TX-CHL Holder being hung out to dry

D

Darthmaum

New member
One of the local news stations just aired a story (WFAA) about a CHL holder in Austin who is being tried for murder.

Apparently, as he and his wife/fiance were going to their car, they caught a black man burglarizing it. The CHL holder drew his gun and told the man not to move so he could call police. The assailant walked away into an alley and the CHL holder followed him. Nasty words were exchanged, and as the burglar was walking away, the CHL holder shot him in the back. He says that he thought the perp was turning to attack him when he shot, but later investigation turned up that the BG wasn't armed.

Now, this CHL holder is being branded as "taking the law into his own hands" by the TV report. The station also said that this case could have serious ramifications for Bush's presidential bid, as he was the one that signed the CHL bill into law. Phooey on them!!!!

I'm not sure if the shooting was justified or not, but he doesn't deserve to be labeled a vigilante, and neither do the rest of us TX CHL'rs (as the news rpt implied).

------------------
"Liberty or death, What we so proudly hail... Once you provoke Her, rattling of Her tail- Never begins it, NEVER- But once engaged never surrenders, showing the fangs of rage. DON'T TREAD ON ME!!

"Many's the men who've battled foe
many the number slain,
many the lads have fallen though
Scotland shall rise again."
 
I totally agree!!! The law says that deadly force is justified if your life is in immediate danger, (or to prevent arson). In my mind, his wasn't.
 
I've got to go with Tommy here. As soon as the BG turned to go, the guy and his lady should have got into the car and left also.

------------------
If you're not a little upset with the way the world is going, you're not paying attention.
 
And let me add that when ever an incident occurs, no matter what it is always file a report with the police.
I know a guy who lost his ccw because he scared off some guy and did not file a report. The BG did saying the dude threatened him with his gun. So go figure.
 
The news media here (I live in DeSoto, work in Plano) has a very liberal slant, both printed and broadcast. ANY action by a gun owner or CHL holder will end up with a negative twist. In some cases, (witness Chris' wife) successful defense of self will not be reported at all.

With that said, let me say that the man was Dead Wrong for what he did. When the BG walked away, he should have contacted the police, and let them take further action. The threat was gone.

------------------
When they try to take away my 2nd Amendment rights, tell them Hell's comin' and I'm comin' with it! Armed and Dangerous
 
He did three things wrong.

First, when he discovered the car being broken into, he should have retreated and called the police. He was placing both himself and his female friend in danger by confronting the guy. What if the bad guy had come out shooting when challanged.

Second, never try to hold someone at gun point if there is an alternative. Let him go so that when the police arrive, they hear your story first and possibly ONLY your story. Additionally, if they bad guy is not close by (held at gun point) he is much less of a danger.

Third, no one's life was in immediate peril, why in the hell did he follow him? I had heard that he was afraid that one of the items he had stolen contained his or the lady's ID. Still doesn't make much sense. You can take a licese pplate number and $2 to the local DPS office and they will run then plates for you. So if the bad guy wated to get back at the man for didturbing his craft (stealing) he had other ways to find out who he was.

The Texas CHL classes are pretty good about teaching these concepts on use of deadly force. Perhaps he was not listening, or trying to look macho for the lady. Texan's don't care much for car thieves and in some parts of Texas he would probably have been no-billed. Austin was probably the absolute worst place that this could have happened. The city is over run with bleeding heart liberals. Most of the papers in Texas are also pretty liberal and I am sure where just watering at the mouth when they caught wind of this shooting. SEE! SEE! THOSE CHL PEOPLE ARE ALL A BUNCH OF BLOOD THIRSTY KILLERS!!! SEE! SEE! WE TOLD YOU SO!!!

I hope it works out OK for him. The bad guy was apparently an ex-con and had a long record. The reality is that he did us all a favor. His reality is that he may do some time for using bad judgement. Under Texas law, if it appeared that he was about to actually steal the vehicle, the man could have shot him dead with out any warning and been within the bounds of the lawful use of deadly force. Deadly force can be used if your property is being stolen and you have no reasonable expectation of recovering it.

[This message has been edited by TEX (edited May 23, 2000).]
 
I am sorry to learn about this incident. Unfortunately, it will strengthen the antis "no handguns for anyone" arguments at a particularly politically sensitive time. This said, I certainly sympathize with the law-abiding citizen -- he really is in my prayers -- and I hate the career-felon who has doubtless victimized many others.

