TexasCHLforum.com

Unless someone has a copy of the police report, then we don't know what the victim said. All we know is 1) media reports were inaccurate; and 2) the GJ heard the evidence and "no-billed" the victim because they believed the evidence supported his claim of self-defense.

Also, de-escalating a confrontation is desirable, even laudable, but it's not legally required before using self-defense. Be careful about making this your personal standard of conduct, unless you want to be held to that standard later. (This is not the same concept as the retreat duty.) Often there is simply no time to use what is taught in the CHL class about non-violent dispute resolution. Was there enough time in this situation? Did the victim try to avoid using deadly force and fail? Only the victim and the GJ witnesses know. There have been CHL shootings that appear to have been avoidable, but were nonetheless legally justified. With inaccurate information sources, it’s not possible to make a judgment as to whether this shooting is among them.

Chas.

The attacker’s criminal history could not have been a direct factor in determining whether his actions justified the use of deadly force, because the victim didn’t know his history. However, the attacker's past criminal history is relevant to the Grand Jury’s deliberations, because it goes to the weight of the intended victim's explanation of what happened. If he had a history of writing hot checks, then it wouldn't be relevant, but multiple assaults including an assault on a peace officer are relevant. Generally, character evidence isn't admissible at trial to show an person acted in conformity with his reputation, unless the evidence rises to the level of habitual conduct. This criminal history probably would have been admitted at trial, but, as someone else noted, the Grand Jury gets to hear everything, so admissibility never came up.

Since several witnesses testified the victim was defending himself, I wonder why the case was referred by HPD to the DA "with charges." I would bet a dollar to a donut that the prosecutor was very supportive of the victim and told the GJ that it looks like a justifiable shooting. Prosecutors almost always get what they want from the GJ.

None of us knows what happened, as our only source of information has been proven totally unreliable. However, the GJ does know what occurred, based upon several disinterested witnesses’ testimony, along with other evidence the investigation revealed. We also have to remember that a person using deadly force in self-defense doesn’t have to be factually correct in their evaluation of the situation, they just have to “reasonably believe th[at] deadly force is immediately necessary . . .� Often/usually the time to make this evaluation is measured in seconds, perhaps split seconds. I'm happy for this man and for all CHL's. As CHL/LEO once commented, we are all judged by what each CHL does. It's not fair, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Chas.

stroo wrote:News reports must not have been accurate then. The guy he shot must have done more than was reported.

Ch.11 led off the story with a statement that "things are not always as they appear." I guess this was their way trying to put a spin on their inaccurate reporting. It was surprising that they even ran the story.

Chas.

Ch. 11 TV news just had a short report on this shooting. The Grand Jury "no-billed" the shooter, finding that he shot in self-defense.

Chas.