Over a year ago I was assaulted and posted here about it. The guy was just sentenced

[Agent7]

Here's the post about the incident in sept 2003

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=41295


Here is what the outcome was:

The prosecutor just called and said they plea-bargained the case. Here is what he got. He had no prior record and was about 45 years old.

1. 18 months probation. If he violates his probation, he serves 6 months in jail immediately.
2. 80 hours community service
3. He must attend anger management classes (which he has to pay for)
4. $256 court costs


In addition, he had about a $2500 attorney bill (just guessing).

Considering he drove a $1500 car. I'd say he's suffering. The guy lives in a POS apt right on Interstate 35. He and his wife own 2 cars that are worth $1500 each. His telephone is in his wifes name (meaning his credit rating is_????). His total net worth is less than a couple of thousand dollars (if that). This guy likely lives day to day and is deeply in debt. His action is costing him a few thousand dollars, which is likely devastating to someone in his financial position. I guess that's some justice.

 

[Perfesser]

Watch your six from now on...he's free, out a lot of $, and in Texas he probably already knows or his lawyer can get the name of the person who filed on him...so he's mad at the world (most a$$holes like that are anyway) and wanting to get even somehow. Violating probation means little to that type.
I used to live in Fort Worth and the police just can't keep up with the crime.

 

[Standing Wolf]

If he violates his probation, he serves 6 months in jail immediately.

That's if he kills someone; otherwise, he'll get a severe talking to.

 

[mnrivrat]

I didn't read the initial thread until now but it sounds like maybe both of you may learn a lesson from this.

A gun for self defense belongs on your person if you have a CCW. Also situation awareness is important so as not to get caught off guard.

For him and those like him that can't control their temper ,I think he is a lucky guy to get off as cheap as he did.

That said, maybe the cost of this will make him a better person.

 

[StephenT]

Glad he got what was coming. People should be accountable for their stupid actions. I was involved in a road rage incident a few months ago (had someone chasing me because I had cut him off). After realizing that someone was chasing me, I stopped my vehicle and looked through my rear window. The other fellow got out of his car and was walking towards me. I retrieved my loaded S&W model 60 out of the center console but didn't display it. When the angry motorist got within 20 feet of my car, I drove off as quickly as I could. He was running after my car shouting like a maniac, absolutely out of control. Fortunately, he didn't chase me home; or it would have turned ugly.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Glad you saw it through and had this miscreant put through the wringer of the Criminal Justice system. OK, it's flawed. Too bad reparations weren't made too (like paying for any medical expenses).

 

[JimJD]

It would have been nice if they threw in thirty days in the slammer too.
But, it's good to hear that the justice system did do something.
Good for You Agent7! Not so good for Him...

 

[cerberus]

Just a simple question?

If your not in fear of your life. And someone just taking a swing and knocking you down then stopping their attack is really not putting you in this state of fear. How can you use deadly force on the subject of the attack that has now stopped? My thoughts are if you had gotten that gun and used it you would have been charged with the attack with deadly force.

 

[mnrivrat]

Quote : "How can you use deadly force on the subject of the attack that has now stopped? "

I think the simple answer to that is that you can't ! If the threat has gone away you can not use deadly force.

As I see it in this case the threat came at the first attack -- Agent 7 was lucky that the attack was not more severe . That cannot be gauranteed !
People have been beaten to death in simular circumstances.

You just can't know when the attacker will stop, or if he'll stop. The whole idea of being armed is to protect yourself from great bodily harm and or death. If you have good cause to fear for your life in such a situation , than shooting to prevent the attacker from reaching you is justified.

 

[JohnKSa]

First of all, real life isn't like the movies. Getting hit just once solidly in the head can result in permanent injury or even death. YOU CAN NOT AFFORD TO LET A PERSON HIT YOU ON THE CHANCE THAT IT MIGHT NOT INJURE YOU. If you can avoid being hit without using a weapon then do it. If you can't and you think there is no other reasonable way to prevent being hit then you should use your weapon.

There are some practical concerns. If he's 5'-5" & 120lbs and you're 6'-0" and 200lbs you'd better be able to prove that you knew ahead of time he was an international kickboxing champion. Or you could prove as an alternative that you are/were physically impaired and were no match for him. The general idea is that you need to respond with force that is roughly on a parity with the force threatened unless that is not reasonable.

