Outlaw75
Member
Not a personal injury attorney, but a civil rights attorney looking for some media exposure. He won't care if it ever goes to trial as long as it gets in the papers, the other guy will have to lay out attorney's fees though.
Grand jury declines to charge man for death of alleged robber in SW Houston taqueria shooting
- Thread starter rabid wombat
- Start date
That does not mean what it may appear to a lay person. We have a sticky on that.
Or a Texas Grand Jury that was unwilling to pu tpolitical considerations ahead of the law.
All that means is that if you are sued you can use that statute in your motion to have the suit dismissed. A judge can dismiss for that or the judge can rule that some of the conduct involved is egregious enough that the statute shouldn’t apply and allow the suit to go forward. Even if the suit is dismissed you’re still on the hook for a lawyer to get the case dismissed under the statute.
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
I see. It's never as simple as it might appear. Thank you both.
No way in hell? Daniel Perry was indicted by a grand jury.
bdickens
Member
You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Daniel Perry is a textbook example of how running your mouth on social media can get you hanged. The taqueria guy is a textbook example of someone who was just minding his own damn business.
Was shooting a downed man in the head his "business"?
bdickens
Member
Sitting there eating his damn tacos and not trying to rob people sure as hell was.
It's a mistake to analyze these situations based on emotion. It's also a mistake to assume that just because a scenario starts out as justified that it will stay that way no matter what happens.
The first shots in the scenario would be easy to justify. But it didn't stop there.
The last shot, he walked over to the guy who was lying motionless on the floor at that point. He picked up the guy's gun, so he knew the guy was unarmed, then he shot him in the back of the head. Very hard to spin that into self-defense. That's exactly the kind of thing that got Jerome Ersland convicted of murder.
The grand jury was, in my opinion, sending a message to offenders, more than following the letter of the law as it applies to self-defense. I suppose that's why we have juries and grand juries instead of just judges and attorneys. I can't say that I'm upset about the fact that the guy wasn't indicted, but it would be foolish to assume that this case can be used as proof that it's ok to administer coup de grace shots. Another case with very similar circumstances could have easily resulted, not just in an indictment, but also a conviction.
The civil immunity clause in TX law is kind of interesting because it doesn't say what constitutes "justification". Is that an acquittal? A decision not to prosecute? A no bill by a grand jury? Something else? I asked a lawyer the question once at a TX BARCLE seminar on self-defense and he could not answer me. Basically, the suit would have to go to court and the judge would decide if the civil immunity clause applies. In this case, it's hard to know how the judge would rule.
Old Dog
Member
So do you actually read newspapers or watch network and cable television news at all? There's no need to defend the media; yes, we know there's a style book and manuals for news writing (I actually worked for a radio station in college and wrote a cheesy column for a weekly newspaper).
If you're a member of this forum and can't see that the mainstream media has a clear agenda to paint everything regarding firearms in the worst possible, most negative light -- especially when it comes to writing the headlines or filming the trailers for the evening news -- you simply have not been paying attention.
The very fact that there's such an incredible left-leaning, liberal bias on the part of three broadcast networks and two cable networks, along with most internet news feeds, is clear evidence that the media is, indeed, corrupt.
Gordon
Member
God Bless the Great State of Texas !
Ironicaintit
Member
I totally agree with you. However, i believe he was primarily responding only to the use of "alleged".
The media is corrupt. And in pointing that out, we need to illustrate the real examples instead of the technically correct use of "alleged".
(I could be wrong, but pretty sure im not)
lemaymiami
Member
Need to point out something from personal experience.... The fact that the grand jury declined to charge... is NOT the same thing as a judge ruling the shooting justified... In my own case a "justifiable homicide" ruling, was something I was very glad to hear - all those years ago when I was a young cop.... here in Florida, after watching wholesale perjury by the victim's family and friends during an inquest that lasted off and on for six months.... If an individual is killed in the commission of a felony - life insurance (and that was the main motivator in my case...) is null and void - no payout at all.
