CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

Reports of actual crimes and investigations, not hypothetical situations.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B

User avatar

spectre
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:44 am

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#31

Post by spectre » Sun May 20, 2018 3:48 pm

Paladin wrote:
J.R.@A&M wrote:
Paladin wrote:
Abraham wrote:LTC's are not LEO's.

Highly dependent upon circumstances before we step in slinging bullets.

Shooting at a fleeing car?

Do you know for certain where your misses are going to end?

Bad idea.
It is very true that any LTC shooting at a fleeing car even in these circumstances is taking liability upon themselves if stray rounds hit the wrong people or damage property. Fortunately the LTC's in this case had the appropriate skills.

It is also a bad idea to let a murderer get away to hurt or kill someone else. I can assure you that if the murderer got away, and later killed one of your loved ones, your opinion would be different.
In hindsight I absolutely agree. But unless you are Tom Cruise in Minority Report and the precog's tell you that the fella is going to commit murder, it strikes me as too hypothetical to legally exercise deadly force here in the present.
The LTC's witnessed a murder. They were attempting to prevent the murderer who ran down an innocent woman from driving himself and his murder weapon away from the scene and becoming a continuing threat to the community. The reason courts lock murderer's up in prison and bar them from owning firearms are the same. There is nothing hypothetical in that.
HPD Chief Acevedo supports gun control. Well, he supports it for We The People but not for his guys. We all know were that leads. That means I would be justified killing to prevent him "becoming a continuing threat to the community."

Good to know.
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society,
over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it
and a moral code that glorifies it. - Frédéric Bastiat

User avatar

Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#32

Post by Paladin » Sun May 20, 2018 4:25 pm

The reality is we live in a time where bad people increasingly use vehicles to kill a lot of innocent people:

2016 Nice attack
On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and the injury of 458 others
Vehicles as weapons: Muenster part of a deadly trend

If terrorists continue to employ vehicles as attack weapons, how must our cities adjust to the threat?
Ten such attacks took place between 1996 and 2013. Since 2014, the pace has quickened, with more than 40 vehicular assaults being carried out. More than 20 have occurred in 2017 alone. Not all of the perpetrators have been terrorists. Some attacks were by individuals deemed to be mentally unstable. Seven incidents have occurred in the United States since 2006.
...
In the past 18 months, more than 150 people have been killed by homicidal drivers. Nearly 800 were injured, many seriously.
I don't believe any of these attackers gave detailed plans to their victims about exactly who they were going to run over before they did it.

I would certainly hope that a court would not fault a LTC holder for shooting out the tires of a one of these vehicles in order to stop more people from being run over.
NRA Endowment, TSRA Life, GOA Life Member
Texas State Guard


imkopaka
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:30 pm
Location: Lamesa, TX

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#33

Post by imkopaka » Sun May 20, 2018 7:44 pm

Several thoughts:

Penal Code 9.42 gives you the authority to shoot someone following the commission of various theft crimes if they are fleeing with your property. The act is over and they are fleeing with your stuff, but you can kill 'em. I understand that this does not give LEGAL right to use this same level of force to stop a fleeing murderer, but it certainly supports it from an ETHICAL standpoint. The provisions for using deadly force in various circumstances to stop a fleeing felon or fleeing prisoner of a penal institution support this also.

Those of you playing the intent card need to stop. Saying "we can't use the doctrine of necessity because we don't KNOW that he was going to hurt anyone else" is beyond idiotic. We can NEVER "know" a person's intent; even if they tell us, they could be lying. It is times like this that the "reasonable person" must come out. If he committed a murder and attempted to drive away in the murder weapon it stands to reason that his intent is not to go turn himself in. He, and no one else, branded himself a murderer.

Here's a hypothetical: a man shoots another with a handgun and walks away. Someone else shoots him in the back on the assumption that he is still armed and dangerous. Does not the doctrine of necessity support this? Now change out "handgun" for "car" and see if anything changes. A man purposefully runs over another several times then drives away (therefore still in possession of what he just used as a deadly weapon). Someone shoots him in the back on the assumption that he is still armed and dangerous. Does not the doctrine of necessity support this?

