Man killed after bumping Metro bus passenger

[Venus Pax]

A man gets his drawers in a wad when you brush up against him on a Metro bus. (I don't imagine Metro buses are the roomiest of locations.) Said man charges you. What are you supposed to think? He's running to give you a big bear hug?
It's not exactly my first thought.

[frankie_the_yankee]

A man gets his drawers in a wad when you brush up against him on a Metro bus. (I don't imagine Metro buses are the roomiest of locations.) Said man charges you. What are you supposed to think? He's running to give you a big bear hug?
It's not exactly my first thought.

I wasn't there. The news reports that I've seen have been very strange and in some respects contradictory.

If a guy is verbally threatening me, I am going to make some attempt to gain some distance - i.e. to get away. Even in the confines of a bus, I would back off and hope that the other guy would be satisfied that he "ran me off."

For all we know, maybe the shooter in this case did something like that. It might be a reason why he was no billed. But we just don't know. The reporting in this case has been woefully incompetent.

I would never consider drawing a knife. If the other guy is much bigger than me, I'd be worried that he could take it away and use it against me. Even if he isn't, I have no skill at knife fighting whatsoever, and would probably end up on the wrong end of it.

In some circumstances, depending on the other guy's behavior, disparity of force if any, etc., I might get to a point where I was in reasonable fear of an imminent threat of serious injury or death, and resort to a gun.

But it depends on a whole lot of things that we have not been informed about in this case.

[Venus Pax]

In no way am I saying that I know what went on. When information comes from the media, you can bet that none of us know.

What I am saying is that we give a little too much wiggle room for the perp in our discussions of what would you do.

[stevie_d_64]

In no way am I saying that I know what went on. When information comes from the media, you can bet that none of us know.

What I am saying is that we give a little too much wiggle room for the perp in our discussions of what would you do.

This may be somewhat true...

But after you accidentally brush up against someone, obviously you try to excuse yourself, and apologize for the offense...Thats common courtesy, no matter who you are and wht you look like...

In this case, we are not sure if that was even given a chance...

So if the guy who was defnding himself, first pulls a knife, and that doesn't do anything but enrage the other person more, then the puliing of a gun and stopping the threat that way, to me seems like you had too much time to try another form of method to diffuse the situation...

Obviously the deceased had too many similar encounters where they weren't going to let an offence like this go...And it cost them their life this time...

And I'll say it again, I do not believe it is our responsibility to "reasonably determine" if that person threatening us is under the influence, mentally deranged, or some other condition that would not be deterred by our ability to reason with that kind of person...

I believe we do a good enough job with the knowledge and training we have to not get ourselves into positions like this...

But sometimes, its others that drive that boat...

[frankie_the_yankee]

In no way am I saying that I know what went on. When information comes from the media, you can bet that none of us know.

What I am saying is that we give a little too much wiggle room for the perp in our discussions of what would you do.

This whole incident sounds so bizzare. Especially the knife-to-gun "transition". What could the guy have been thinking?

I feel at this point as if I have no clue at all as to what really happened. I can't picture the guy getting no billed from what I have read. That tells me that there must be a whole lot more to the story that to this point I have not read.

[Lucky45]

I wasn't there. The news reports that I've seen have been very strange and in some respects contradictory.

If a guy is verbally threatening me, I am going to make some attempt to gain some distance - i.e. to get away. Even in the confines of a bus, I would back off and hope that the other guy would be satisfied that he "ran me off."

For all we know, maybe the shooter in this case did something like that. It might be a reason why he was no billed. But we just don't know. The reporting in this case has been woefully incompetent.

I would never consider drawing a knife. If the other guy is much bigger than me, I'd be worried that he could take it away and use it against me. Even if he isn't, I have no skill at knife fighting whatsoever, and would probably end up on the wrong end of it.

In some circumstances, depending on the other guy's behavior, disparity of force if any, etc., I might get to a point where I was in reasonable fear of an imminent threat of serious injury or death, and resort to a gun.

But it depends on a whole lot of things that we have not been informed about in this case.

I agree with most of your points. But also want to add about some people making comments about the reporting not getting it right.

First, as has been suggested earlier, there is nobody walking around with a neon sign listing their criminal history. So therefore, any encounter where your handgun might be involved, should be thought out clearly and you should be ready to accept the consequences. For some to suggest the decedent was a bully and the shooter acted correct, you are basically condoning a serious problem for someone else in the future. Because the next similar shooting where the decedent does not have a questionable character, then will we have the same outcome?? The only difference would be knowledge of a person's character AFTER THE FACT/ SHOOTING. And if that is what some are using to base their decision on using a handgun, then to me, you are just STEREOTYPING.

I'm suprised that I haven't seen the usual crowd from the bleachers come with the song and dance about the civil liability. So I will ask, what about the civil case???

So it has cost the shooter a guestimate amount of around $20,000, SO FAR???

Also, I'm going to do some backtracking research and find out the shooters screen name, because I got a feeling from his MO, that he was on this site. Looking to see who has been missing since March. In ....uh.hmm....IRAQ!!!! yeah right. Maybe in SHAQ...SHACKLES!!!

In all, still a good case to discuss, because now you hear what happened and would you do the same and expect the same results?

