Houston Car Jacking one bad guy dead- victim to face Grand Jury

[vmax]

Unlucky Thugs Target Texas Man With Heightened Sense of Awareness?and a Concealed Carry Permit | TheBlaze.com

OK, this guy is returning a DVD to Redbox and gets car jacked. Thrown from his car and pushed down.
He fires his CCW, kills one and wounded the other who ran away.

The article says
"A grand jury will “consider whether deadly force was necessary to avoid his own death or harm,” KTRK-TV notes. However, the station’s legal analyst says it appears to be a clear-cut case of justifiable homicide.:


If this happens after dark, fear of death or serious bodily harm isn't the only justification for deadly force.
Section 9.42 mentions "theft during the night time"

or does 9.42 only cover you when you are on your own property?

why would the story lead us to believe that the GJ will only consider the fear of death or serious bodily harm?

 

[txinvestigator]

First, the media never understands the use of force laws. Even the phrase they use in this article is wrong.

Secondly, if one guy was running away when he was shot, he was not committing theft during the nighttime, nor fleeing with stolen property immediately after committing theft during the nighttime. That assumes he did not steal something. It is not legal to shoot someone fleeing from a crime unless they are escaping with property, and there are severe restrictions on that.

Third, grand juries always hear homicide cases, and since a man was killed, it is a homicide.

 

[Sapper740]

Third, grand juries always hear homicide cases, and since a man was killed, it is a homicide.

Exactly. Many people don't realize that the word "Homicide" is a neutral term simply meaning "Death of a Man", Man relating to our species not our sex. The "Death" may be accidental, justifiable, or felonious.

 

[outdare]

The article I read stated he shot the car thieves through the windshield. The driver/thief 1 expired on scene and the passenger/thief 2 ran away as well as the other car/driver of the other car.

 

[Texan2]

I like Glenn Beck. I hate it when the Blaze publishes crap stories like this that give the impression something is wrong when in fact this is pretty typical.

 

[Whisky]

.
according to the local news (yeah, I know.....) a Texas CHL holder was renting (maybe returning ?) DVDs at a Red Box kiosk - 3 perps drove up - 2 got out and beat/tossed/whatever him to the ground - they took his money and car keys - those 2 got into his car - the CHL holder managed to draw his weapon, fire thru the driver's side window, wounding both

one of the perps died at the scene, the 2nd one got away (didn't say how) and the 3rd guy drove the perp's car and escaped

the 2nd guy (wounded but left the scene) got to a Hospital in College Station - the Staff there called Police who then arrested #2

#3 is still at large

I "think" a Grand Jury investigation is always called for in cases such as this.....(?)

I've found the DVD returner to be my newest HERO

 

[TX69]

Good kill

 

[Odiferous]

I can't remember which one, but one of the female news anchors here in San Antonio said with a smile on her face "he is unlikely to face charges."

Thank God I left Maryland.

 

[vmax]

Good kill

if they were in his car when he shot or had threatened him, it sure sounds like a justified shooting.

just sad, all three car jacking thieves didn't die as far as I'm concerned

I'll predict a "No Bill"

I hope they give him his gun back if they took it and I'm sure they did

 

[vmax]

First, the media never understands the use of force laws. Even the phrase they use in this article is wrong.

Secondly, if one guy was running away when he was shot, he was not committing theft during the nighttime, nor fleeing with stolen property immediately after committing theft during the nighttime. That assumes he did not steal something. It is not legal to shoot someone fleeing from a crime unless they are escaping with property, and there are severe restrictions on that.

Third, grand juries always hear homicide cases, and since a man was killed, it is a homicide.

as far as you understand, then 9.42 covers a person, under those mentioned circumstances, on his own property or on other property?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Why do they say "Heightened sense of awareness" if he pulled his gun after he was on the ground, lol?

 

[Bitbanger]

Why do they say "Heightened sense of awareness" if he pulled his gun after he was on the ground, lol?

Which means that he was pretty darn lucky that the perps didn't spot his weapon during the altercation since it sounds like he was caught off guard.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Which means that he was pretty darn lucky that the perps didn't spot his weapon during the altercation since it sounds like he was caught off guard.

Which is pretty much the exact opposite of how the story was headlined, lol.....

 

[Sammy654d]

They pulled him out of his car. That is Castle Doctrine justification for legal lethal force. This was robbery as well - justified lethal force - with grand theft auto for the trifecta. Use of lethal force in immanent commission of robbery is legal. The perps beat him, robbed him, pulled him out of his car, and attempted grand theft auto. He reaquired the drop on them right there and killed one and shot another in his car. Well F-ing done. This is a textbook No bill. He has all kinds of articulation justification. Theft in the nighttime is not relevant here.

 

[vmax]

it should be. I'd like to know if they took his gun until the GJ meets and what hassles he has to go through to get it back if and when

 

[txinvestigator]

9.42 covers theft, criminal mischief, robbery and aggravated robbery anywhere. Arson and burglary are covered under 9.42 for your own property, and a third persons property if you meet the requirements of protection of a third persons property.

 

[Texan2]

They pulled him out of his car. That is Castle Doctrine justification for legal lethal force. This was robbery as well - justified lethal force - with grand theft auto for the trifecta. Use of lethal force in immanent commission of robbery is legal. The perps beat him, robbed him, pulled him out of his car, and attempted grand theft auto. He reaquired the drop on them right there and killed one and shot another in his car. Well F-ing done. This is a textbook No bill. He has all kinds of articulation justification. Theft in the nighttime is not relevant here.

No such thing as "Grand Theft Auto" in Texas.

 

[txinvestigator]

They pulled him out of his car. That is Castle Doctrine justification for legal lethal force. This was robbery as well - justified lethal force - with grand theft auto for the trifecta.

We don't actually have grand theft auto in Texas. I would agree that a car jacking meets the requirements of the Castle Doctrine.

Use of lethal force in immanent commission of robbery is legal. The perps beat him, robbed him, pulled him out of his car, and attempted grand theft auto. He reaquired the drop on them right there and killed one and shot another in his car. Well F-ing done. This is a textbook No bill. He has all kinds of articulation justification. Theft in the nighttime is not relevant here.

We don't say "perp"in Texas

Yeah, he will be no billed.

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

TXI-what are the "severe restrictions" against shooting someone who is taking off with your property? Honest question. I realise morally, it may be frowned upon to kill someone over petty theft, but I've never heard of any restrictions regarding shooting someone stealing your property.

 

[robocop10mm]

No such thing as "Grand Theft Auto" in Texas.

Thank you for poiniting this out. Texas is NOT Kali, nor is it a video game