“The suspect ignored that order and pointed his weapon at the agent,” he continued. “It was at that point that the agent, obviously fearing for his life, shot the suspect.”
Seconds after that shooting, a second man fired at the agent from the liquor store’s front door and fled, Ortiz said. The gunman remains a fugitive.
Two things are coming to mind. Confronting an armed attacker poses the challenge of when to shoot. The case here is the second unseen assailant. The agent was lucky. The second problem is not shooting an assailant in the back while they are retreating. The retreat could be intended to gain cover to regain tactical advantage. Of course the gun grabbers and criminal victim hustlers would claim murder for shooting an attacker who was retreating possible for cover. By hesitating to avoid a murder charge, one greatly increases their chances of losing the encounter.
Damn straight he was lucky. That's why my IDPA club mandates that when completing a course of fire the competitor must always threat scan for more attackers before declaring "completed" to the grader. Yes it's going to cost you some time and points but it may result in a procedural if you DON'T, and that's worse. The lesson here being that on the street, a "procedural" means you might be dead. That really is worse.
The second problem is not shooting an assailant in the back while they are retreating.
Why? Never stopped the feds before.
Not a problem under Texas law. Besides, the shooter was a Fed.