TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 7:41 am... the cops would have arrested him "just in case" so they can protect their jobs. Sure he would have been able to get right out on bond ...

Just want to point out, If he was put on a 250,000 bond (which is absolutely unreasonable but not abnormal in our current times), he would have to come up with 25,000 to get out on bond.

I don't know about any of yall, but I couldn't do that right now.

Getting out on bond, and even getting arrested at all, is a MAJOR life and financial headache and too many cops do choose to arrest "just in case" which needs to be severely struck down by the courts (but wont be).

Also, unreasonable bond at the constitution's writing certainly would not have been as high as 3 to 5 years worth of salary in that day and age, just saying.

Beiruty wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:05 pm Revenge attack against the establishment

I agree, its just too unlikely to be merely random.

Beiruty wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:34 pm However, is it stated in any section of law in Texas?

That is a VERY good question, and good points.

It may be a lawsuit issue and not a criminal issue. I imagine the prosecution will state that the justification no longer existed after a certain point in time by cause of common law. Not sure which other cases they would use to support but I've seen them before in LEO excessive force suits.

Beiruty wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:15 am This case raised few more questions.
First, it happened in Texas.
We know, the Texas law justifies the use of deadly force in those cases.
Second, there is no higher force than deadly force.
Add to that, If I recall correctly, and please prove me wrong if otherwise, the law does not limit the actor on what deadly force or the level of force, or in this case how many rounds to shoot or when to shoot or not shoot.

This is why in Texas such case could or could not be prosecuted even if it looks "ugly"

He is going to be prosecuted based on the length of time between the 3rd, then the 4th 5th and 6th shots, and then the final shot.
You shoot until the threat is stopped. The threat stopped and he walked over and shot him in the back of the head.
Have you guys seen the full video?...... Its going to be a nasty court case that he will most likely lose.

Edit to add: I'm not saying what he did wasn't just or expedient, and I'm not saying he wasn't "in the right". I'm saying the the location and DA is going to chase this hard. He may get off on a lack of medical training in whether the perp was conscious or still a threat, and if a reasonable person would consider the perp still a threat based on the speed of the encounter.

That last shot may be his downfall.

Scott in Houston wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 8:53 am I think it strikes a chord with people fed up by criminals like this.
Surprised it's getting the run it is because many like to say that the "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" is a myth.

Its getting the run that it is because its a sample of "See, The 'Good Guy With A Gun' Is really a bad guy!"
Unfortunate, but thats how the media works.