Posted on 01/10/2023 6:18:21 PM PST by Impala64ssa
The armed citizen, apparently well trained with firearms, terminated an armed robbery. When involved in a shootout, one has other things on their mind besides counting bullets.
““why did Dhindu Nuffin think he could pull off a robbery with a fake gun? “
In Texas even!”
How Do You Know You’re Shopping In Texas?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaZMQ_B5DA4
You said,
"...but I think that last shot is going to be problematic for the shooter."
I remember when subway defender in NYC, Bernie Goetz shot a guy in the back after the attacker was already down on the floor. Even that shot did not convict Goetz in New York. Goetz was convicted of a weapons violation. Mas Ayoob said of the incident that Goetz's attorney being an idiot, refusing to listen to Ayoob's advice, could have used a winning strategy to get him off even for that charge.
In considering my response, please understand that in my mind there is an important distinction between the actual disposition of such cases and the words spoken by attorneys and prosecutors during trial. You are absolutely right that some prosecutor will say whatever they want about that last shot. I will say that the jury will ignore it. Mas Ayoob will agree with you and say that it is important what these lawyers say. I disagree but you may be right as anything can happen in a jury room. Bernie missed one shot of five and because it ricocheted, it became the basis of a reckless endangerment charge. Pure stupidity by the prosecutor and the jury completely disregarded it.
There's a big difference between how I would advise someone to conduct himself while engaged in a defensive shooting, and the sort of conduct of a defensive shooting I would accept as legitimate while serving on a jury. As a juror, I would pretty much consider that if the defender's first shot was legitimate, all other shots were also legitimate. I'm not going to hang a conviction on my fellow citizen for takin' out the trash.
I would "no bill" or "acquit", were I on the jury. How 'bout you?
WHY? Because he had a legitimate fear for the life and safety of himself and others. There is NO state law anywhere that mandates that he had any duty to verify the authenticity of that brandished weapon.
He was within his rights to assume the gun was real and loaded and presented an imminent threat to the life and safety of himself and those around him. Therefore, he was within his rights to take those steps with his lawfully carried sidearm to fire as many shots as he deemed necessary to stop the threat.
And, before you ask, YES, I am a lawyer and a former cop and a former federal agent.
I think you need to cut him some slack, he was probably a bit nervous assuming it was his 1st real shooting.
In Texas
FAFO
<>Likelihood of a hidden accomplice
Real possibility of a second weapon
Assumption that he will spend his last breath trying to pull you down by the ankle or grab your weapon.<>
Good points all.
I suspect the local prosecutor will use the Grand Jury as the means to clear the defender.
I’m thinking reactive adrenaline rush.
And the Kodan Armada.
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.