Those of you who are attacking those Good Samaritans who would risk their own freedom to see that a dangerous man was stopped: you shame yourselves. If you could never dream of standing up to defend someone besides yourself and your immediate family, that is your choice and it is your right to make it; but how dare you belittle and attack those brave enough to stand up to evil just because they could face consequences for doing so? So they make different choices than you - so what? Who are you to cut down their courage and make light of their sacrifice? How disgusting. Imagine if the police/founders/military/etc acted so cowardly?

One final note to those who bring up the tired rebuttal about stray rounds:
so if I had a clear line of fire, you'd better believe I would empty every round I had to get him to stop.
Fifth weapon safety rule is "know your target and what lies beyond it." I'm not going to shoot at something driving through a street fair. This sounded like a deserted street. Use some judgment, people.

I'm done with this conversation. Y'all's cowardice and bickering is making me sick.
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Carry gun: Springfield XD Tactical .45

User avatar

J.R.@A&M
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#34

Post by J.R.@A&M » Sun May 20, 2018 8:40 pm

imkopaka wrote:Several thoughts:

Penal Code 9.42 gives you the authority to shoot someone following the commission of various theft crimes if they are fleeing with your property. The act is over and they are fleeing with your stuff, but you can kill 'em. I understand that this does not give LEGAL right to use this same level of force to stop a fleeing murderer, but it certainly supports it from an ETHICAL standpoint. The provisions for using deadly force in various circumstances to stop a fleeing felon or fleeing prisoner of a penal institution support this also.

Those of you playing the intent card need to stop. Saying "we can't use the doctrine of necessity because we don't KNOW that he was going to hurt anyone else" is beyond idiotic. We can NEVER "know" a person's intent; even if they tell us, they could be lying. It is times like this that the "reasonable person" must come out. If he committed a murder and attempted to drive away in the murder weapon it stands to reason that his intent is not to go turn himself in. He, and no one else, branded himself a murderer.

Here's a hypothetical: a man shoots another with a handgun and walks away. Someone else shoots him in the back on the assumption that he is still armed and dangerous. Does not the doctrine of necessity support this? Now change out "handgun" for "car" and see if anything changes. A man purposefully runs over another several times then drives away (therefore still in possession of what he just used as a deadly weapon). Someone shoots him in the back on the assumption that he is still armed and dangerous. Does not the doctrine of necessity support this?

Those of you who are attacking those Good Samaritans who would risk their own freedom to see that a dangerous man was stopped: you shame yourselves. If you could never dream of standing up to defend someone besides yourself and your immediate family, that is your choice and it is your right to make it; but how dare you belittle and attack those brave enough to stand up to evil just because they could face consequences for doing so? So they make different choices than you - so what? Who are you to cut down their courage and make light of their sacrifice? How disgusting. Imagine if the police/founders/military/etc acted so cowardly?

One final note to those who bring up the tired rebuttal about stray rounds:
so if I had a clear line of fire, you'd better believe I would empty every round I had to get him to stop.
Fifth weapon safety rule is "know your target and what lies beyond it." I'm not going to shoot at something driving through a street fair. This sounded like a deserted street. Use some judgment, people.

I'm done with this conversation. Y'all's cowardice and bickering is making me sick.
I don’t see any comment here as attacking the involved LTCs. Nor do I see a mostly calm discussion of relevant legalities as bickering. For you to infer cowardice on anybody’s part is a stretch. All of these are my subjective views, no big deal if you see it differently.

I consider your interpretation of your own hypothetical to be a pretty big deal. If you witness a murderer walking away from the scene, and presumably away from you, what legal support are you invoking to shoot him in the back? The situation does not involve jeopardy (to you). What am I missing?
“[T]he liberties of the American people [are] dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country.” Life and Times of Frederick Douglass


Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 8322
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#35

Post by Abraham » Sun May 20, 2018 8:54 pm

Slinging bullets at a fleeing vehicle is my point and my only point.

I'd be very interested in hearing further from an LEO how wise an idea that is...maybe it's a wonderful idea, but I rather doubt it...

P.S. The Army, CPR, etc., isn't part of my point.

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 17995
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#36

Post by Keith B » Sun May 20, 2018 8:59 pm

imkopaka wrote: One final note to those who bring up the tired rebuttal about stray rounds:
so if I had a clear line of fire, you'd better believe I would empty every round I had to get him to stop.
Fifth weapon safety rule is "know your target and what lies beyond it." I'm not going to shoot at something driving through a street fair. This sounded like a deserted street. Use some judgment, people.

