Posted on 07/08/2012 5:36:26 PM PDT by marktwain
According to Dallas News, a Texas gun owner shot a man who attacked him at a convenience food store.
Witnesses report that a drunk man stumbled into the EZ Trip Food Store in Dallas, Texas and began harassing customers. He repeatedly slapped one customer in the face until the customer ran from the store, so the drunk man switched his sights to another target. He began punching another man in the face and followed the fleeing man into the parking lot.
That was the biggest mistake of his life. The punched customer, who was a concealed license carrier, pulled out a gun and shot the drunk man. He hung around and waited for police to arrive and was taken into custody without any trouble.
The drunk man was taken to a local hospital, but he was pronounced dead roughly an hour after the shooting took place. The names of both individuals have not been released.
One witness called the shooting, “people being crazy,” and another told Dallas News, “It wasn’t worth the loss of life.” Despite these unsupportive witnesses, the shooter probably has a fairly good chance of walking. Texas’ Stand Your Ground Law states that a citizen doesn’t have to retreat if:
* He had the right to be at the location.
* He did not provoke the assailant.
* He was not engaged in criminal activity at the time.
Was shooting an obviously intoxicated and punch-happy drunk man excessive? Possibly. Was it legal? Looks like it.
The drunk Joe and sober Joe inhabit the same body and suffer the same consequences.
>>The drunk Joe and sober Joe inhabit the same body and suffer the same consequences. <<
Wasn’t that a Star Trek episode?
The article doesn’t say if the shooter first tried to use the gun to threaten the drunk. It reads like the shooter drew his gun and shot. I hope that isn’t what happened.
Don’t bring a beer to a gun fight.
...after you run away from him, he pursues you, and resumes his attack? I think not.
Don’t pull your gun until you are ready to shoot. If you want to wave it around, get a watergun. Because you obviously don’t consider yourself to be in reasonable fear for your life.
“It reads like the shooter drew his gun and shot. I hope that isn’t what happened.”
You don’t ‘threaten’ with deadly force. If you don’t have cause to use it then the gun should remain in its holster.
This isn't even "stand your ground." This is "run from a crazy drunk who just punched you and now is chasing you." I don't know why the author even used the word "excessive."
If I was on the jury, I would say “Not Guilty”.
If Obama had a drunk...
“Don’t pull your gun until you are ready to shoot.”
Agree. Citizens are not trained to detain perps, and should never use a firearm for threatening purposes.
A punch is an assault, and has the potential to seriously injure and kill.
The person being assaulted has no burden to asses whether or not the assailant is too drunk to fight, or if they are not trained to injure and kill with their bare hands.
IMO, anyone who pulls a gun to threaten a person attacking them is a fool.
“Was shooting an obviously intoxicated and punch-happy drunk man excessive? Possibly.”
How badly of a beating was the retreating permit holder, being pursued by the assailant, obligated to take in the eyes of this writer? If its some young strong guy, attacking someone much older than them,,,or or maybe a peaceful man who isnt that good with his fists.
bottom line,, when you drunkenly attack someone, “you pays your money,,,you takes your chances”.
“I gonna slap you into da middle o nex’ week.”
BAM!
Good shooting, Citizen. Civilization thanks you.
Despite what you wrote, I would rather pull out my concealed weapon and hold it casually pointed down at the ground and give the attacker a chance to back away. If they continue to threaten or attempt to attack, then BLAM!
With reactions like that, I think there may have been a racial angle to this...
Depends on how far away they are and what they’re holding.
There are excellent reasons not to do that. First, if you don’t have cause to use deadly force then ‘threatening’ with your firearm is considered brandishing.
Second, it gives the attacker the opportunity to take it away.
The guy had already attacked the victim and was chasing after him. These things typically happen very quickly. The second to last thing I want to do is shoot someone.
The last thing is have a family member get hurt because I didn’t.
Sure cure for drug addiction and alcoholism ...
“The article doesn’t say if the shooter first tried to use the gun to threaten the drunk. It reads like the shooter drew his gun and shot. I hope that isn’t what happened.”