Countless TFL threads have discussed the use of lethal force. The consensus is deadly force should be used only to prevent grave physical harm, not to protect property. It is my understanding that a very few states allow the use of force to preclude the property theft or destruction (I believe Texas is one of the few). However, concealed carry permit holders must constantly exercise discipline, judgment, and responsibility. Can we honestly say this individual did so?

Let's hope the jury finds him not guilty (please notice that I did not say innocent). Moreover, let's hope that all of us learn from this misfortune.

Tex, your post is "on target", IMHO.
 
Well, this is the first CHL shoot that has a bad taste to it. All others have been justified.

Looks like this boob is going to put a stain on our good record to date. I think the jury is going to nail him.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!
 
Don't be so quick to judge.

This sounds like the SD case that my CHL class teacher (a former cop/current cop trainer) told me.

I assume this is the same case being dragged thru the media again.

Apparently, the guy had also taken his girlfriend's wallet.

They had the cell phone running the entire time to the police.

The man was justified in shooting when the guy was taking the car, and when the guy ATTACKED him. But he did not.

He started following the guy because he wanted him arrested. Why? Because the guy had also (earlier) gotten his girlfriend's wallet from the bar she worked at, and was chanting her address and how he was going to kill and rape her in that order - when he wasn't around. Keep in mind that this alone would put the man in the "danger to others" category, eh?

Thing is, he STILL didn't shoot until they get into the alley.

The Austin cops didn't want to prosecute him; but the DA wanted to make an example of him (esp. after the media crucified him).

In the class, I argued that he did wrong, shooting a gun in the back who was merely pulling up on the base of his shirt.

So the instructor took a plastic gun, positioned it on his person, and showed me how in the same situation a guy with his back turned is actually at an ADVANTAGE. Really surprised me how fast I was looking down the barrel of that plastic gun.

The instructor had either heard the 911 call tapes, or of them. The fact is that the (liberal) Austin officials only want to crucify a CHL holder.

Don't be so quick to judge.


Battler.
 
I think Battler's right. Let's not give the media what they want by crucifying this guy knowing only what the media tells us. They want to make it look like the bad guy was doing nothing but breaking into a car, then walking away. If what Battler reported is true, what would you have done?

LEO's, what would you do if a suspect you were holding at gunpoint (caught red-handed) walked away, turned his back to you (concealing his hands), pulled at his shirt, and turned towards you? After just threatening someone's life whose address he has been reciting? I think there have been justifiable homicides over less.

The media will only report the facts that support the position of the editors & owners. "CHL Holder Kills Career Felon in Alley" isn't a negative headline, but I doubt that that is the way the article was presented. The facts will come out in a trial, and will see little to no coverage, unless this guy is convicted of something.

IMHO, one less vermin to feed on us. I hope the CHL holder gets a trial by a jury of his peers and justice is done, however the case turns out.
 
Maybe the guy screwed up, maybe not.
But one thing is certain. The media is a branch of the government and we aren't going to get a straight story from them.
 
Another story I heard was of a deer hunter up in his tower who witnessed a lowlife kill a (highway?) cop long-distance, at speeding stop.

Said lowlife suddenly found out what it is like to be a Deer in hunting season in TX.

Media kept trying to find out who the man was to nail him to the cross - i.e. guy I talked to was asked "could you please tell us the name of the murderer" to which (as a cop) he replied "what murderer, the murderer's dead - and I'm not going to tell you who the HERO is". The guy (smart guy) didn't want to become well known (for his family's sake). Apparently, the cops wouldn't even tell the DA who it was, although they got a collection together and bought him a pair of engraved berettas.


Well, that's how I heard it. . . .


BTW - the Austin guy being tried for murder - that shoot happened a LONG time ago, i.e. over a year. Ironically the Austin CHL holder would have been justified in shooting while the guy was stealing the car (technically even someone toilet-papering your lawn is fair game; but we wouldn't go there). And justified when the guy was attacking him. But following him (even though he probably felt threatened by the guy's move with his back to him) is what may get him in trouble.

Battler.
 
Battler: You're close on the Highway Patrol incident. A man and his son were returning from deer hunting. They drove past the stop and the man saw--rear-view mirror--the attack on the DPS officer. He stopped, got his .243. The officer had already been shot with his own gun, as I recall. From about 150 yards, +/-, the hunter nailed the Bad Guy.

