Larry P.--thanks for the response. My info about the true bill came from a local news report during a visit to Austin. But I never quite believe the media anyway, and hopefully this is an example why.
The details you added about the incident are, to me, on target--I omitted them, not wishing to make my post longer than it was. Still, a question remains about whether or not the thief was turning around when he was shot. I don't believe that either of us mentioned the important fact that the incident occurred late at night. Darkness seems to have affected the perception of the shooter. Thus according to the best-case scenario (from the standpoint of the shooter), the licensee, who could not see clearly in the surrounding dark, even with streetlights, believed the thief was armed and was turning toward him threateningly. He shot before the thief could turn farther, rather than waiting to see if he'd be shot. This placed the bullet in the thief's back, although one report said "behind the shoulder," which carries a different connotation. The media apparently expected the licensee to refrain from shooting until after the thief had turned fully around, clearly revealed a gun, and shot first, like in a western movie.
Anyway, IMO, the licensee should not have pursued the thief in the first place. He should simply have let the thief go after the break-in, rather than to try to fill in for the police or act like a hero. Pursuing the thief ultimately led to a second but related event, the scenario above, which required deadly force, at least in the mind of the licensee.
BTW, I'm convinced that the anti-self defense zealots and their media allies would have been infinitely happier if the thief had killed the licensee rather than the other way around.
Thanks again.
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited July 15, 1999).]
The details you added about the incident are, to me, on target--I omitted them, not wishing to make my post longer than it was. Still, a question remains about whether or not the thief was turning around when he was shot. I don't believe that either of us mentioned the important fact that the incident occurred late at night. Darkness seems to have affected the perception of the shooter. Thus according to the best-case scenario (from the standpoint of the shooter), the licensee, who could not see clearly in the surrounding dark, even with streetlights, believed the thief was armed and was turning toward him threateningly. He shot before the thief could turn farther, rather than waiting to see if he'd be shot. This placed the bullet in the thief's back, although one report said "behind the shoulder," which carries a different connotation. The media apparently expected the licensee to refrain from shooting until after the thief had turned fully around, clearly revealed a gun, and shot first, like in a western movie.
Anyway, IMO, the licensee should not have pursued the thief in the first place. He should simply have let the thief go after the break-in, rather than to try to fill in for the police or act like a hero. Pursuing the thief ultimately led to a second but related event, the scenario above, which required deadly force, at least in the mind of the licensee.
BTW, I'm convinced that the anti-self defense zealots and their media allies would have been infinitely happier if the thief had killed the licensee rather than the other way around.
Thanks again.
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited July 15, 1999).]