Man says he killed mugger fleeing on bike in South Dallas

[Bob in Big D]

This looks like he had a CHL not a "licensed Pistol".

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 83e60.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the facts are correct it looks like he should be No Billed by the Grand Jury.

[PRO]

News, such as this never shows up in Austin. Thanks for posting it.

" Hall shot Lewis in the torso, the buttocks and the head." It's the back shot thats going to cause the most problems for Mr. Hall. It'll be intresting to see if the DA follows the letter of the law or trys to make his political career. Regardless of the DA, the civil case will soon come.

The lost of a life is a tragic waste, however, if anyone has a postable sorce of Mr. Lewis's "shortcomings," ...The list ends with armed robbery and attempted murder.

[Keith B]

In the article, it states the BG had a gun, fired at the victim and it struck his pickup. As for being hit in the buttocks, even if the BG on the bike was sideways or had his back to him, he could have been popping shots back in the victim's direction. Unless there is something not being disclosed, it sounds pretty cut and dried that the victim was in fear for his life and defending himself against gunfire.

[Crossfire]

A quick check reveals his "possible shortcomings" included assault - family violence, evading arrest, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

[mgood]

In the article, it states the BG had a gun, fired at the victim and it struck his pickup. As for being hit in the buttocks, even if the BG on the bike was sideways or had his back to him, he could have been popping shots back in the victim's direction. Unless there is something not being disclosed, it sounds pretty cut and dried that the victim was in fear for his life and defending himself against gunfire.

Yeah, someone may try to make an issue of the back shot, but I think it comes down to:
bullet hole in pickup = no bill.

[G26ster]

. Regardless of the DA, the civil case will soon come.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.[/color]

[Excaliber]

News, such as this never shows up in Austin. Thanks for posting it.

" Hall shot Lewis in the torso, the buttocks and the head." It's the back shot thats going to cause the most problems for Mr. Hall. It'll be intresting to see if the DA follows the letter of the law or trys to make his political career. Regardless of the DA, the civil case will soon come.

The lost of a life is a tragic waste, however, if anyone has a postable sorce of Mr. Lewis's "shortcomings," ...The list ends with armed robbery and attempted murder.

Well, it's pretty hard to get a full front shot on somebody who's riding a bike away from you and shooting back at you, but
getting shots ASAP onto somebody who's shooting at you is real important. Angles and movement may present less than ideal targets, but you've got to go with what's available under the circumstances.

If the initially reported facts hold true through the investigation, at this point I don't see anything for the intended victim to worry about as long as his statements are consistent with the evidence.

[Bob in Big D]

The big question may be who fired first and can the Victim prove it was the BG. Victim may have shot at the fleeing BG and the BG returned fire hitting the truck. Of course now it is the Victim's word against the dead BG who won't have much to say.
Could be the basis for a civil suite. Just sayin......

[Keith B]

The big question may be who fired first and can the Victim prove it was the BG. Victim may have shot at the fleeing BG and the BG returned fire hitting the truck. Of course now it is the Victim's word against the dead BG who won't have much to say.
Could be the basis for a civil suite. Just sayin......

See above. No civil suit if the guy is found justified, cause no lawyer in his right mind would try to file on the guy with the statute written for immunity from being sued.

[Bob in Big D]

Would that hold true even if the Victim fired first and the BG fired back to defend himself?

[Keith B]

A BG cannot legally fire back if he has just committed an armed robbery.

DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(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:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

[Bob in Big D]

A BG cannot legally fire back if he has just committed an armed robbery.

DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(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:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

Thanks Keith....It is a concern I have had since I applied for my CHL.

[Purplehood]

Would that hold true even if the Victim fired first and the BG fired back to defend himself?

Depends on the witnesses. Are they alive?

[dicion]

What noone's saying, is that, even if the BG didn't fire at the GG, the GG was still justified by Texas Law to shoot him in the back.

It may not be considered morally 'right' to some people to shoot someone in the back if they're fleeing with their wallet, but by Texas law, it's Legal.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I would say that I would reasonably believe that I will never recover everything that was in my wallet if it was stolen. That satisfies (A)
I would also say that attempting to chase after him and use non-lethal force to get it back would expose him to " a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." That Satisfies (B)

End all be all, he was justified in MULTIPLE ways to give this guy lead poisoning.

[Purplehood]

I know I would have difficulty shooting a guy in the back. But if he had taken shots at me, all bets are off.