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 ...
Not when you are shooting in the defense of others. There is also no duty to confront in a life threatening situation.
You watch too many Hollywood Westerns.
common sense would say if you walk into a public space waving a gun around and robbing people you accept the consequences of your actions. Unfortunately it is 2023 and common sense seems to be rare these days.
Well, that’s an interesting philosophical point.
If he had been working with an accomplice, and had met the same fate, his accomplice would certainly be indicted under the felony murder rule.
I think that a lot of people respond to this instinctively and base their thoughts on the foundation of what feels emotionally/morally correct. That’s fine, and possibly an interesting discussion, but it doesn’t directly impact the legal issues that the defender will now be facing.
My assumption is that our left-wing DA here in Harris county will try to bring charges, and this man will indeed have to appeal to the jury’s sense of the moral responsibility for initiating this horrible sequence of events that ended with a man’s death. Probably better to not have to trust one’s freedom to the jury’s sense of moral outrage.
Remember, Sheila Jackson Lee’s district is in Harris county. Who would want her voters to hold one’s fate in their hands?
Bad title. Legal and execution are not mutually exclusive
Silly to say “freeze”. Good way to wind up dead. This isn’t bonanza.
From the video, it appears that the defender noticed that the criminal had dropped his gun and that the defender had retrieved it before firing the final round.
That’s going to be hard to explain.
Agree.
In the wild west days reporters fabricated and embellished their stories as bad if not worse than they do today. Which is why Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven is one of my favorite westerns. The Duck of Death LOL, and so many more awesome one liners
They say, that you the only things you should tell the Officer, at the scene, if you stay, is that, you were in fear of your life, you will cooperate fully, and you will give them a statement, in the next 48-72hrs, with your lawyer present, not, right at that moment. And don't give in, if they demand.
This extra time, allows you to calm down and get the events, straight in your mind, instead of trying to give a statement, while everything is hectic and you are still jacked up on adrenaline. That way, you can give them a correct statement, without worrying about making a false statement.
Branco is the absolute best for the correct information on the use of self-defense. Those who were at FR at the time, may recall his play-by-play of the Zimmerman trial, much as he did the recent Rittenhouse trial. He explains things succinctly and in terms the layman can understand.
Consider this:
Texas law allows the use of deadly force to defend one’s own life, and the lives of other people. The robber had his gun pointed at the man seated on the left of the frame, posing a deadly force threat to that person.
Would that change the calculus in your mind?
Sincere question.
One thing that good police/CCW trainers emphasize is figuring out your own “what ifs”, what I refer to as ROE’s. One is only bound by the law at the outer limits, and we are certainly free to impose more restrictive rules on ourselves.
And one can certainly make the ethical case that “I will wait until the robber’s gun is pointed at me before I shoot” is your own appropriate ROE.
You could go further and say “I’ll let him get the first shot”, or even “I will not take a life even to save my own, or another person’s”. But that last fellow probably won’t be carrying CCW, and won’t have to make that decision.
Sincere question: where do you draw the line, using this case as an example?
Seriously? In a situation like this shooting someone in the back is the smart thing to do.
This wasn’t a duel in the street like in some old western.
The deceased had threatened deadly force in the commission of a robbery and upon doing so forfeited any right to fairness and even life itself.
Made you ill? Stay with the women and children at the wagons. Men will protect you.
“Put me on the jury and it will be a hung jury at the least.”
____
Same here. I suspect we aren’t the only ones who are fed up with the failures of elected officials to do their jobs and hold the criminals liable for their actions. Much like the hero in this instance, citizens are beginning to do the job themselves. If the politicians don’t like it, then they have the ability to change things.
Doesn’t a lot of the potential criminal charge depend upon knowing which shot killed the guy? If the guy was dead after the first four shots (which many feel were justified) then aren’t the remaining shots irrelevant as far a ‘murder’ is involved?
On the other hand, if the robber was still alive, but obviously incapacitated, when the final head shot was taken, I can see the case for a charge. As I understand it, you are shooting to stop something, not inflict a punishment (however justified it may seem).
IMHO, you should ask for immediate medical treatment and transport.
a) you probably do need medical attention
b) gives you time to keep your mouth shut
My 2 cents
Maybe not, I often carry a backup and often have more than 1 knife on me, cannot imagine someone doing something as dangerous as robbing a place to not have backup.
How do you know? Did you medically examine the robber just before the final shots? Did the video show the shooter (or anyone else) medically examining the robber for a pulse, heartbeat, or EKG activity prior to the final shots?
Did the shooter do a blood analysis to verify that the robber wasn't hopped up on drugs so that he might only appear to be unconscious?
Did the shooter count the bullet holes in the robber and measure the shot grouping to determine the likelihood that the robber was immobilized before the final shots?
Will it now be a requirement by leftist DAs that when a law-abiding citizen uses a gun in self-defense, he must do a complete medical examination and psychological evaluation of the criminal to determine whether that shot was sufficient to render the criminal incapable of causing an imminent threat of death to innocent people, before the citizen may fire an additional round?!?!?
Anti-Second Amendment woketardians need to be rebutted when they claim, imply, or insinuate that one or more of the shots was unjustified as self-defense.
Agree. First learned of him from his coverage of the Zimmerman trial over at Legal Insurrection.
A lucid commentator. And it turns out a solid IPSC shooter as well.
I think that the take away here is that if the defender had been able, or chosen, to stop with the first four shots, he probably wouldn’t even be having to be concerned about the grand jury, let alone charges.
Now we’re in to the long legal arguments about which shot was fatal, or where a shooting went from “lawful to awful”.
Not trying to second-guess the defender at all. Strictly want to try to extract the best knowledge out of what can only be considered a terrible thing.
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.