Assess this recent in-the-news defensive shooting incident (Houston)

[JohnKSa]

If the guy is no longer a threat why does this guy still have his hands raised?

I didn't say he was no longer a threat. Details really matter when it comes to the law which is why I provided a long and detailed analysis and didn't try to reply with a one-liner.

We all know that guy was never really a threat because he didn’t even have a real gun.

You raised a similar point in another thread about a week ago. Here's what I posted then. I've highlighted one portion of it with blue text since it is particularly applicable to this situation.

The standard is "reasonable belief", not just "belief", and certainly not "fact". The defender might reasonably believe something to be true that later turns out to be incorrect. The law doesn't require that a defender knows everything that is happening with 100% accuracy, rather it only requires that a defender believes something to be true and that their belief is reasonable.

Some examples:

A person might believe that they need to shoot someone because that person is actually a space alien in disguise and is thinking about abducting them to a spaceship to be probed. That belief would not be considered to be reasonable and so their use of deadly force would not be justified.

A person might believe that an attacker is pointing a gun at them during a robbery and use deadly force, only to later find that it was not a gun at all, but simply a piece of wood shaped like a gun. Assuming they could not carefully examine the piece of wood during the robbery to determine it wasn't really a firearm, their belief that it was actually a gun would be considered to be reasonable.

A person might believe that a person posed a deadly threat to them because the person threatened to kill them with a baseball bat. If the person doing the threatening is confined to a wheelchair and the defender is able bodied and easily able to stay well out of contact distance, then their belief would not be considered to be reasonable and the use of deadly force would not be justified.

A defender might believe that an attacker who falls to the ground but still has a firearm and is still moving poses a deadly threat and therefore keep shooting. Later analysis might show that the attacker's movement was reflexive due to the injuries sustained and that the attacker was really harmless after falling to the ground. But the defender didn't have the benefit of such analysis or medical training so their belief that they needed to keep shooting would likely be considered reasonable.

Details really matter when it comes to the law. The difference, for example, between theft and robbery is often not something that people even think about, but it is critical from a legal standpoint. Simple theft is almost never justification for use of deadly force, but robbery often is.

Same with "reasonable belief" vs. "belief" vs. "fact". The difference from a legal standpoint is huge.

Just as the fact that a criminal's gun later turned out to be fake wouldn't play into whether reasonable belief that a threat existed was valid, the fact that another person on scene had a different perception of the event and a different reasonable belief about the situation and therefore reacted differently wouldn't automatically invalidate the CCW's reasonable belief.

In other words. Reasonable belief that something is true can absolutely be valid even if it is contrary to fact. That is true whether the reasonable belief held is that a threat exists, or that it does not exist. Understanding this fact helps makes it clear when deadly force is justified as well as why it is so important to be careful what is said in the aftermath of a defensive shooting.

I was quoting the Texas Attorney who stated that even if this guy is ever identified it's very likely that he will be No Billed.

To correctly interpret the attorney's comment, we would need to know for sure that he saw the entire video. The excerpt that cuts off right at the point where the shooting begins gives a very different picture, legally speaking, than the entire video where the CCW picks up the BG's gun and then shoots him in the head after he's down and no longer moving.

Is shooting a dead guy even a crime? Vandalism?

There are certainly laws that govern the treatment of dead bodies and violating them can be a felony. I've seen a longer video where the CCW throws his drink on the corpse before leaving the scene. Potentially, that act could be a felony in and of itself.

 

[Tinman357]

Can we not refer to him as "the shooter"? He was an armed victim that engaged a criminal. How about "defender" "the shooter" plays into the anti's hands.

That said, it may not have been a neat tidy SD incident, I wasn't there thankfully. I'm not sure what happened based on the video. Looked like SD with a lot of fear and panic to me.

 

[old lady new shooter]

.

If you've seen the full video, when the perp is down, the defender advances and continues to shoot--including a final shot in the back of the head. That is going to be an issue, as well as leaving.

What started as justified may have escalated to excessive

Link to video
https://twitter.com/i/status/1611808197316075521

That final shot in the back of the head, very bad.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Does it matter?



Or is it what a potential juror sees from a perched video camera view?



