Surveillance video shows violent confrontation at gas statio

[BigGuy]

If I were on the jury, he'd have trouble from me because he opened the door. He did not try to avoid the confrontation. I expect gun owners to be the adults in the room. I've got no problem prosecuting somebody who makes a deadly decision based on ego.
Did the young man who got shot act irresponsibly? Absolutely.
Is there a strong probability he was a punk and a thug? I'd say yes.
Is that the issue? Nope.
The clerk could have and should have made the decision to not put himself in that situation.

[Keith B]

If I were on the jury, he'd have trouble from me because he opened the door. He did not try to avoid the confrontation. I expect gun owners to be the adults in the room. I've got no problem prosecuting somebody who makes a deadly decision based on ego.
Did the young man who got shot act irresponsibly? Absolutely.
Is there a strong probability he was a punk and a thug? I'd say yes.
Is that the issue? Nope.
The clerk could have and should have made the decision to not put himself in that situation.

I would definitely weigh the fact he opened the door into the equation, but just the act of opening the door would not be the sole factor in saying he didn't have a right to defend himself. Maybe he thought he could reason with the guy and he leave, who knows. I would put more weight in the fact that he took the punch and the guy was not continuing to attack him. He had an option of closing the door or backing up a little, but he just took the gun out and shot him. I know you don't have to retreat due to the Castle Doctrine, but sometimes attempting to put a little distance between you and an aggressor is your best defense.

[philip964]

The clerk had previously been shot in the leg in a robbery at the same store. To me you don't open the door.

[Excaliber]

If I were on the jury, he'd have trouble from me because he opened the door. He did not try to avoid the confrontation. I expect gun owners to be the adults in the room. I've got no problem prosecuting somebody who makes a deadly decision based on ego.
Did the young man who got shot act irresponsibly? Absolutely.
Is there a strong probability he was a punk and a thug? I'd say yes.
Is that the issue? Nope.
The clerk could have and should have made the decision to not put himself in that situation.

I would definitely weigh the fact he opened the door into the equation, but just the act of opening the door would not be the sole factor in saying he didn't have a right to defend himself. Maybe he thought he could reason with the guy and he leave, who knows. I would put more weight in the fact that he took the punch and the guy was not continuing to attack him. He had an option of closing the door or backing up a little, but he just took the gun out and shot him. I know you don't have to retreat due to the Castle Doctrine, but sometimes attempting to put a little distance between you and an aggressor is your best defense.

If I were on the jury, he'd have trouble from me because he opened the door. He did not try to avoid the confrontation. I expect gun owners to be the adults in the room. I've got no problem prosecuting somebody who makes a deadly decision based on ego.
Did the young man who got shot act irresponsibly? Absolutely.
Is there a strong probability he was a punk and a thug? I'd say yes.
Is that the issue? Nope.
The clerk could have and should have made the decision to not put himself in that situation.

I would definitely weigh the fact he opened the door into the equation, but just the act of opening the door would not be the sole factor in saying he didn't have a right to defend himself. Maybe he thought he could reason with the guy and he leave, who knows. I would put more weight in the fact that he took the punch and the guy was not continuing to attack him. He had an option of closing the door or backing up a little, but he just took the gun out and shot him. I know you don't have to retreat due to the Castle Doctrine, but sometimes attempting to put a little distance between you and an aggressor is your best defense.

The fact that the clerk had been shot in a prior robbery last year I'm sure played into his decision making, even though it was not directly relevant to a new situation.

Opening the door was unquestionably a bad move, but a good investigation of deadly force incidents rarely finds perfect behavior on either side. Real life is almost always messy.

The guy who makes the first attempt to physically injure the other is usually considered the aggressor. The questions then become: "Did the defender provoke the attack?" and "Was the degree of force used reasonably necessary?".

In view of the fact that the defender has not been charged, it would appear the investigating officers answered these with "No" and "Yes."

[barstoolguru]

even though the clerk was was not charged the question is why did he open the door!

sounds like he opened the door BECAUSE he did have a gun.

[ryouiki]

If someone threatens to hit you, you can legally draw your weapon and threaten to shoot if he continues.

I was under the impression that this is not legal... i.e.:

"Threat of force is justified when use of force Is justified" (9.04) and "Use of force against another person is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone" (9.31).

Or am I interpreting this incorrectly? (I'm new to CHL in general so I could definitely be wrong, and definitely not a laywer ).

[Jaguar]

If someone threatens to hit you, you can legally draw your weapon and threaten to shoot if he continues.

I was under the impression that this is not legal... i.e.:

"Threat of force is justified when use of force Is justified" (9.04) and "Use of force against another person is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone" (9.31).

Or am I interpreting this incorrectly? (I'm new to CHL in general so I could definitely be wrong, and definitely not a laywer ).

Well, he did get punched in the face, which ammounts to a bit more than verbal provocation.

[Valor]

You interpreted the statue correctly. If the potential attacker has a deadly weapon in their hand one may legally draw. But a simple verbal threat, be prepared to be charged!

If someone threatens to hit you, you can legally draw your weapon and threaten to shoot if he continues.

I was under the impression that this is not legal... i.e.:

"Threat of force is justified when use of force Is justified" (9.04) and "Use of force against another person is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone" (9.31).

Or am I interpreting this incorrectly? (I'm new to CHL in general so I could definitely be wrong, and definitely not a laywer ).

[Kythas]

It depends on a few things. Size difference, difference in ability, difference in numbers all come into play.

Would you mind citing the statute for that?

It is not about statute, because the crux of the issue is whether a "reasonable person" would believe they were in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Thus the factors that can affect a "reasonable person" become more about case law and juries than about statute.

Not quite, Frog. Texas self defense statutes don't reference what a "reasonable person" would do, it references what action the ACTOR thought was reasonable.

All the sections of Texas PC Section 9 states what the actor thought was reasonable, not what a "reasonable person" would think is reasonable.

For example:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

It doesn't say:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree a reasonable person would believe the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

[snatchel]

^ Correct. Do not make the mistake of reading into what written law does not say. This is common though. If the law does not expressly forbid an action, it is legal. That is why we have grand juries, due process, etc.

[Jumping Frog]

Not quite, Frog. Texas self defense statutes don't reference what a "reasonable person" would do, it references what action the ACTOR thought was reasonable

That is true. But is still comes down to the jury determining if the ACTOR acted reasonably, as in like a reasonable person would, given the facts known to the actor.

[bizarrenormality]

http://www.khou.com/news/local/-Surveil ... 27601.html

The vidoe has protestors shouting "What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!" so I have to assume they were protesting to get the clerk his job back. After all, it looks like Calloway already got more justice than he could handle.

[C-dub]

http://www.khou.com/news/local/-Surveil ... 27601.html

The vidoe has protestors shouting "What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!" so I have to assume they were protesting to get the clerk his job back. After all, it looks like Calloway already got more justice than he could handle.

I think it's the other way around. I think they want charges brought against the shooter.

[bizarrenormality]

Then it looks like what they want is revenge, not justice. Maybe they're not native English speakers.

[philip964]

http://www.khou.com/news/local/-Surveil ... 27601.html

The vidoe has protestors shouting "What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!" so I have to assume they were protesting to get the clerk his job back. After all, it looks like Calloway already got more justice than he could handle.

I understood what you said.