(I believe this was on I-10, maybe I-20, in west Texas.)

All police organizations in Texas lauded the shooter. None of them would give the man's name to the press.

FWIW, Art
 
My $0.02:

The shooter should have left well enough alone and not have followed the BG, even though IMO he did so in a public spirit, in order to keep the BG in sight until the police arrived--so that the police could apprehended the BG and keep him from victimizing someone else. But AFAIK such an action is not sanctioned by Texas laws governing deadly force, which require that such force be "immediately necessary" to be justified.

However, granted that the licensee should not have placed himself in an apparently life-threatening situation by following the BG, in the end it seems to me that he still fired in legitimate self-defense. At any rate, the DA's theory that the licensee followed the BG with the intention of killing him is, to me, outrageous, and betrays the leftist politics of Austin officialdom as well as the ambition of the DA's office to win cases at the expense of justice. Other than the obvious political gain, I suspect that the DA wants licensees to stop and consider that they may face legal and media persecution before they use their sidearms in self-defense or even obtain a carry license in the first place.

Although I think that the shooter made a mistake in following the criminal, I do not believe that he deserves indictment for murder, or that he should have to pay an estimated $100,000+ in legal fees to defend himself in court, or that he should have been so eagerly crucified by the media, or that he and his family should have been subject to the harrassment and hate of anti-gun zealots. Questionable though the licensee's judgment may have been, none of these things should have happened. But all of them have happened, reflecting that the anti-gunners will do whatever they can get away with.

Anyway, I hope the jury has the wisdom and sense to find that, on balance, he's innocent.

BTW, I've been trying to keep up with this case but for a long time it vanished from the media. Last year I heard, or thought I heard, that the licensee had already been convicted, but this report was obviously wrong. The media are sure to trumpet the outcome if he's found guilty, but I expect they'll bury the story if he's found innocent.



[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited May 23, 2000).]
 
Why don't I get to sit on the good juries? Let me say what is going through my mind. The guy shouldn't have shot him after walking away, but as a member of the jury, my opinion is that if the BG hadn't broken into the car in the first place, he'd still be alive. The responsibility for this rests soley on the bad guy. I might convict the good guy of unlawful discharge of a firearm in the city limits, but that would be about it. Really now, do you think that the thug would have been killed had he not been breaking into the car? While cooler heads should prevail, they didn't. The shooter should have his CCH repealed. He should pay a big fine for the unlawful discharge, and then be set free.
 
Jimmy: I don't have the law books on me at the moment; but I believe deadly force IS justified against someone who's just committed a felony, or can be "reasonably" (that word) considered to be a danger to others.

That "reasonably" word shows up a lot - and comes down to the discration of grand jury/jury.

The guy was caught committing a felony (stealing car), committed another (attacking the CHL holder), then walked off threatening to commit a (worse) felony.

If the description I got of the encounter was correct, and they use the cell phone 911 call tapes in the trial, it will help him.

Still a sorry situation, though.

Battler.
 
Battler--thanks for the post. I hope you're right! I understand that the TX CHL course teaches that the justification for deadly force ends if the BG leaves the scene and takes the threat of death or serious bodily harm with him.

Anyway, I think we agree that the shooting was justified. Even though I believe that the licensee made a mistake by following the BG and putting himself in harm's way, in the end the BG appeared to threaten him in such a way that deadly force became immediately necessary. This is just my interpretation of what happened.

Best,

jimmy


[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited May 23, 2000).]
 
I have to respectfully disagree with everyone who says that he should have never followed the BG into the alley. The BG was continuing to make threats even after the CCH holder had the drop on him (Darwin Award Nominee). I do no think that I could, in good conscience let the guy out of my sight. There is a legitimate concern that this BG was going to arm himself, and return to make good on his threats. Would your replies have been any different had the BG said "I'm gonna go get my gun, then I'll Kill & Rape your wife at XXXX Address"

I agree whole heartedly that no harm could have come to the Bg had he chosen another line of work. Car thievin' in Texas is dangerous, and should be.
 
The guy wasn't defending himself in the legal sense, he was making an arrest. He might have made a mistake, but that's up to a jury to decide now. I hope someone will let us know what happens.

There are many lessons to be learned here. I think the one that will stick with me is "Shoot early, shoot often."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top