Now, once the attack has broken off, what can you do? That depends--and this gets pretty touchy. IF (NOTE: BIG IF) it is reasonable to assume that the person is an immediate and possibly deadly danger to others then you can pop him. You had better hope and pray with every fiber of your being that the grand jury/jury sees it the same way you did. It better be a CLEAR, IMMEDIATE and SEVERE danger.

A real world example of this took place some years ago in TX. A man waited at a local mall for his wife and when she exited the mall, the man approached and shot his wife in cold blood in the presence of many witnesses. As the man drove away from the scene, one of the witnesses produced a handgun and ventilated the attacker. The attacker drove off a short distance but was unable to maintain proper operating pressure and began to assume ambient temperature. His car was found close to the scene, involved with a telephone pole, and he was found in the driver seat completely unable to do anything but permanently exercise his right to remain silent.

The witness who shot the attacker left the scene and none of the other witnesses would provide a useful description. Eventually the man turned himself in but was no-billed (not indicted) because it was felt that he acted reasonably. He witnessed a person approach what appeared to be a stranger, shoot her in cold blood in front of witnessess and then calmly attempt to leave the scene. The grand jury felt that a reasonable person would do everything in his power to prevent such a person from leaving the scene and possibly repeating the scenario. It also transpired that at one point the attacker was driving roughly toward the witness/shooter and that was construed as a sufficient threat. However, given that the other witnesses (a jury of his peers, if you will) were completely unwilling to indict the witness/shooter in the death of the attacker, I think the grand jury felt that it wasn't their part to contradict them.

That's a pretty pathological case, but it just goes to show that it is possible to "legally" shoot someone after they attempt to disengage.

 

[Akurat]

You should get jail time for punching someone in the face on the side of the road...but whatever. At least he got something, right?

And at least now he can be a real criminal-on-probation tough guy, and not just a WANNABE.

 

[Edmond]

That guy will get his. He's going to mouth off to the wrong person who is bigger, stronger and tougher than him and he'll get the crap kicked out of him. With that type of temper and attitude, it'll happen sooner than later.

 

[JohnKSa]

He's going to mouth off to the wrong person who is bigger, stronger and tougher than him and he'll get the crap kicked out of him.

Or he might try to punch an armed person much smaller and weaker than he is and get shot. The first TX CHL shooting ended in a fatality for a very large bully. The little guy with the gun ended up with permanent hearing damage from being struck, but he's alive and acquitted. The prosecutor did his best to make the first CHL shooting a conviction for the shooter but failed.

Factors contributing to the acquittal. CHL kept his mouth shut at the scene. CHL was injured permanently. CHL was small, attacker was large. The dead bully had some tattoos--one was "Born to kill" and the other one (which I can't remember) was similarly imbued with implications of violence. The violence of the attack was totally unwarranted by the situation.

The two cars made contact in traffic. No damage--a rear view mirror on the van the bully was driving ticked the CHL's car (or vice versa.) The bully jumped out of the van (I don't even think it was his--I believe it was his employer's) and began to pummel the CHL who could not drive away due to traffic and was unable to disentangle himself from his seatbelt. He was able to finally retrieve his pistol and promptly settled the dispute at that point.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Glad to hear they did something to the clown. Dismayed that he didn't get more.

At any rate, watch yourself from now on and keep that gun on you whenever possible. You may want to consider some type of martial arts training as a backup in case you don't have the preferred method (that .40cal Sig) at hand. After I was attacked at knife point at a gas station, I began training in Krav Maga. Excellent real world system that focuses on keeping you safe and being prepared to fight in any position.

I'm NOT advocating martial arts as an alternative, just a necesary addition to ones self-defense arsenal. Skill with a knife could also be useful, but requires you to carry a weapon (which you said you can't at work)

Good job letting the justice system do the work for you.

 

[psyopspec]

Congrats, given all situations we hear about with no action taken, it's nice to see the system work out the way it's supposed to. Like previous posters have said, keep your situational awareness up, carry safe, carry always.