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[seamusTX]

First, as has been suggested earlier, there is nobody walking around with a neon sign listing their criminal history. So therefore, any encounter where your handgun might be involved, should be thought out clearly and you should be ready to accept the consequences. For some to suggest the decedent was a bully and the shooter acted correct, you are basically condoning a serious problem for someone else in the future. Because the next similar shooting where the decedent does not have a questionable character, then will we have the same outcome?? The only difference would be knowledge of a person's character AFTER THE FACT/ SHOOTING.

I am not a lawyer and don't know the rules of evidence for grand juries.

This case was heard in Harris County, home of hang-em-high DA Charles Rosenthal. Nevertheless, the DA presented evidence of the decedant's record to the grand jury. (AFAIK, only the DA can present evidence to the grand jury.)

You are right that the defendant could not have known the criminal history of the decedant, but ...

If you have a diploma from the school of hard knocks, you can tell the difference between a blowhard who says, "I'm going to kill you," and someone who actually is going to try in the next few seconds.

If the defendant said that he perceived that the decedant was about to kill him, and the decedant had a history of violent assaults, isn't that evidence that the perception may have been accurate? (This is mostly hypothetical, since we don't know everything the grand jury heard.)

I don't think you can find many people past their teen years, who attack someone unjustly, and don't have a history of violent crime. That kind of thing starts early.

As for civil suits by the decedant's survivors, I somehow doubt a guy who rides the bus has a lot of assets, especially after paying the defense attorney.

P.S.: I wrote this while Charles was posting his reply.

- Jim

[Liberty]

As for civil suits by the decedant's survivors, I somehow doubt a guy who rides the bus has a lot of assets, especially after paying the defense attorney.



- Jim

I think I read in this thread earlier that the guy had a public defendant. In other words he didn't have a enough money even for a lawyer.

I have a theory about this and Its only a theory:

The dead guy had a record of assault with a deadly weapon.

The reporters were not there. Its obvious the witnesses were pretty confused because of all the conflicting facts.

The CHL holder wasn't talking to the press:

The grand jury heard witnesses claim that that the defendant acted in self defense.

Could it be one of the witnesses when talking to the press was a little confused about who really had the knife?

Its the only thing that makes sense to me.

[seamusTX]

Could it be one of the witnesses when talking to the press was a little confused about who really had the knife?

It's very possible.

I posted in a similar discussion in tx.guns, psychologists have performed experiments where a crime is staged in front of a group of people who are not expecting it. Witness reports from these things vary widely. Sometimes people incorrectly identify the aggressor and the victim. Sometimes they say that weapons were present, when they weren't.

I have personally talked to people who have been involved in incidents like fights. They sometimes sound like this: "The guy called him a @#$%. And then the guy hit him. And then he hit him back. And then he fell down and kicked him."

You can't figure out from this kind of talk who did what to whom, especially when both parties were strangers to witnesses who were not expecting anything to happen.

- Jim

[CHL/LEO]

Yeah. How would one get a hold of a transcript of the hearing? I'm sure it would make an interesting read.

You can't - Grand Jury testimony is secret.

[Lucky45]

As for civil suits by the decedant's survivors, I somehow doubt a guy who rides the bus has a lot of assets, especially after paying the defense attorney.

- Jim

I see your point, but I don't think a monetary judgment in a civil suit case would help him out in his financial future.

[stroo]

The witnesses before the grand jury obviously testified to facts that would lead to self defense. I used to ride a bus in my youth and observed that often the same people were on the bus. It may very well be that the BG was well known to the other people on the bus, intimidated them and therefore they recognized and oncoming assault and testified to it.

[fadlan12]

When I first read these two SD storys (the crazy guy beating on a car) I thought for sure the CHL guys were going to have a black eye and antis would be moving in for the kill.

It just goes to show that most media reporting is full of crud!! I formed an opinion based on the details provided that these guys screwed up. Now I think these two are heros (crazy car guy defender did not have a chl but still) and I am glad that they were able to use their rights to protect themselves.

Now the problem: we are a group of concerned citizens that care to follow up, the rest of the populace only remembers what the original stories implied. So the opinion the other readers is probably that these guys (the no billed shooters) were the bad guys.

I don't know how besides bringing it up in conversation with people you know (grassroots) to fix this oversight on the media. Will they follow up and print an update, it depends on if its a nonbiased news source. Its always bigger headlines to report rougue shooters than to say man was no billed for legally shooting in self defense.

/rant off

[NcongruNt]

Again, I find it weird that grand juries seem to take into account things that the shooter almost certainly couldn't have known - like the dead guy's criminal record.

The usual standard is something like, would a reasonable person have done what you did, knowing what you knew at the time?

The guy could be Jack the Ripper, but if you don't recognize him as such, the reasonableness of your actions is properly judged in relation to the information that WAS known to you.

I'd say it's more a confirmation of the likelihood of the guy's demeanor. If he had a history of attacking people (assault of an officer) and fighting on a bus, It's more likely to be believed that he threatened the defendant's life to the point that he had to use deadly force. Since at least the assault on an officer is likely a convicted offense, I'd say it's character evidence, and therefore valid information.