I don’t know your level of training, but here in Texas they are very clear. If you pull your gun, you better be able to prove that you were scared for your life (whether true or not). The best way to prove it is to put some lead into the bad guy. The worst thing to do is play games, like warning shots or extremity shots, or trying to hold a person at gunpoint (which requires a very high level of training and is not expected of a concealed carry person).
Yes, Texas is a very gun-friendly state (thank you Governor Perry, even if I hate you otherwise for wanting to put toll booths on our freeways), but even here we have limits and having a concealed doesn’t give you the right to use it to intimidate people. In other words, if you’re going to show it, then use it, and if you’re going to use it, use it to kill. That’s how things work, if you don’t want your life to get turned upside down.
Ahh, another day in Texas. Lesson to everyone, don’t go drunk nutso in Texas, you are likely to die.
“If I was on the jury, I would say “Not Guilty”.”
Agree, based on the article. If there’s a female DA and I’m on a grand jury, I’ll trust the news article first (i.e., Zimmerman).
In any case, us conservatives need to start throwing our weight around on juries and grand juries - we need to simply say that we’re not going to wreck the lives of people that simply stumble into a crappy situation (i.e., Zimmerman again). If the guy with the concealed is a jerk - that’s different, but that’s also very, very, rare.
You either have no training whatsoever or if you do you need to request a refund.
“Despite what you wrote, I would rather pull out my concealed weapon and hold it casually pointed down at the ground and give the attacker a chance to back away. If they continue to threaten or attempt to attack, then BLAM!”
Sorry, but here in Texas you will be sued for EVERYTHING YOU HAVE if you try that stunt. The bottom-line, here at least, is that if you show your piece, you better be able to prove it was needed to save your life (or something close) - otherwise they’ll sue you for thinking you’re some kind of Rambo.
Hell, no. Punch-happy drunks kill people with their fists and feet all the time. Just last month a guy near here ended up in critical condition and in a coma because a drunk in a bar took a disliking to him, followed him out to the parking lot, and hit him *once*, causing him to fall and hit his head on a concrete parking berm. The poor s.o.b. is probably going to have permanent brain damage and spend months in rehab just because some dumb-ass was drunk and "punch-happy."
Being drunk is no excuse. When you physically attack someone, you get what's coming to you, up to and including getting your brains blown out.
Why was he arrested?
“That was the biggest mistake of his life.”
That was also the last mistake of his life.
I love stories with happy endings!
Not to mention a toll booth is like a fair tax- you only pay for what you use.
Is it a hassle? Sure, it's annoying, but it seems a more constitutional method of raising revenue to maintain the roads than accepting federal highway funds.
“Why was he arrested? “
Because that’s all that LEO know.
Hook em and book em....let someone
else figure out what really happened.
That should not be dismissed as an option. It depends on the situation.
I have no problem with tolling, as long as it’s done in a FREE MARKET.
That means, no SWEETHEART DEALS, such as using Eminent Domain to clear a right-of-way for one company to build and operate a toll road for 75 years, but not doing the same for a second or third company that wants to provide the same service (for less).
Likewise, I’m not too hot (to say the least) on non-compete clauses, which restrict any kind of parallel improvement in the “sphere-of-influence” that might take away from toll revenue.
Get rid of the above, and, I too, would be ALL FOR toll roads. In fact, that’s how airlines operate these days - no airline has a protected route and if one airline tries to overcharge, competitors move in. Show me the same for toll roads, anywhere in the world, and I’ll retract my opposition to toll roads.
But now we have the 407 ETR in Canada that has the above sweetheart deals, and they are charging 30 cents PER MILE to drive (at least 10 times what it costs to operate the road). Why - because their contract forbids competition, but allows them to charge as much as they want. That is what Perry attempted (with some success) to do to Texas. Why he embarked on that will likely never be known - although corruption is the most likely reason.
So, until toll roads actually operate in a free-market environment, I prefer to pay an essentially non-corrupt gas tax for my roads.
