TexasCHLforum.com

Here’s what happened as it was told to me:

‘John’ was gassing his vehicle. Thugs in car start yelling comments. (Knowing ‘John’ as I do I’m sure he said something in return although he claims he didn’t.) Thugs pull their car in front of his and pile out heading toward him. He’s 25 and has a gun in his vehicle. No problem. Being confronted by four thugs he pulls the gun out. Again, no problem. He then fires a round into the air as a warning. IDIOT!!! The thugs scatter but a cop heard the shot and confronts ‘John’. He then recounts the story to the cop admitting that he fired a round into the air. MORON!!! (I know the PD. They have audio.) He is then charged with Class A reckless endangerment. He claims that he is going to take it to a jury and beat it. Good luck with that! My son (a cop) and I consider him dead meat.

I’m curious as to how much jail time he will get out of it. My son and I think he’ll get jugged for two months. What are ya’ alls thoughts on this?

You're right about the Moron part. As to what happens to him, probably depends on how much media it gets.

Well I guess he should have shot them instead of running them away???

ldj1002 wrote:Well I guess he should have shot them instead of running them away???

Personally I would have pointed the gun at the closest thug and told them to back off. If they did I would have called the cops, filed a report, and gone home. If they failed to take my warning I would have them shot the nearest thug. As to the rest of the thugs it would have depended upon their actions. I would then call the cops.

What I wouldn’t do is recklessly fire a round into the air endangering everyone around me.

We don't have reckless endangerment in Texas. Perhaps Deadly conduct or disorderly conduct?

jbarn wrote:We don't have reckless endangerment in Texas. Perhaps Deadly conduct or disorderly conduct?

Yup! Deadly conduct was the charge.

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:(1) one or more individuals; or(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

He was charged under Section A being a Class A misdemeanor. I couldn't remember what it was until you mentioned 'deadly conduct'.

ldj1002 wrote:Well I guess he should have shot them instead of running them away???

are you suggesting that firing into the air is a good idea?
keeping in mind that what goes up, must come down. and can come down onto an innocent person several backyards away.

Absolute bone headed decision on his part. I have no sympathy for people who are dumb enough to fire into the air. I just can't stop thinking about all the innocent people he engaged by doing that. I hope when he's on the stand the question gets asked, Did you know what was behind your target? And he has to answer, "No because I'm an imbecile and my target was the sky." I'm sure he's going to have fun losing in court while saying, "but the vice president told me to do it". What an idiot.

He still has the right to argue TPC §9.22 NECESSITY, and that the warning shot was preferable to shooting a person.

Then there are the Mythbusters shows that show shooting something straight up means when it comes down it cannot kill someone. Break the skin a little at worst. (Shooting at any angle other that straight up gives a horizontal component to the velocity and those shots remain dangerous.)

(Doesn't mean I don't think he was a doofus.)

Hopefully he learned his lesson about not recklessly firing into the air due to being charged. Now, I would suggest he try to get any security camera video from the station he was gassing up at. This may help prove the necessity to use of force and pulling the gun. He might get lucky and end up with just probation. No matter if he gets off or is convicted, this bonehead mistake of firing the warning shotis gonna cost him a good chunk of money in legal fees.

What would be the case if somone fired a blank in the air ? and could prove it to leo that it was a blank? somehow..

While not a good idea, I think he would have been better off claiming that he pulled the gun out intending to defense himself and inadvertently fired in the air instead of at the thugs who were threatening his life/serious bodily injury. If he had said that, he would be fine maybe.

I don't like warning shots either, but in this case, it seems he was already justified in pulling the gun so the only issue is he fired up instead of at the threat. To me, the warning shot issue is usually when someone is not yet threatened, but in this case, he can make the case that he was.

That guy is an idiot.

A lesson will be taught

A lesson learned? That is still to be seen.

Paul's Shield wrote:That guy is an idiot.

Yup!!

Paul's Shield wrote:A lesson will be taught

Hopefully.

Paul's Shield wrote:A lesson learned? That is still to be seen.

Doubtful. And I say this knowing him for 10 years.

Mx217 wrote:Absolute bone headed decision on his part. I have no sympathy for people who are dumb enough to fire into the air. I just can't stop thinking about all the innocent people he engaged by doing that. I hope when he's on the stand the question gets asked, Did you know what was behind your target? And he has to answer, "No because I'm an imbecile and my target was the sky." I'm sure he's going to have fun losing in court while saying, "but the vice president told me to do it". What an idiot.

Agreed. I fully support the Second Amendment, but sometimes you have to wonder how some people manage to even put their pants on in the morning.