Don't slap around customers in Dallas

[Deaf Smith]

Bruce Lee once said, when a fellow mentioned with his great skill he could slap around people, that to do that in L.A. would get you shot when someone pulled a gun out of their pocket.

Well in Dallas a nutjob went around slapping customers and chasing them out of the store... until he met a gent with a CHL and a roscoe.

Dead nutjob..

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/07/man-dead-in-far-northeast-dallas-shooting.html/

Deaf

 

[ACP]

Is that a good shoot? I don't know. Disparity of force? We don't know. Did the aggressor have a weapon? Apparently not.

Sounds like the CCW holder got fed up with a drunk jerk and killed him. There were probably "other options," as we ike to say on The High Road -- like calling 9-1-1, leaving the area, OC spray, etc.

Let's hope there's a follow-up story with more detail. And I'd keep on eye on this as it winds its way through the courts.

 

[hogshead]

Sounds like the shooter was trying to get away if he shot him outside. I would say he would be covered after the guy hit him.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Sounds like the shooter was trying to get away if he shot him outside. I would say he would be covered after the guy hit him.

I dunno Lucy .... a guy running away from you isn't much of a threat, and "just deserts" for damage already done isn't justification for the use of lethal force. When the threat stops, so does your justification to oppose the threat. This guy is likely going to have some problems.

 

[bikerdoc]

Reads like a good shoot to me.

 

[dos0711]

The chances of getting shot are greatly reduced if you keep to yourself, don't get drunk and go into public and screw with other people.

 

[AFDavis11]

I suspect he'll get 5-10 with an excellent chance of parole.

 

[Averageman]

If you slap me in the store and I attempt to leave and you follow me outside to fight some more I would say I think you are a nut and I fear for my life.
You're right to be as crazy as you want to be ends with my nose, if you assault me I will atempt to retreat, if you follow me and attempt to continue the assault, I do believe I will defend myself.

 

[MtnCreek]

I don't know how anyone can 'call' this based on the link. I am curious to know how this guy acted before assaulting the people in the store.

The store owner said the man appeared to be intoxicated.

I’ve been around some drunks that would act fine one minute, then just snap. If that’s the case, it could be difficult to avoid confrontation. If the guy was obviously drunk/high, I’d like to think I could have avoided him or if I couldn’t, just KO’ed him with a canned-good from the shelf. I’d expect to see (poor quality) security camera footage some time in the future.

 

[Auf Grosser Fahrt]

Good shoot.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I have seen 4 stories and 2 newspapers articles about this. I have gathered this things.

1. Don't get Drunk and go out hitting people.
2. The Store Owner should have called 911 as soon as the drunk started getting aggitated.
3. Slapping someone is considered assualt!

http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/texas-criminal-laws-penalties/assault/

4. In TX a grand jury will let this CCW holder off because it is allowed to prevent assualt.

Last time I got slapped by a Man was when I was 13 and I got mouthy with my Dad and he corrected my behavior with a back hand across my mouth.

In my case since I carry OC and a cane I would have wacked him serverly with the cane.

 

[PBR Streetgang]

IMHO there isn't enough information to make a call right or wrong.

I would have tried to put more distance between him and I,and called 911 posthaste before resorting to using deadly force.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well the cops interviewed the victim/defendant/suspect and I guess after viewing the videos they let him go and just sent it to the Grand Jury.

If it had smelled of a murder they would have arrested him right there. But he said he 'feared for his life' and the nutjob was acting pretty violent.

So I suspect he will be no-billed.

Deaf

 

[dondavis3]

It's a shame that it had to come to that.

Good shoot or not - it will effect the shooters life forever ...

And I do not mean his own conscience

 

[Jim K]

There really is no such thing as a "good shoot" no matter what some of the macho wannabe gun slingers say. The days when the guy in the white hat could gun down everyone in sight and the sheriff bought him a drink are long gone, if they ever existed outside the movies.

Sure, there are shootings that are legitimate self defense. But even then the shooter can have sleepless nights wondering if he had to fire, and may spend days or months being subject to investigation by the authorities, not to mention threats, newspaper and TV attacks, and harassment by relatives and former friends.

And don't forget that in this society, any aspect of race will blow the incident out of all proportions, no matter who did what to whom. Race baiters and haters come in all colors and all are ready to use any incident to promote their causes and spew their hatred and venom.

Also, don't forget that courts don't start with the shooting; they go back to the very beginning to try and find out who ultimately was responsible.

That gun is the very last resort, not the first response.

Jim

 

[dondavis3]

@ Jim K

You said it better than I.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Well at least in TX he has Civil Immunity if the Grand Jury No Bills him over the shooting.

 

[Averageman]

So then, what is the solution; to die very well armed by an assalant who beats you to death?
If we are so in fear of our judicual system that we will not take up arms in defence of our safety and liberty, then I am afraid they have already won.
I cannot go along with this line of thought or inaction.