 

[Stand_Watie]

Factors contributing to the acquittal. CHL kept his mouth shut at the scene. CHL was injured permanently. CHL was small, attacker was large. The dead bully had some tattoos--one was "Born to kill" and the other one (which I can't remember) was similarly imbued with implications of violence. The violence of the attack was totally unwarranted by the situation

My recollection of that incident (on the Tollway in North Dallas I think) is that the CHL holder was no-billed by the grand jury. Also I believe the attacker was 6'2 and over 300 lbs and the CHL holder went something like 6'0 and 150 pounds. I think the attacker was also Samoan or some other Pacific Islander where people are known for being large and was driving a delivery truck and was afraid he would lose his job...the catalyst for the attack was that the CHL holder insisted on calling the police on his cell phone to deal with the traffic accident.

I might be misremembering, but I think I have it essentially right.

 

[Gordy Wesen]

Good for you. Glad you pressed for an outcome. You did the right thing.
If your friend had not witnessed the event the cops would have said, 'your word against his' and you would have been sol.

 

[lucky8926]

Either way you still made the scumbags life just a little more miserable!!

 

[Werewolf]

My recollection of that incident (on the Tollway in North Dallas I think) is that the CHL holder was no-billed by the grand jury

What is "no-billed"? Can one that is "no-billed" be indicted later on with the same crime?

 

[gunsmith]

Thank you Agent 7

you put the guy on notice that his behavior is unacceptable.
He should have been prosecuted for impersonating an officer.
When I was a long haired 20'something I was in a verbal argument with a motorist who nearly killed me when I was riding my bike and this guy who didn't see anything intervened claiming to be a cop and threatened to "take me downtown" I asked to see his shield and he didn't know what one was!
I should have called the cops on them both but had to get to work.

Good work! A7! I doubt he will come after you but be carefull anyway

 

[JohnKSa]

S-W,

I can't find anything on it, but I'm pretty sure it went to trial. Most of what I know about it came from Constable R.L. Skinner. He followed the shooting and subsequent trial carefully since he is also a CHL Instructor. He and Representative Ray Allen who was one of the TX state legislators who wrote the CHL law were teamed up for the training classes--R.L. did the deadly force portion of the class and Rep. Allen did the part dealing with the specifics of the law. I took my first CHL class from them at The Academy for Firearms Training--it was a pretty neat experience.

Werewolf,

Yes, you can be indicted later if more evidence comes to light. It's not the same thing as being tried and acquitted.

 

[c_yeager]

What is "no-billed"? Can one that is "no-billed" be indicted later on with the same crime?

I don't know the specifics of the case. But, being "no-billed" generally means that the grand jury didnt find sufficient grounds to offer an indictment. In other words it means that the prosecuter couldnt go foreward with the case. However, because it was not a trial and no jeopardy was attached there is still the possibility of a trial should new evidence come to light.

 

[LynnKCircle]

It's my understanding -- quite possibly in error -- that under Texas CHL law, you would be justified in drawing on someone who had physically attacked you, even with his fists. If upon seeing the gun, he turned and left, the threat is over; you cannot shoot. On the other hand, if he saw the gun and continued to come at you, you would be totally justified in shooting on the assumption that only someone crazy or high on drugs would charge into a gun bare-handed.

Just to CYA, anytime you reach the point where you have to pull a gun, even if no shots are fired, you should file a police report.

(Disclaimer: I'm on my third renewal of my Texas CHL. That doens't mean I know squat about the law. But I do know if someone hit me, I'd draw on him. If he continued to come at me, I'd shoot him. To my mind that is reasonable behavior, regardless of the law.)

 

[LASur5r]

Sucks

Sucks to be him, but it beats being on close and an intimate relationship with a cellmate named " Fill in the Blank".

Unfortunately I was heavily involved in going to court as an "expert witness"(building inspector)several years back and I saw a lot of cases being shaved down to a slap on the wrist.

I used to get really "T'd" off with the system but one day a guy that had been dodging prosecution by going to Europe about 3-6 months at a time finally got tagged on a speeding ticket at an L.A. beach...on a Friday evening....he was hauled in on a bench warrant for his arrest. Being as how he was of the priviledged class but his parents were away on vacation when he got picked up, there was no one around to bail him out so he got to spend jail time on the weekend where a bunch of repeat offenders made his acquaintance.

Result? He bled out in County Jail(internal hemmorhaging(sp?)...street justice can be much harder than anything our system does to these guys.

Otherwise, often the system sucks. Watch your six meanwhile.