I'm an old guy now - but will never forget what I went through after firing the only shot I ever fired on the street. Not fun, wouldn't recommend it to anyone - even though my Department and my city backed me all the way... When I went to my union and requested an attorney - I was told "Kid, you get indicted... then you come see us" Not exactly encouraging at all (understatement...). For an armed citizen facing a potential civil "wrongful death" suit you're going to need an attorney without doubt - and that might just cost you everything you own... As a cop, since I was within policy and acting appropriately my city had to defend since it was their deep pockets that was the prize..... for an ordinary citizen you're on your own. As I've said on more than one occasion - you won't like what happens after the incident at all if you have to shoot someone ...
What I've just described is only one of the reasons I've never carried a sidearm since the day I retired out of police work (Oct 1995...). If that's been a mistake - I'll be the first one to find out... but very glad I've chosen not to carry a gun (even though I've had a valid permit all these years and renewed it every five years - in case...). I do have a firearm nearby though - always...
I'm an old guy now - but will never forget what I went through after firing the only shot I ever fired on the street. Not fun, wouldn't recommend it to anyone - even though my Department and my city backed me all the way... When I went to my union and requested an attorney - I was told "Kid, you get indicted... then you come see us" Not exactly encouraging at all (understatement...). For an armed citizen facing a potential civil "wrongful death" suit you're going to need an attorney without doubt - and that might just cost you everything you own... As a cop, since I was within policy and acting appropriately my city had to defend since it was their deep pockets that was the prize..... for an ordinary citizen you're on your own. As I've said on more than one occasion - you won't like what happens after the incident at all if you have to shoot someone ...
What I've just described is only one of the reasons I've never carried a sidearm since the day I retired out of police work (Oct 1995...). If that's been a mistake - I'll be the first one to find out... but very glad I've chosen not to carry a gun (even though I've had a valid permit all these years and renewed it every five years - in case...). I do have a firearm nearby though - always...
Anyway you slice it the man is not done yet. That statute don't mean a thing and may help but I'm gonna bet they drag this man through the court system costing him dearly. Many things wrong with how he handled the situation. One can be involved in the perfect no mistakes made shoot that will cost you dearly...
This subject started with a video that had good instructional opportunities. Everyone could see what happened and how they should work on their own to avoid some of the pitfalls. What is now being discussed, however, is one step in what may be a long journey for the shooter.
The no bill is in some ways encouraging, but no protection from further legal action. There is no assurance that the same grand jury would make this call for you or me, at a different time or based upon our responses or the other information available. Consequently, what we are left with appears as cheering for a guy who went well beyond stopping the threat, or dire warnings that he is not off the hook. Neither seems consistent with S&T, nor with the Legal section because there is nothing that we dare rely on to determine how to stay out of trouble. The determination of one grand jury at one time under the showing made by the prosecutor is not precedent, or binding upon the courts. In many states, it does not even prevent charges being brought again if new evidence is discovered or the subject creates more problems.
The no bill is in some ways encouraging, but no protection from further legal action. There is no assurance that the same grand jury would make this call for you or me, at a different time or based upon our responses or the other information available. Consequently, what we are left with appears as cheering for a guy who went well beyond stopping the threat, or dire warnings that he is not off the hook. Neither seems consistent with S&T, nor with the Legal section because there is nothing that we dare rely on to determine how to stay out of trouble. The determination of one grand jury at one time under the showing made by the prosecutor is not precedent, or binding upon the courts. In many states, it does not even prevent charges being brought again if new evidence is discovered or the subject creates more problems.
No-Bill not being acquittal, I would think* that a new/different prosecutor could
bring the matter before a new/different grand jury at any time of his choosing.
(New evidence or not)
Thoughts from the legal troops here?
* (a most dangerous phrase) . . . .
.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,211
You’d probably already have had lawyers lining up for civil suits but do you remember the vehicle they were looking for?
Still can’t squeeze blood from a turnip...
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,083
......this,
Being a member of this forum I see the constant nit picking and stereotyping of anything and everything in written and spoken word, not only outside of this particular forum, but also inside it. Folks get all upset whenever the media puts all of us responsible gun owners into the same "Bubba" stereotype, yet some of those same folks tend to want to do the same to the media, criticizing them even on the few times they get it right.
