Shooting someone in the back IS ALWAYS PROBLEMATIC. It was a cowardly thing to do IMO.
Shooting an armed robber, who is in the act of armed robbery, in the back is the smart thing to do. If you find yourself in a fair fight, you screwed up.
Very well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions and your own ROE’s. We all have to live (or die) with the consequences of our actions.
But this is a legal question, and your assessment is incorrect from the standpoint of Texas law. Mr. Branca does a better job of explaining that than I ever could though.
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.
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.
If you want to, you are more than welcome to stand toe to toe with an armed CRIMINAL, I will always take the safest shot (for me) possible, just like I was taught by the United States Marine Corps.
They didn’t hammer “COVER, CONCEALMENT,CONTACT” for no reason, always shoot the enemy in the back if possible, that why AMBUSHES WERE CONCEIVED!
Just out of curiosity, have you ever had an enemy shoot at you in anger, with the intent to kill you?
I HAVE, and I will use every advantage and cheat anyway I can to win!