Meanwhile, in Houston...
-
If you start shooting at an armed mugger, and they remain alive, you are at obvious existential threat of being retaliated against. You can't even trust they aren't playing dead.
If I were on a jury, I would interpret the law as clearly and honestly as possible, and may vote to convict on some charge or other, but I would not consider the act unjust.
-
The shooter ran and is a fugitive. Whatever theories people come up with need to take that into account.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
The shooter ran and is a fugitive. Whatever theories people come up with need to take that into account.
@jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, in Houston...:
The shooter ran and is a fugitive. Whatever theories people come up with need to take that into account.
The interesting part is what is captured on video. If anybody wants to discuss the legalities around the fact that he is still at large, they are welcome to. But that's not the interesting part to most of us, and legally it has nothing whatsoever to do with the act captured on video.
-
The shooter ran and is a fugitive. Whatever theories people come up with need to take that into account.
@jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, in Houston...:
The shooter ran and is a fugitive. Whatever theories people come up with need to take that into account.
Branch says that there's no statute prohibiting you from shooting someone in the back if either you feel the guy is a treat to you OR is a threat to someone else.
The first four shots, he claims, are justified.
ETA: Example - you're in a checkout behind an armed robber who puts a gun to the head of the person in front of him. YOu're justified in shooting him in the back to prevent a death.
ETA again: He fires the 9th shot AFTER he's picked up the robber's gun. That's very bad for him.
-
Leaving the scene of a crime is probably a chargeable offense.
The last shot might be prosecutable, but at that point it's probably just desecrating a corpse.
-
If you want to, here's the discussion:
Link to videoThe last shot might be prosecutable, but at that point it's probably just desecrating a corpse.
That would be up to the ME to determine. Was the guy dead? Who knows.
Branca's comments that this might be one of those "Bad for the defendant law," but it might fly with a jury.
Also addresses the reasons for him leaving the scene - many of which might not be related to the shooting.
-
Yes, the customer seems to have overdone it.
But if he doesn't regularly kill robbers and hasn't been instructed how to kill a robber efficiently I would cut him some slack.
I would advise him to stop shooting sooner, in the future.
-
The Canadian perspective.
Link to video -
Once the adrenaline flows and you start to pull the trigger, it's very hard to stop. Women, in particular, tend to empty a gun when shooting at someone. I suspect that's because they are less likely to resort to deadly force and when they do, they're all in. Regardless, anybody is operating in a different world after that first shot is fired.
The head shot is the problem.
-
Once the adrenaline flows and you start to pull the trigger, it's very hard to stop. Women, in particular, tend to empty a gun when shooting at someone. I suspect that's because they are less likely to resort to deadly force and when they do, they're all in. Regardless, anybody is operating in a different world after that first shot is fired.
The head shot is the problem.
-
If there is such a thing as temporary insanity I think most people could legitimately claim it if they had just done that shooting.
And as IT said, at that point he was probably shooting a corpse.
@Copper said in Meanwhile, in Houston...:
If there is such a thing as temporary insanity I think most people could legitimately claim it if they had just done that shooting.
And as IT said, at that point he was probably shooting a corpse.
Yeah, I could see Adrenalin, Fear, and Shock causing bad things to happen even in a justified shooting. It’s one of the reasons that I don’t own a gun.
