third, Jeopardy: their actions and/or words indicate to a reasonable and prudent person that their manifest intent is to kill or to cripple.
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/our-journal/2011-journals/955-october-2011-network-journal
Concerning the three simultaneous needs:
He did possess the power to kill or cripple. However, the second and third criteria were not there as the perp was running away from the crime and was not indicating he was going to return to the victim and his action of running away did not display for a reasonable and prudent person that the perp’s manifest intent was to kill or to cripple. At the time he was shot, he was fleeing with his back to the victim.
wy69
With a Soros DA, who knows what will happen.
“That may be the law, but this is still Texas. There have been worse shootings where the shooter has walked away. It has to get past a grand jury and then a jury to get a conviction.”
If the law is there, it should be enforced. Otherwise why have a law. Why not just shoot someone because you didn’t like what they were doing?
The film clearly displays he violated the Castle Doctrine/stand your ground law. Even if he was a police officer, he still would have violated the law. You can’t shoot someone who is no threat at the time, especially when he was attempting escape with no threat. If he gets off, the court system failed the law. And that just makes it a free for all based upon opinion and not the law. Can of worms.
wy69
In Texas Deadly Force can be used to stop a Felony. Running away with the loot is still in commission of the felony.
He needed killing! It’s Texas! Thank you citizen for taking out the trash since the judges won’t.
“If the law is there, it should be enforced. Otherwise why have a law.”
Have you seen what is happening to our country?
If you are not the police and someone is running away from you, and you shoot them, that is often (not always) classified as an illegal used of deadly force. There are exceptions.
If someone is running away from you and you shoot them, that is not self-defense. If you feel that they are running toward you and fear for your life, that is a totally other situation.
“He shoots once maybe twice at the suspect that’s running away...”
If there’s anything that’s gonna get the bystander in trouble it’s the above little factoid.
CC
“When The World Is Running Down, You Make The Best Of What’s Still Around”
Good thing he still had bullets
Had he lived he would have been an ongoing threat to the community. Glad his status is FORMER.
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.