That’s a better video at the twitter link, I didn’t even notice the guy the robber was closing distance on, when he was shot in the back, sitting right by the door.

It doesn't really matter. The fact that he shot the robber in the back of the head after the robber was down and he had taken the robber's gun, I think sealed his fate.

 

[old lady new shooter]

If the guy is no longer a threat why does this guy still have his hands raised?

View attachment 1125989

We all know that guy was never really a threat because he didn’t even have a real gun. So is what we know or think important if we are not on his jury?

Nobody in the room except the robber knew it was a fake gun. It was completely reasonable to believe it was real. It's not like it was a nerf gun or something, it looked real.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I'm sorry but it bothers me that the reporter almost made the robber the victim.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[jmorris]

Are Texans so different that delivering a coup de grace to a guy already shot several times and down and not moving will pass muster?

Plus, everyone on a jury may not be a "true Texan" as you might describe them.

That’s the case I was talking about in #41.

Devin Jevon Harper was facing a first-degree murder charge for the shooting death of Ibory Taylor at JJs Fast Stop in Hawkins (TX) on April 29.

Surveillance footage showed Harper pull a handgun on Taylor and shoot him, according to the affidavit. The affidavit states Taylor fell to the ground in the parking lot and Harper shot him again while Taylor was on the ground.

https://www.kltv.com/2022/08/01/wood-county-grand-jury-no-bills-case-gas-station-shooting/

And you don’t need everyone on a jury, just one.

No description given, just looking at facts that are public record. I did find it odd the police never did release the video in the above case. Makes me think it wouldn’t make the shooter look very good.

 

[jmorris]

There are certainly laws that govern the treatment of dead bodies and violating them can be a felony. I've seen a longer video where the CCW throws his drink on the corpse before leaving the scene. Potentially, that act could be a felony in and of itself.

I didn’t see the end where he finished his drink and threw the cup at the dead guy until I watched the video I posted in #42. Shows when he realized it was a fake gun and threw it at the wall too.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm sorry but it bothers me that the reporter almost made the robber the victim.

It is EXTREMELY important to understand that a person's legal status can change during an encounter. A person can legally go from being a victim to an attacker in seconds.

A lot of people seem to believe that if a person starts out a scenario as the victim that they will remain the victim throughout the whole scenario, regardless of what happens or what the person does. That kind of thinking can get someone put in prison for murder.

This case is a good example to show that fallacy--so is the Jerome Ersland case. Both started out as reasonable cases of self-defense but the initial victim in both cases went too far and that changed the situation. Ersland is in prison for shooting a robber in the head after that person was down and no longer moving. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the CCW in this case ends up the same.

 

[dogtown tom]

The shooter may be in a ton of trouble as the perp was apparently leaving posing no threat at that time to the shooter so it’s not a case of imminent threat to the shooter or anyone else.

This is Texas fella.

 

[Jeff White]

This is Texas fella.

So is this:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/war-stories.914500/

I haven’t been to Texas in a while but the last time I was there I was shocked to see the that the garbage man wasn’t picking up the bodies of all of the criminals who were killed committing crimes the night before. Reading posts like yours for years left me with the impression that you just set the body out with the rest of the garbage in Texas.

Even if a Texas grand jury ignores the anchoring shot and no true bills the shooter, and yes the anchoring shot makes him a shooter not a victim, that doesn’t establish a legal precedent and anyone taking similar action is betting their life on getting a grand jury made up of like minded people. Remember, you don’t get to present any defense to a grand jury.

 

[Kleanbore]

And you don’t need everyone on a jury, just one.

Must be unanimous either way.

 

[jmorris]

This case is a good example to show that fallacy--so is the Jerome Ersland case. Both started out as reasonable cases of self-defense but the initial victim in both cases went too far and that changed the situation. Ersland is in prison for shooting a robber in the head after that person was down and no longer moving.

Time seems to be a critical component. Like the thread where the guy has two attackers and shoots the first guy enough he dropped his gun half way across the street and fell to the ground. Closed distance enough to be closer to the dropped firearm than the guy on the ground was and engaged the second guy down the street, only to come back to the guy on the ground that hadn’t moved since he piled up on the sidewalk and puts a few more in for good measure.

Folks seemed to be good with that.

