Lunged.
So, what's the issue? The shooting? The (probable) lying? The two year time frame? The motive of the prosecutor (possible political reasons)? The dropping of the civil suit by T.G.'s family?
I think the "issue" is how
this particular incident gives food for thought about
similar incidents that are being discussed on several other threads. If you go back and read my sarcastic first post in this thread, you will find questions about specific "rights" or "legal" actions that others have all but claimed were, pardon the pun, bulletproof, and this story is a shining example of how following your
gonads, versus
common sense,
can come back and make your shorts fit a bit more loosely.
Things that are "legal" and acceptable, are not always so unambiguous when viewed by our criminal justice system. What "at the moment" appears to follow the
letter of the law, does not always pass the scrutiny of the
spirit of the law.
Let us speak plainly;
Lemes told authorities he shot Glass after the 19-year-old turned and lunged at him as he was fleeing.
Keep those highlighted words in mind.
they sought the indictment because he shot the unarmed man five times after Glass already had fled the house
Sound similar to a couple of incidents? He shot an
unarmed man, five times, You would think that would be acceptable given the circumstances Eh?
“It wasn't like there was a confrontation or a struggle,” First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said. “Our investigation indicates he was high-tailing it out of the house with the homeowner in pursuit.”
You would
think that his actions would be
justifiable, he just witnessed a crime, and
legally has the means to pursue the criminal to "hold him for police" . If so, then why would that be a factor ? My guess is the
pursuit may be the first problem.
Texas law traditionally allows a homeowner to fire at an intruder if he believes it's the only way to protect his property, but prosecutors said Glass was empty-handed.
Now why would he not be justified in "defending his property" ? perhaps because the threat disappeared out the door. and why should it matter that he was "empty handed" ? Is it possible that the law does not see this as a "heinous" home invasion ? or a lesser "trespass"
The only other way deadly force would have been justified, they say, is if Lemes reasonably believed his life was in jeopardy or he was in danger of suffering serious bodily injury.
Like when the BG Lunged at the GG, that surely should have been threat enough, after all, the guy "could" have posed a threat ? Or maybe it is having a hard time passing the "reasonable man" test ? perhaps forensics?
“In this instance, the trespass had been terminated,” she said. “The guy's running down the street and away. There was no gun found. There was no indication of deadly force being used against the defendant.”
So, a stranger boldly enters your house, you confront him, he runs, you "give chase" he lunges, as if to attack, you "fear for your life" and fire. and yet even though there are
so many laws that
seem to favor your position, somehow you could be
wrong ? Think about that carefully. Apply that thought to some other incidents under discussion, you may see some things in a
slightly different perspective.
Some might conjecture; "Hell OuTcAsT, this is an isolated incident, what are the chances all these factors could come into play anywhere else" ?
Good question !