 

[alsaqr]

So then, what is the solution; to die very well armed by an assalant who beats you to death?
If we are so in fear of our judicual system that we will not take up arms in defence of our safety and liberty, then I am afraid they have already won.

+1
Excellent post.

 

[Deaf Smith]

There really is no such thing as a "good shoot" no matter what some of the macho wannabe gun slingers say. The days when the guy in the white hat could gun down everyone in sight and the sheriff bought him a drink are long gone, if they ever existed outside the movies.

Sure, there are shootings that are legitimate self defense. But even then the shooter can have sleepless nights wondering if he had to fire, and may spend days or months being subject to investigation by the authorities, not to mention threats, newspaper and TV attacks, and harassment by relatives and former friends.

And don't forget that in this society, any aspect of race will blow the incident out of all proportions, no matter who did what to whom. Race baiters and haters come in all colors and all are ready to use any incident to promote their causes and spew their hatred and venom.

Also, don't forget that courts don't start with the shooting; they go back to the very beginning to try and find out who ultimately was responsible.

That gun is the very last resort, not the first response.

Jim

Well sorry gents but as long as the life I take was trying to do me or others in I doubt I'll loose to much sleep, except maybe thinking how close it came being ME that was on the floor.

Why?

Cain did not just kill Abel, CAIN MURDERED ABEL. And therefore the mark of Cain is reserved for murders. Even Ayoob says some don't loose a minutes sleep (but many do.)

I feel those that are justified do not have that mark for if they did then a heck of a lot of our soldiers who were in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, WW2, etc.. would be in the same boat. And they are not.

Self defense is not murder and in the teachings of my Church self defense is fully justified and encouraged.

Deaf

 

[Girodin]

I do believe I will defend myself.

The thing is with what level of force you do it. At common law, you still cannot use lethal force to defend your self from getting slapped. How your particular state may or may not have modified that is important to know. Typically one is only permitted to use lethal force if you defending yourself in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injure (often defined as life altering injury).

This is what makes the shooting of an unarmed person often so inherently difficult to determine if it was actually justified.

There is not enough information in that news story to make a call one way or another Furthermore making any calls based on that story requires assuming that the media is reporting is actually correct. I have seen enough media reports on events I have personal knowledge of that I am pretty dubious about the media's accuracy.

 

[WardenWolf]

The guy was attacking multiple people at random. It wasn't just single 1-on-1 deal. He was genuinely a threat to everyone around him. I'd call it a good shoot from a legal perspective, and I don't think he's going to have any legal trouble. Do I think the level of force necessarily needed to be escalated to lethal? Not necessarily, but this depends on the types of blows he was throwing. If it was simply slaps, that's one thing. But he chased the customer out of the store and continued fighting with him, which leads me to believe it was more than slaps at that point, and continued aggression is worthy of lethal force.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Deltaboy: In TX a grand jury will let this CCW holder off because it is allowed to prevent assualt.

While he may not be charged, it will not be for that reason.

Let no one be misled into believing that one would be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force to prevent assault.

To be justified, the actor must reaonably believe that is had been necessary to do so to protect against the use or attmpted use of deadly force, or to prevent the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Did the shooter have reason to believe, based on what he knew at the time, that force used by or immediately available to the man he shot was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury? That remains to be determined.

Well at least in TX he has Civil Immunity if the Grand Jury No Bills him over the shooting.

Much more accurately, he has civil immunity if the shooing was justified.

A decision not pursue criminal charges may only mean that the evidence would likely not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting had not been justified.

The distinction is very significant.

It is very important to understand the use of force laws wherever one travels.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

In TX CCW classes they use the Term NO Billed instead of Justifed by the Grand Jury or at least my instructor did.
Most areas of TX is sick and tired of such social nosense and the Shooter will WALK.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Deltaboy: In TX CCW classes they use the Term NO Billed instead of Justifed by the Grand Jury or at least my instructor did.

"No billed" means that the Grand Jury has decided to not send the case to trial.

It does not mean that the act was found to have been justified. The Grand Jury does not have that authority. The grand Jury may believe that the act was justified, or they may believe that the evidence is insufficient to get a conviction, or they may believe that prosecution would not serve the best interest of the state for other reasons.

A No Bill decision holds unless and until (1) new information comes to light, or (2) a later Grand Jury revisits the case and decides differently.

A shooting (or blow to the head, whatever) is not defined as justified until a trial court jury votes to acquit.

A person is not free from the risk of prosecution until he or she (1) has been charged, tried and acquitted; (2) is pardoned; or (3) has died.

A person is not shielded from civil liability until a civil court so rules; if a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the shooting was justified under the criminal code, immunity will be granted. Neither the failure of a Grand jury to indict nor the failure of a trial jury to convict will necessarily suffice.

Most areas of TX is sick and tired of such social nosense and the Shooter will WALK.

The former may well be true, but the latter remains to be seen. I would not base an opinion on a news reprot. Texas still does charge, try, and convict criminals.