A number have gasped at the video for this thread but the Oklahoma pharmacy shooting was way off base. He shot the robber, chased another shooting at him out side, re enters the store, walks past head wound guy on floor, gets another gun, goes back to the guy on the floor and puts 4 more in him. Then lies to police about the event.

 

[MEHavey]

In these Texas discussions, one thing to remember:
ALL shooting/homicides in Texas... no matter how clear-cut justified... go to a Grand Jury.
Just SOP.

.

 

[Kleanbore]

A lot of people seem to believe that if a person starts out a scenario as the victim that they will remain the victim throughout the whole scenario, regardless of what happens or what the person does. That kind of thinking can get someone put in prison for murder.

Right--the window of justification can open, close, reopen, and close again instantly.

BTW--at trial and in the things that lead up to it, the person who has been shot, shot at, or struck is the victim, by definition.

 

[JohnKSa]

Time seems to be a critical component. Like the thread where the guy has two attackers and shoots the first guy enough he dropped his gun half way across the street and fell to the ground. Closed distance enough to be closer to the dropped firearm than the guy on the ground was and engaged the second guy down the street, only to come back to the guy on the ground that hadn’t moved since he piled up on the sidewalk and puts a few more in for good measure.

You brought that up on another thread about a week ago. I provided an answer there and it was nothing as simple as "time". The issue there was that the guy couldn't carefully assess the one guy on the ground because he was forced to keep track of a second armed attacker who was essentially behind him when he faced the person on the ground.

In the specific case you are referring to where you quoted me, the attacker on the ground had a firearm which means that his being on the ground was essentially meaningless in terms of whether he could pose a threat or not. A person with a gun doesn't automatically stop being a threat simply because they fall to the ground. If the defender reasonably believes they are still a threat or are continuing a crime that justifies deadly force then deadly force is still justified.

In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances.

Trying to oversimplify complicated scenarios will result in flawed understanding. It's not going to help you understand better--it's actually going to do just the opposite.

 

[jmorris]

Must be unanimous either way.

After a mistrial has been declared due to a hung jury, the prosecutor has the option of considering how to proceed. In some cases, the prosecutor may end up dismissing the charges levied against the defendant. In other cases, a plea bargain may be reached after a mistrial has been declared. If neither of these things occur, the mistrial will end up leading to the defendant being tried on all of the same charges in another trial to be held at a later date.

https://lawcdh.com/2020/05/19/what-happens-if-there-is-a-mistrial-due-to-a-hung-jury/

Google “mistrial frees killer”, lots of results.

 

[JohnKSa]

Google “mistrial frees killer”, lots of results.

That is ONE of the possible outcomes of a mistrial as is explained in the post you quoted. It is absolutely not the ONLY outcome, but it is a POSSIBLE outcome.

 

[Kleanbore]

Judges are extremely reluctant to declare mistrials, and prosecutors, to dismiss charges.

I wouldn't expect a man who shot an unconscious man after having disarming him to fare well at trial.

 

[jmorris]

Officers with the Houston Police Department told Eyewitness News that an attorney, who is making arrangements for person of interest, has reached out to speak with investigators.

https://abc13.com/el-ranchito-taque...-shoots-suspect-robber-killed-fatal/12676094/

 

[Kleanbore]

There is no way to predict what will happen the the shooter. With that last shot, he has given the prosecutor all he recommend charges, should he so desire. Even if he does not want to do so now , political pressures may prevail, maybe some time from now.

What we do know is that the man's future is now in the hands of others.

What this tells us is how important it is to exercise prudence when using deadly weapons.

 

[rabid wombat]

Even if he does not want to do so now , political pressures may prevail, maybe some time from now.

More reason all go before the Grand Jury….I believe a second look leads to double jeopardy, if no billed….now for the Feds….

 

[Kleanbore]

I believe a second look leads to double jeopardy, if no billed

No

 

[MEHavey]

The wishful thinking of "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice ..."
is near delusion in this day & age of simply preferring (or making up) new charges for near
the same thing.

... Legal Beagles weigh in w/ actual experience pro & con.... especially as to differing authorities
in state/federal (or even UCMJ) which combine to make an overlapping witch's brew amounting
to a legal gill net.

.

 

[rabid wombat]

No

sorry…