There is much more at the link, and anyone who regularly and legally carries a firearm for self defense will find much of value in Mr. Branca's dispassionate discussion adn analysis.
“based upon the only evidence currently available to us, which is the surveillance video of the encounter”
Does the video have audio? How do we know the criminal didn’t speak some imminent threat that prompted the ninth shot?
Put me on the jury and it will be a hung jury at the least.
I’ve seen the video...he shot the guy about a half dozen times. From what I saw one shot would have been justified...maybe even two. But it seemed to me that the guy went a bit overboard.
The police won’t protect us; the judges side with criminals.
It’s time to quit the pettifoggery and stop nitpicking each round fired. If the scumbag deserved to be shot, it doesn’t really matter how many times he got shot.
If you’re an armed citizen, I urge you to be judicious with your shooting. Consider legal ramifications ...
If you’re an armed citizen, and you have engaged in a defensive shooting, and the assholes at the DA’s office have charged you with something ...
You want me to be on your jury.
Give the guy a break ....he ran out of ammunition.đ
Doesn’t matter. The scrote got 6 years in prison for an armed robbery murder and got released. Went back and did the same thing again. Ran into someone older, smarter and harder and got his lamp blowed out.
Find me a Texas jury without at least one person unwilling to convict. And it might not be that old white geezer from the ranch. It might be a hardworking Mexican immigrant who hates a thief and terrorist. It might be a woman who saw that terrified waitress run towards the shooter when she got a chance to get to safety behind him. That not guilty juror is out there.
“He was a good boy. A very good boy” -his jomama
In a city that will almost always seat a liberal jury and has a Soros-backed DA, I think the most appropriate classification is Simple Legally Justified Execution.
Very good write up on the legal issues involved.
As I stated on another thread, "reassess after each shot" at which you scoffed. Texas law is clear.
The only charge should be wasting ammunition. The 1 extra round at the end should get a $1 fine.
There was a case just like this in Oklahoma ( I think) a few years ago.
Not sure of the specifics, but a druggist shot an armed robber one or two too many times after he was incapacitated on the floor. That druggist is doing time.
Shots 1-4: Fully justified self defense, no question.
Shots 5-6: Probably justified, but after this point the threat has ended.
Shots 7-9: The threat has already ended, shots not justified.
Full shooting video with sound here: https://twitter.com/i/status/1611824003932475392
For many years, the “I feared for my life” were the magic get-out-of-jail words for any copper who blew away a civilian, in whatever circumstance.
Now, fortunately, that not necessarily true anymore, but let’s look at the rationale.
If at the beginning of the encounter the shooter feared for his life, and had a reasonable reason for doing so, he is allowed to take steps to protect himself. Once he starts that process, the fear might not immediately stop when the robber is probably incapacitated. The fear, action and adrenaline continue before a rational grasp of the situation can reasonably take place. Someone on that situation might not be able to stop instantly, especially if not extensively trained in complicated use of force situations.
Also, the robber may have received fatal wounds before the coup de grace. The final shot may have had no effect. Continuing to fire into a corpse, or a person who was fatally wounded, may not be actions which caused injury.
Finally, you know this guy is going to get raked over the coals, his life overturned, his social media and voting history scrutinized. He either shouldn’t come forward, or be guaranteed anonymity. The grand jury process, while it supposed to be private, will leak like a sieve if a leftie narrative can be weasled out.
The world be robber f**ked around and found out.
The first shots were very much justified and heroic.
The last shot, at least, was a guarantee of execution.
Given the situation and the former and the state where this occurred, leniency will likely rightly be applied.
But Scot free? No, as it shouldn’t be.
Legally Justified Execution.
Sorry!
IMHO, this fluffy answer clearly instructs me, at least, not to waste time on the rest of the article...
Doesn't matter where the article goes, this guy appears to me, from that opening, to be a "straddler"...
If I'm wrong, SBI...
I see it in simpler terms.
If the thug hadnât gone into a business, waving a weapon (regardless of what it turned out to be) and forcibly stealing peopleâs private property, there wouldnât be any issue.
You can’t execute a dead man.