TexasCHLforum.com

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:
NGWAA!

Took me a while to figure that one out! I need to find an internet acronym dictionary and buzz word theraurus
spiga35- you might want to read the rules regarding being respectful.. just saying. Welcome to the forum

Don't feed the trolls.

Superman wrote:...any time you discharge you gun in self defense there is likelihood of the bullet striking something unintended, even if you hit your target.

Here is the whole enchilada. The guy selling the phone was within the legal right to do what he did in trying to retrieve his stolen property. However, when he used deadly force he 'apparently' was very negligent in how he was shooting at the guy in a crowded parking lot. I believe had he been inside Walmart and the guy been attacking him or close enough that the shots were hitting or hitting close to the target the police might not have had grounds to arrest him. However, the police must have felt that when he was shooting outside the Walmart and the location of the bullets that didn't hit their target constituted negligence in the act of trying to retrieve his property, so they arrested him for that. You can't just go slinging lead everywhere. I was involved in an incident as a LEO where I had to not shoot because of a quick stop and glass windows with people behind the BG as he was running toward the building after shooting at us. I had already picked out my safe shot lane and was starting to pull the trigger of my handgun as he entered the zone when another officer had the clear angle and shot the BG. It was all very quick, but that is the type of decision you must be able to make on the fly in these situations. In this case the CHL didn't use good judgement in the method he used to try to recover his phone.

Superman wrote: That's my reasoning above. I think he's good under 9.41 and 9.42. A stray bullet is a negligence issue, and since no one was hit, I think that would be a hard case to make too. Although I understand that the argument is whether the blue comes into play or not. The blue part is why we all would have erred on the side of caution and not done what he did. He may have "reasonably believed" differently than some of us.

Many times the LEO's will make a call to the DA's desk and let them make the call to arrest or not. If they arrest, then they can always look to drop the charges after the proverbial smoke clears. If they feel they have a strong case, then they will continue on with the prosecution. In this case, they must feel they have a strong enough case to continue on.

Superman wrote:Disclaimer: I would not have done what he did...I would have pulled after I was hit, but I would not have pursued. I would have shot if the robber would have made any movement in my direction again after punching me (if I would have had that much time to decide that...I probably would have had to stop pulling the trigger mid-pull).

Police said the two were inside the store when the potential buyer snatched the phone and punched Kwan in the face.

I guess I'm going to be the lone dissenter here. Based solely on the info in the article, I don't think he should be charged. What if he shot inside Walmart instead of outside? He surely would have more people around and would have struck the building. What if he hit the robber with a shot inside the store and someone standing behind the robber was also hit (or if he missed inside and someone was hit)? Should he be charged for that? (Answer: no, we are protected against that). The argument could be made that deciding to shoot outside was less risky than shooting inside since there were way more people inside than out.

The robbery in progress was obvious and I think he was within his rights to do what he did to protect himself and his property. The cost of the phone should be irrelevant because the cost of anything is relative to each individual. I'm a little disappointed with the responses in this thread.

I'm not. To prevent the commission of the robbery, yes, I would have done it because of the physical bodily injury. After the robbery was over and he was high-tailing it away, no. Doesn't matter what physical item he stole and the value.

philip964 wrote: Thanks, so he was within his rights to shoot at the person, but not within his rights to shoot at a person he was not going to hit. Thus in almost all circumstances shooting at a fleeing criminal is not a good idea.

We don't really know this guy's shooting ability, so can't say. Bottom line, shooting at someone who is NOT a threat to you or others well being is not a smart move period. First, the cost of replacing a cell phone that he was selling anyway would be WAY cheaper that legal costs, even if he was ruled justified in shooting. Second, shooting in a stress situation is tough and you are more than likely NOT going to hit your target unless it is point blank. Take into consideration the crowded area, distance to target, etc, your chances for hitting something OTHER than your intended target are substantially increased. So, better to loose the ~$300 cell phone, file a police report and chalk it up to lesson learned than to spend just the minimum of $30,000 this will end up costing him in court. Plus since this is a felony, he will more than likely spend time in jail, much less loose his CHL and be prohibited from owning firearms.

cb1000rider wrote:

jbarn wrote: What do you mean by getting a pass? Did NYPD shoot at a person fleeing with property?

They shot at someone acting irrationally who reached into his pants and didn't follow orders.
The police missed the irrational guy, but hit two women who were uninvolved.
The DA charged the irrational guy with causing injury to the two women...

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

I do see this incident and the NY one a little differently. In this case the guy was not in danger of his life, he was just trying to stop the guy from taking something he had been trying to get rid of anyway (sell it.) The shooter in this case was not in fear for his life or of serious bodily injury.

In the NY incident, the LEO's were shooting at a perceived threat and were in fear for their life or serious bodily injury. They fired, but missed and hit bystanders. The guy who was the threat was charged with their injury. Had the guy been running away and they just started flinging lead at him, then the tables may have turned on the officers.

He was charged with Deadly Conduct. He was just flinging lead toward the person recklessly and the bullet hit the house nearby. The charge will be a third degree felony, and yes, it will more than likely stick.

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.