Regardless of how much of a dirtball the "alleged" robber was, he still had family and friends, who loved him. We don't know the circumstances of why he felt the need to rob folks at gunpoint. My guess would be some form of addiction, but one can;t really assume anything, other than he felt he was desperate. Sometimes the media and even law enforcement respects the family and friends and does not kick a dead horse. My mom, God bless her soul, always said the Latin phrase "De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est" ......or IOWs, "do not speak ill of the dead". Guess it has hung with me.
bdickens
Member
I suggested no such thing.
Yeah. We take a really dim view of armed robbing people around here.
Again, I suggested no such thing.
It would be interesting if this thread had a poll, or a subsequent thread on the grand jury decision with a poll.
- I agree with the grand jury, he should not have been charged.
- I disagree with the grand jury and think he should have been charged.
Sadly, I think the 2nd option would have some votes.
- I agree with the grand jury, he should not have been charged.
- I disagree with the grand jury and think he should have been charged.
Sadly, I think the 2nd option would have some votes.
This is a critical point in analyzing how these things play out in reference to castle doctrine, SYG, and other such laws. In some states, the lack of criminal charges may be enough to prevent a civil suit, but in others, a specific court finding of justification may be necessary to trigger whatever statute is believed to confer immunity.
How in the world could people who have not been instructed either in Texas use of force law or in the duties and responsibilities of a Grand Jury, or those wh did not hear the evidence presented by the prosecution, have a legitimate opinion on thie? We are not going to do that here.
All of the legal opinions presented in the first thread on this incicent told us that according to the law, the shooter should be prosecuted, but that social considerations might take precedence.
That is not a good thing in a society governed by laws, but it does happen.
Last edited:
In the first discussion of this incident, there were concerns about the shooter firing at the man's back. That is explainable, assuming that the shoooter had reason to believe that the robber could turn and fire at any moment.
There were concens about the number of shots fired. That's a judgment call, that was not made in the calm of an office setting. Had the prosecution presented the point at trial the defense could present a counter argue based on relevant facts, studies, etc., and I think with good chance of success.
The problem was that the shooter took the gun from the downed robber and then shot him in the head. There is no way to justify that under Texas law. And the Grand Jury did not say that it as justified.
Did the shooter fire the last shot with malice aforethought? Jerome Ersland was convicted at trial in Oklahoma for having done so, and the critical circumstance was not very different in that one.
Diid the Taqueria shooter act out of meanness and vindictiveness, out of ignorance of the law, ,or because of excess adrenaline. In the adversarial process of a trial court, that would no doubt have com e up, and the last one would, I think would at least in the sentencing phase, but that will now remain unsaid.
Anyone who has availed themself of good defensive training or of even a rudimentary education in relevant use of force law knows that, based on the video, the shooter acted unlawfully. He is lucky--extremely lucky indeed.
If I were designing realistic defensive training curricula using FoF exercises or VR technology, I would consider adding something like this one to the shoot/no-shoot scenarios, along with fleeing felon examples.
There were concens about the number of shots fired. That's a judgment call, that was not made in the calm of an office setting. Had the prosecution presented the point at trial the defense could present a counter argue based on relevant facts, studies, etc., and I think with good chance of success.
The problem was that the shooter took the gun from the downed robber and then shot him in the head. There is no way to justify that under Texas law. And the Grand Jury did not say that it as justified.
Did the shooter fire the last shot with malice aforethought? Jerome Ersland was convicted at trial in Oklahoma for having done so, and the critical circumstance was not very different in that one.
Diid the Taqueria shooter act out of meanness and vindictiveness, out of ignorance of the law, ,or because of excess adrenaline. In the adversarial process of a trial court, that would no doubt have com e up, and the last one would, I think would at least in the sentencing phase, but that will now remain unsaid.
Anyone who has availed themself of good defensive training or of even a rudimentary education in relevant use of force law knows that, based on the video, the shooter acted unlawfully. He is lucky--extremely lucky indeed.
If I were designing realistic defensive training curricula using FoF exercises or VR technology, I would consider adding something like this one to the shoot/no-shoot scenarios, along with fleeing felon examples.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
