Posted on 01/11/2023 10:17:36 AM PST by absalom01
The question now, of course, is whether the shooter’s use of deadly defensive force to stop Washington’s armed robbery was justified on the legal merits.
The answer? Yes, maybe, and almost certainly not.
Confused yet? Let’s clarify.
Shooting someone dead is, of course, normally a crime. Under Texas law, and the law of every other state, however, the use of deadly force upon another might be legally justified, and not a crime, if it meets the conditions for deadly force defense of persons—meaning either defense of self or defense of others. ...
Importantly, the legal conditions for justification must be met for each individual use of deadly force in the encounter—meaning, in this case, for each round fired by the shooter–and that’s where we arrive at the “yes, maybe, and almost certainly not” nature of whether this shooting is lawful.
The bottom line, of the nine rounds fired by the shooter at Washington, the first four were almost certainly legally justified, the second four may be legally justified, and the ninth and final shot almost certainly was not justified, based upon the only evidence currently available to us, which is the surveillance video of the encounter.
For purposes of this commentary and legal analysis, I’ll be addressing the shooter’s use of force as three distinct use of force events, each needing their own legal justification in order to be lawful.
Use-of-Force #1: The first four shots fired, roughly from the start of the video to 0:10 seconds.
Use-of-Force #2: The second four shots fired, roughly from 0:10 to 0:14 seconds in the video.
Use-of-Force #3: The ninth and final shot fired at about 0:16 seconds in the video.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
If he was waiving around a gun, but didn't rob anyone? Yes.
“How do you know?”
Beyond a reasonable doubt. If a reasonable person could conclude the shooter had reason to believe the bastard was already dead, then the prosecution would have failed to convince the jury.
I’m one of those who would have a very hard time convicting this guy of ANYTHING. In the heat of the moment, might he have gone too far? Maybe. Maybe even probably. But I’d have a REALLY hard time voting to convict him of anything.
Which may be why I wasn’t on the last jury I was called for. If I served, I’d try to follow the law, but in modern America, “the law” has become a suicide pact manipulated for the benefit of the evil. I’d try but I think the shooter did everyone a favor.
BTW - I carry a 5 shot revolver and I HOPE I’d have the self-discipline to obey every aspect of the law. And I pray God that I never need to find out!
“In the so-called wild west shooting anyone in the back, even a criminal, got you a rope necktie.”
Not big on real history, eh?
"A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be."
Back shooters are cowards.
Bullshit.
Seriously!? That was not a boxing match, he was fighting for his life. In a life-or-death situation, I’m going dirty. You can go for the nice eulogy, I’m going home to my family.
The coup de gras was administered. The question is was the armed robber already dead when the last shot was fired?
Forensics can actually figure that out. If he was dead it’s moot.
Then what? You're just watching a video, you weren't there with your body charged with adrenaline while another potential victim was sitting at a table at the back left corner of the video.
What do you think he was thinking as the thug was advancing towards him with a gun?
You certainly wouldn't qualify as an expert witness since it's unlikely you ever experienced a life threatening event as that. And if you were there, I doubt you would have yelled at the samaritan to stop shooting after the first or second shot.........LOL!
The back shooter was sitting at a table and the loser was leaving heading for the door.. I SAW the video. I could be wrong. A jury is NOT going to like this.
He’s a coward, whether or not he is a second degree murderer will be up to a jury. Definitely it was not first degree murder.
Very close to the law in Texas, where there is also no duty to retreat.
See TPC Sections 9.31 and 9.32
As a random aside, it often surprises people to learn that ultra-liberal California also does not impose a duty to retreat for lawful self-defense.
Critical to know the law.
Some years back in Tampa a homeowner found a dead guy in his driveway. When the police arrived, an elderly gentleman walked up and said that he had shot the guy because the man had suddenly jumped out of the bushes and tried to rob him. The police asked why he hadn’t remained at the scene. The gentleman explained that he was walking home after grocery shopping and he didn’t want his ice cream to melt so he had continued home.
Citizens are not professionally trained LEOs and these lefties who come after people who act in self defense are criminals themselves. Only criminals believe in disarming honest people. When someone pulls a weapon and threatens to harm others that person has forfeited all rights in that moment. If some citizen acts maybe too zealously in self defense, that’s just too bad.
But the judges and prison guards need jobs. Thus all the fake angst over criminals being blown away.
There is a hero shop-keeper here in Washington state that stopped a mall shooter. He ran to the shots with his gun in his holster. Saw the shooter, pulled his gun and yelled at the shooter to stop - shooter shot him and he is paralyzed for life.
However, after being confronted the shooter did stop shooting and he ran and hid in a store and the police found him quickly.
Never saw the shouted warning as a wise thing to do with a gun already in their hand. That next “moved muscle” might be the trigger finger with the gun pointed at a person.
And pulling a gun on a bad guy with his gun in your face is a bad idea. The old guy in the video waited for his chance and took it.
He already has and is cooperating with the authorities.
You’re making yourself look even stupider than usual with that “coward” nonsense.
Some years back in Tampa a homeowner found a dead guy in his driveway. When the police arrived, an elderly gentleman walked up and said that he had shot the guy because the man had suddenly jumped out of the bushes and tried to rob him. The police asked why he hadn’t remained at the scene. The gentleman explained that he was walking home after grocery shopping and he didn’t want his ice cream to melt so he had continued home.
This “shooter” had a fake gun and wasn’t an active “shooter”. BIG DIFFERENCE.
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.