TexasCHLforum.com

Been following this thread for a while, without comment until now.

There was not a doubt in my mind that the homeowner would be charged with murder. Whether or not a jury convicts him is another story for another discussion, but there was no doubt in my mind that he would be charged, if all the facts played out as were first presented.

While a few posters have been going back and forth here about imminent danger and threat level, what must be kept in mind to keep someone out of legal troubles is WHEN the threat of imminent danger exists. In this instance, just the initial report that the subjects were running away was enough to justify the homeowner being charged because the threat level had deescalated when the subjects ran.

Later reports that the homeowner had to go inside to get a gun and then fired really put him on a fast track to a grand jury, then when the last report provided more information that the bad guys were in a car fleeing the scene and he fired at them in a car chase scenario, well it was a no-brainer that he would be charged. At that point he became the threat level for use of deadly force.... against him.

My background is in law enforcement, and includes time spent actually sitting in the hot seat of a grand jury. "Justified police shooting" said the investigators, Sheriff's Department, Texas Ranger, and the subsequent FBI investigation..... but still having to go before a grand jury with a jury foreman who disliked police officers was not an experience I would ever like to repeat. The shooting was a family disturbance call with a drunk w/m who took a shot at me that missed my head by an inch, I returned fire as he was aiming at another officer, who literally froze when the first shot rang out. He had not even unholstered and the bad guy was turning to aim his weapon at him. I fired two rounds with my duty weapon, 1 round exploded in his heart and he died in very short order.

In spite of the fact that I was on duty, it was a disturbance call, I had been fired upon, and that the BG was taking aim at another officer, the foreman of the grand jury tried to sway the jury by bringing up the fact that I had served two tours in Vietnam, therefore I must be a "trained killer" who wanted to kill. After I testified to the events, the foreman tried to take my testimony that I had fired two rounds and turn that around as he told the jury members that I must have really wanted to kill the guy because I fired two times. When I tried to explain 'combat shooting' he called me a liar, stating to the jury that combat shooting was only when we emptied our weapons. After I left the room, I passed Sid Merchant in the hallway, he was the Texas Ranger who investigated the shooting. When I told him what had happened in the room with the foreman of the grand jury, he was livid.... said that the foreman owned a Western Auto store and sold guns so he thought he was an expert. Ranger Merchant also told me not to worry, he would take care of it. He was in with the Grand Jury for an hour, I was no-billed right after that.

That was in 1982, back in the days when laws were not as restrictive towards police officers. Things are much different today.... mostly because of laws, lawyers and bleeding heart organizations. Carrying a concealed handgun allowed by law in this day and age means that you should know the law better than most, and believe me, a hotshot DA trying to make a name for himself will zero in on that in a heartbeat..... you are licensed, you have been trained, and that means you better be right.

Bottom line:

If you carry, you need to know the law.

Study it. Not just on internet discussion boards, but actually take the time to read and comprehend the written word.

Keep up with changes.

If you shoot, the law will either save you or crucify you.