TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Conven ... 49915.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The customer who pulled the trigger had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, Mitchell said. Police are working to determine the validity of the permit.

Good for our side and another bad guy bites the dust.

No place for comments ... the "reporter" got the term victim applied to the criminal instead of the victim who defended himself and others ...

May have a solid test case for deadly force against assault! Hope we can keep tabs on this case.

Here's another link on the story:

http://www.wfaa.com/home/Customer-fatal ... 18495.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is a good reason to carry pepper spray it might have saved this guy a lot of (lawyer) pain. Sounds like the guy doing the slapping was looking for a fight and got more them he bargained for. was he justified is going to be the question and I think this will be a GJ no bill for the simple reason that the man did it to two different people and followed both of them into the parking lot after he seen they were an easy mark. Could his motive have been robbery after the assault?

One of the folks commenting on the first article has a problem with "99% of CHL holders".

so if someone smacks or slaps you you in turn are entitled to take thier life. Wrong, that is my problem with 99% of CHL holders. They are afraid of their own shadow and lack the ability to physically want to defend themselves and almost always resort to an unnecessary shooting. I carry a firearm in my vehicle as allowed by law, however if someone slaps or hits me I in turn will simply knock them out or even taser them. Definately not kill them! Wrong Again CHL holder!

Where did they get this data? I must be in the 1% as I'm not particularly afraid of my own shadow. How can he/she know what was going on during the assault? How is the CHL holder supposed to know the motives of the attacker? Why do these bleeding hearts assume guilt on the "real" victim rather than the aggressor?

Myself, I hope the actions of the CHL holder is found justified. Mostly, I hope and pray he and his family are able to get through the emotional roller coaster that is bound to follow.

heres the issue I see for the guy he went to his car to get a gun. this pretty well means he may have been able to just leave the area. goona be a tough fight for him

cheezit wrote:heres the issue I see for the guy he went to his car to get a gun. this pretty well means he may have been able to just leave the area. goona be a tough fight for him

I don't think he went to his car. I think he was retreating and the dead criminal followed him outside to continue beating him. When he'd had enough he pulled his gun out and ended it.

The second customer also retreated from the store while the man continued striking him, police said.

Once in the parking lot, the second customer pulled out a handgun and shot the man, Mitchell told NBC 5.

barstoolguru wrote:This is a good reason to carry pepper spray it might have saved this guy a lot of (lawyer) pain. Sounds like the guy doing the slapping was looking for a fight and got more them he bargained for. was he justified is going to be the question and I think this will be a GJ no bill for the simple reason that the man did it to two different people and followed both of them into the parking lot after he seen they were an easy mark. Could his motive have been robbery after the assault?

There is a downside to carrying pepper spray, however.

If you have no alternative but to use deadly force, then it is harder to question whether deadly force was "immediately necessary" -- as required by statute.

However, if you have less-than-lethal alternatives available to you, then you open yourself up to getting questioned about why didn't you just spray him instead of shooting him. Was deadly force really "immediately necessary"? Even when deadly force would otherwise be completely warranted, there is now room for second guessing and scrutiny about whether you should have chosen the less than lethal route.

Let's review the relevant portions of the statute:

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
. . .
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
...
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
....(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (i.e., robbery)

For example, someone comes up to you and says, "Give me all your money!" Under §9.32(a)(2)(B), the robbery means you are justified in using deadly force if it is "immediately necessary" as specified in §9.32(a)(2). Furthermore, §9.32(b) says your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is presumed reasonable when it is a robbery.

However, "presumed reasonable" is a rebuttable presumption. If the D.A. decides to show that your belief that deadly force was required was unreasonable because you had other viable alternatives such as pepper spray, you could find yourself at trial.

I've actually had an attorney say to me in social conversation -- not as paid legal advice -- that I'd be better off if deadly force was my only available option.

I dunno, if someone is slapping or hitting me, is that where is going to stop, or will he get more aggressive and maybe seriously hurt or kill me? If you attack me be ready to pay the consequences.

Did the bad guy look like Obama's son??

According to what I read the shooter tried to get away and the perp followed and continued the assault. I don't know what else the shooter could have done at that point. Have to wait and see how this turns out.

cheezit wrote:heres the issue I see for the guy he went to his car to get a gun. this pretty well means he may have been able to just leave the area. goona be a tough fight for him

Where did you get that he went to his car to retrieve the gun?

The second customer also retreated from the store while the man continued striking him, police said.

Once in the parking lot, the second customer pulled out a handgun and shot the man, Mitchell told NBC 5.

yup I misread it. sorry.