Protester shot in Austin (TX)

Witness testimony as well as that of the person that fired the three shots after the Sgt. dispatched the deceased as described in various news sources shows that the deceased used the muzzle of his AK47 to "roll your window down" or so they stated. That means an Afgahnistan Vet (as reported) was muzzle swept by the deceased.

The person that fired the three shots at the Sgt. after he engaged the deceased was questioned and admitted his role to the police (reported by P.D. and the local news).

This won't even go to the Grand Jury. In this dynamic situation, in light of the Sgt.'s actions at large and the second shooters testimony, as well as the video of the deceased hours before hand establishing frame of mind, the D.A. won't touch this at all. The Veteran Sgt. / Uber driver suffers legal bills and not much else.
 
My understanding of a Grand Jury's function is to examine charges and see if the evidence warrants a trial.

If no one is charged, there is nothing for them to examine.

IF I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
 
44 AMP said:
My understanding of a Grand Jury's function is to examine charges and see if the evidence warrants a trial.

If no one is charged, there is nothing for them to examine.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that a grand jury meets to examine evidence in order to decide if there is sufficient probable cause to charge someone. The grand jury comes before the charges, not after.

I am not a lawyer, but I was once a witness in a federal grand jury. And I know for a fact that in that one the charges were not made until after the grand jury handed down the indictment. I don't know if a Texas grand jury operates differently.
 
Last edited:
In a situation like this one, where the driver has cooperated and was released without being arrested, what will typically happen is the district attorney will present the case to the grand jury. If they do not indict (“no bill”), then there are no charges. If they do indict, then the driver will be charged, arrested, likely bond out, and proceed to trial.

The grand jury also has the power to investigate on its own if the DA declines to present the case. As a general rule in Texas, if you shoot someone in self-defense, you are going before the grand jury (which runs about $5,000-$8,000 of legal fees if you choose to have a defense attorney represent you).
 
Are you allowed to appear or be represented at a grand jury? The evidence is on trial at that point, not you.
 
44amp grand juries can actually work both ways. They can initiate charges by hearing presented evidence, or they can review charges that have already been filed an indict. It varies by state, but in my state felonies are most often charged by an officer obtaining a warrant from a magistrate who determines if there is PC. The defendant is arrested and appears before district court for procedural hearings. If the prosecutor determines the case is going to superior court, it goes to Grand Jury and the review the charges and evidence.

Charges can also be initiated by a grand jury. I know of cases where an investigator uncovered evidence of a crime that was part of a continuing series of frauds. Multiple counts of the same crime occurred both in and out of his jurisdiction, but all in the same county. He went to the magistrate and obtained warrants to his applicable crimes, but the DA indicted for all of them that occurred in their county when he went to grand jury for his charges. Obvious self defense shootings and officer involved shootings often go to grand jury to be either cleared or charged. It’s kind of a way for the prosecutor to punt when they know it’s obviously self defense but they don’t want to be seen as being biased in the charging decisions.
 
zxcvbob said:
Are you allowed to appear or be represented at a grand jury?
Click to expand...

The grand jury can summon anyone as a witness. Neither the defendant nor his attorney is allowed to be present for the whole process. And if the grand jury does summon you, you’ll generally just be answering the specific questions they ask.

5whiskey said:
Obvious self defense shootings and officer involved shootings often go to grand jury to be either cleared or charged. It’s kind of a way for the prosecutor to punt when they know it’s obviously self defense but they don’t want to be seen as being biased in the charging decisions.
Click to expand...

Exactly, same here. Typically the suspect is arrested, charged, and charges presented to the grand jury for indictment. In cases where things aren’t clear or the prosecutor does not want to be accused of bias, there may be no arrest until the grand jury reaches a decision.

SHR970 said:
That is unique as where I live they can't and I will amend my statement: This won't even go to the Grand Jury unless they take it up themselves and the Veteran Sgt. / Uber driver suffers legal bills and not much else.
Click to expand...

I’d guess the probability of it being presented to the grand jury in some fashion is near 100% for the reasons 5whiskey explained. There was a guy in Houston who shot two known felons after they had broken into his home and started shooting at him. That went to a grand jury. Though I think the driver has a decent chance of bring no-billed.

thallub said:
A no bill from the Texas grand jury may not mean the shooter is home free. Although it happens rather infrequently: The prosecutor could re-present the case to the grand jury.
Click to expand...