I'm done with this conversation. Y'all's cowardice and bickering is making me sick.
Your assuming a lot in your guess of what went down. Every situation is different. None of us where there, so we cannot make a decision if they were or were not doing the right thing, or what we would actually do.

As for your last comment, an LTC is only a license to carry, nothing else. There is no requirement for you to engage. And your last statement is a personal attack on the members, so it stops now.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4


jason812
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:41 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#37

Post by jason812 » Sun May 20, 2018 10:00 pm

Abraham wrote:Slinging bullets at a fleeing vehicle is my point and my only point.

I'd be very interested in hearing further from an LEO how wise an idea that is...maybe it's a wonderful idea, but I rather doubt it...

P.S. The Army, CPR, etc., isn't part of my point.
In firearm simulation training taught by a sheriff's deputy, firing into a vehicle was frowned upon. The reason being you don't know who else is in the vehicle. He told us that the driver may or may not be acting upon free will (think hostage). So if you know for a fact the driver who just ran over someone on purpose is alone in the vehicle, its generally not a good idea to shoot at a vehicle. Besides, bullets from even a large rifle do not generally stop a vehicle. Taking the driver out is the only sure way to stop an automobile.

If available, I really recommend fire arm simulation training. It will open your eyes to what you think is a good shot or not and how you will focus on the threat and maybe not notice innocent victims behind your target. You learn to quickly determine to shoot or hold your fire. And most importantly, watch people's hands.

User avatar

warnmar10
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:57 am

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#38

Post by warnmar10 » Mon May 21, 2018 7:46 am

Paladin wrote:I am trained in First Aid, CPR and AED in order to help others.

But I know several people who would never render basic first aid or CPR to someone who needed it. These individuals I know are very well versed in "Good Samaritan Laws" but they simply would never take any risk to help anyone who was hurt or dying. They are completely self centered and that is their right.

But I am alive today because someone did CPR on me. I and many other people wouldn't be here today if everyone took the route of self centeredness.

Having values gives meaning and purpose.

Image

Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage are Army Values. Adding in Compassion gives us a set of truly timeless warrior values.

LTC holders are law abiding with a clean criminal history by their very nature. I am not willing to throw fellow LTC's under the bus due to some hypothetical concerns about bystanders being hurt (none were).

I make no apologies for respecting their selflessness and personal courage. I am alive today because of others selflessness.
Hurrumph!


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3592
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#39

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon May 21, 2018 1:53 pm

Personally, I would tend to possibly fire if there was no other way to stop a murder in progress. If the BG had completed the act and was driving off, I would not fire. I would get in my car, and would follow him, while on the phone with 911. If it appeared that he was going to endanger others, I might even go as far as to try to disable his car with mine in that case.

In the hypothetical of seeing someone commit murder, and then having them walk away with the gun in hand, I would not shoot them in the back. I would be a good witness and would follow them to see where they were going. If they appeared to be an immediate threat to others, I would order them to stop and drop the gun. And I might fire in self defense if they failed to actually drop the gun.

In all cases, I would be less concerned with the law, than I would be with protecting me and my family, and with my personal ethical beliefs. Hopefully, my actions wouldn't make me a "coward" in the eyes of someone on the internet. But if they did, then guess what? I really wouldn't care.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

JustSomeOldGuy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:49 am

Re: CHL holder attempts to stop fatal hit & run.

#40

Post by JustSomeOldGuy » Mon May 21, 2018 10:51 pm

Looking at the location and surroundings is often beneficial. And instructive....

Pulled up maps.google.com com, entered '4600 Walzem Rd San Antonio Tx' and looked at the satellite view first. then went to 'street view' with a starting point on Northgate drive (street down the west side of the school between it and the residential block victim and suspect presumably came from). Did a virtual 'drive' north to Walzem Rd. and east past the front of the Elementary School.

Observations;
- elementary school, presumably no activities at the school on Saturday afternoon. (or at least, not on the parking lot side)
- there are very few places in a city, where if you have to shoot, you have a wide open view to a solid sizeable backstop (the brick/concrete building). This parking lot is one of them.

I understand why the 'witnesses' felt Cooper Rule #4 was met sufficiently to open fire.
Was doing so the right call? I don't know, I wasn't there at the time.
member of the church of San Gabriel de Possenti
lay brother in the order of St. John Moses Browning
USPSA limited/single stack/revolver

Post Reply

Return to “The Crime Blotter”