Drunks are just as apt to attack and harm as a dumb sober racist lunatic is.
I don’t know your level of training, but here in Texas they are very clear. If you pull your gun, you better be able to prove that you were scared for your life . . . .
____________________________________________________
This is just not so. You don’t have to be afraid of losing your life only of serious bodily injury. Breaking your jaw or losing an eye is serious injury in my book. In Texas you don’t have to settle for injury you just shoot the guy and let him worry about it.
“This is just not so. You don’t have to be afraid of losing your life only of serious bodily injury. Breaking your jaw or losing an eye is serious injury in my book. In Texas you don’t have to settle for injury you just shoot the guy and let him worry about it.”
I guess it depends on how good your instructor is. Yes, you don’t have to prove you’re in fear of your life, if you want the police to leave you alone - but the tort end is a different story. You’ll be sued for EVERYTHING you own if you cannot show you feared for your life. Our laws do help out a lot in that area (in California, even showing you feared for your life is not enough - you have to draw the guy into your bedroom before you shoot, if you want a to survive their tort system - as an instructor once told me). In Texas it’s better, but if you played footsie with the guy, you sure as heck better have a good attorney, and a deep bank account - but if you shoot to kill, your defense is pretty much secured.
Did anyone think to call the police at that point???
So much for liberal spin... Particularly if there was an imbalance of force (the victim was smaller, older, frailer than the drunk) that should be part of the equation as to whether the gunfire was "excessive".
I'm 75, 5'4", and have gout (so I can't run away). Assault and battery on me is not a healthy idea -- no matter how much you had to drink...
One step too far, pilgram.
If I was on the jury, I would say “Not Guilty”.
As the Mayor of Houston mercifully warned the criminally aggressive, ghetto, racist refugees from New Orleans - this place is different than what you are used to...
Not a great idea, given the way laws in this area tend to work in most states, and given close-quarters interactions. If you draw, you probably best be shooting.
Despite what you wrote, I would rather pull out my concealed weapon and hold it casually pointed down at the ground and give the attacker a chance to back away. If they continue to threaten or attempt to attack, then BLAM!
People can be murdered with a perp’s bare hands and I could not stand by while armed and permit that to happen to me or a helpless victim. Shooting someone for me, is serious business, so giving him a chance to repent and run if he is unarmed, is what I would need to do, too.
The shooter, in this case, was being attacked by the idiot and he did not have time nor choice in the matter. The perp could have disarmed him if he did not shoot once he pulled his gun. Bang.
The operative phrase is “Too old to take a beating, and too young to die.”
At the training that I took the instructor made it very clear that we should be ready to fire at the count two. Count one is when the weapon clears the holster. Count two is when it is rotated toward the target while being still near the holster. From that moment on the weapon tracks the target to the best of your abilities. You most certainly do not point it toward the ground, the sky, or your foot. This link discusses positions and mentions that Low Ready on draw is detrimental. At the training we used it only after the exercise was complete, before reholstering.
Considering what you typed, considering how many times I’ve hit my head, or had it hit and been knocked out, I’m lucky I don’t suffer from anything specifically from that (though the people I know will vehemently argue different).
Why? The shooter retreated from the store to the parking lot even though he had no obligation to do so.
My father died two years ago today, less than four days after falling down in a parking lot and hitting his head on the pavement.
Many attacks are stopped by the knowledge the victim is armed.
Using a previously concealed carry weapon to threaten others has been the cause of several Texans to loose their conceal carry license.
You don't pull it out unless you are in fear from your life in the present situation. If you pull it out and prepare to shoot, and the situation changes, it does not mean you are required to shoot.
But if you "brandished" your weapon to threaten, rather than prepared to shoot, you would lose your CCW.
Threatening others with a weapon is not allowed.
But if, as you prepare to shoot while you are in fear of imminent harm, the situation changes, then you are not required to shoot because you pulled out your gun.
Think about the difference. You are not required to be a quick draw artist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.