Which is a very real concern as the Democratic DA nominee for the November general election is a Soros candidate, and Travis County tends to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
 
Last edited:
It is never "OK" when there is a loss of life. However, "peaceful" protesters do not carry AK-47's in tactical positions during their exercising of their First Amendment rights and "smart" protesters don't approach law abiding drivers trying to go from point A to point B in the aforementioned armed state in an already amped-up crowd.

Ergo, Mr. Garrett was, IMHO, neither "peaceful" nor "smart" and as a result, he's no longer with us. May this be a lesson to all of us.
 
However, "peaceful" protesters do not carry AK-47's in tactical positions during their exercising of their First Amendment rights
Click to expand...

I am not sure what a 'tactical position' is, but if you mean with hands on pistol grip and handguard, they surely do. They do it with AKs, ARs, Barretts, and a bunch of other rifles. Google pro gun or 2A protests and see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWHxgVxpGLg
https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...calls-protecting-second-amendment/2858260001/

I do agree with you and Garrett wasn't peaceful or smart. He appeared to be very much of the mindset of intimidating others through the aggressive brandishing of his gun, pointed close to or at the driver.
 
If carrying a rifle at low ready is reason to open fire, then it would be open season on the various armed protestors on either side of this argument.

The argument has been repeatedly made that people who feel threatened by individuals open carrying at Starbucks for example, are over reacting. This situation is similar in that the man who was shot was legally carrying a firearm.

What standard should we use? Is it enough that the shooter was frightened? Well we assume he was frightened. Or should the standard be that a reasonable man who was not frightened would act the same?

Semantically, I might also propose that going armed is more or less contrary to the concept of civil disobedience.
Click to expand...
Aguila Blanca: that is only true of certain types of civil disobedience. Certainly the classic nonviolence of Gandhi and MLK wouldn't want armed participants. But Sam Adams would be fine with it.
 
consider the question, if someone is pointing a gun at you and acting aggressively, at what point is it still prudent to assume that he's NOT going to shoot you?

Other thoughts occur to me, most minor, but all seem worthy of a bit of thought, about things in general, and more specifically, "protesting" in the middle of the night.

Was it legally carrying an AK? At what point does it change from carrying a rifle to some form of brandishing? I feel slung arms, over the shoulder the usual way is carrying, but not brandishing. Now, what about carrying a rifle in your hands? "Combat" slung at the forward ready? In the middle of the night, on a public street in a crowd of "protestors"??

That's where its a judgement call. YOU know your actual intentions. No one else does. All they can know is what your actions seem like, to them.

A lot, if not about all the "reporting" we see and hear is done with the intent of creating a certain image or impression about what happened. The words and phrases used often distort the reality of the facts.

I hear "mostly peaceful" used often lately. "Mostly peaceful" sounds to me like "mostly pregnant". An impossibility. If there is violence, then its NOT peaceful. Like pregnancy, you either are, or you aren't.
 
The argument has been repeatedly made that people who feel threatened by individuals open carrying at Starbucks for example, are over reacting. This situation is similar in that the man who was shot was legally carrying a firearm.

What standard should we use? Is it enough that the shooter was frightened? Well we assume he was frightened. Or should the standard be that a reasonable man who was not frightened would act the same?
Click to expand...

The shooter was frightened, with good cause. You imply just by the open carry, but you neglect to account that the shooter was surrounded, people banging on his car, threats were being made. And like 44 AMP said, he wasn't simply carrying, the rifle was in-hand and given the circumstances, he crossed the line into "brandishing".

Or should the standard be that a reasonable man who was not frightened would act the same?
Click to expand...
^That doesn't even make sense.
 
Buzzcook said:
What standard should we use? Is it enough that the shooter was frightened? Well we assume he was frightened. Or should the standard be that a reasonable man who was not frightened would act the same?
Click to expand...
The standard is as it should be: That a hypothetical reasonable man who was frightened would act the same.
 
One thing we might all be missing is the hostile crowd that surrounded the SGT's car.

Were they threatening him? You can hear someone yell just before the shots to "back up" in the video.

Having dozens surrounding your car, pounding on it and threatening you then a guy comes up with a gun who is obviously with the crowd?

What would a reasonable person think then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top