So did this guy commit a crime?

[Odin]

Hypothetical question: Assuming that the citizen who shot the robbery suspect in this story was legally carrying, did he commit a crime by leaving the scene of the shooting without waiting for police, and by not contacting police after the shooting.

I can't think of any law that he violated so long as he was carrying legally.

Can you think of any good reason for the citizen to come forward at this time? There are sufficient witnesses among the store employees to prosecute the robber and no innocent people were injured by the shooting.



Customer shoots robbery suspect

Monday, December 4, 2006

By BRANDON FORMBY / The Dallas Morning News

Dallas police were seeking a customer at a retail store who shot a robbery suspect and fled before police arrived.

Police said Jonathan Coleman, 19, was carrying a shotgun when he entered Fashion Avenue in the 2800 block of North Buckner Boulevard on Saturday night. He ordered an employee and customer to the ground, authorities said. Police said the customer shot Mr. Coleman and left the store.

Mr. Coleman was treated at an area hospital and released before being arrested and charged with aggravated robbery.

[TraCoun]

I don't know if he committed a crime, but assuming he was carrying legally he is bringing doubt on himself and the 'righteousness' of his action. He is giving the BG the chance to tell his story to the police first. If he is found, he will have a hole to dig himself out of.

Thanx,
TraCoun

[kauboy]

Actually, he did commit a crime, or two or three.
First, he displayed and discharged a firearm where it is not legal to do so. The law offers a "defense to prosecution" for the failure to conceal charge and the firearm discharge if he was justified in using deadly force at the time, so he would probably survive that court battle.
Second, he did shoot someone. Regardless of whether or not he was justified. Its still illegal to do so. He does still have a defense to prosecution if he was indeed justified, but he still committed a crime and could be arrested and brought up on charges for it.

To do what is right, and assuming he was legally carrying, I would recommend that he come forward and receive his just desserts. We all know and accept the responsibility that comes with carrying a gun. And we must also be willing to face the consequences of ever having to use it.

[Odin]

Second, he did shoot someone. Regardless of whether or not he was justified. Its still illegal to do so. He does still have a defense to prosecution if he was indeed justified, but he still committed a crime and could be arrested and brought up on charges for it.

What you just said doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not stating a personal stance on the actions of the shooter, but I don't understand your statement that it is always illegal to shoot someone. You have not legally committed a crime unless and until you have been proven guilty. Morally, there are arguments to be made, but morals and our legal system are two different things.

I couldn't find a specific statute that required the shooter to stick around at the scene of the shooting. That doesn't mean that such a statute doesn't exist, I just couldn't locate one if it does exist.

You indicate that you believe the shooter should "come forward and receive his just desserts", but in today's legal era of baseless and frivilous civil lawsuits he may fear getting a lot more than his just desserts. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the robber's family is prepared to testify that the poor little "victim" was on his way to church at the time of the shooting, would have started a new job on Monday morning, and had turned his life around and was trying to get past his long and illustrious criminal record.

But in a county with a political climate that elects a criminal as the new DA, a non-police officer with no experience as sheriff, continues to re-elect various criminals to the county commissioner's court and city council, and remains under a cloud of FBI investigation for corruption, I can understand the shooter's reluctance to throw himself at the mercy of the system.

Again, I'm not stating a personal stance on the actions of the shooter, just throwing the situation out for discussion. I thought the story was interesting.

[kauboy]

Texas Penal Code
§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense
if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent
danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a
firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless
as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor
knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another
whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation,"
and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section
30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A
misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the
third degree.

He did break the law by shooting at the criminal. Now it is up to the court to find him guilty of the charge, or to find in favor of him for defending the life of another as Chapter 9 may allow.

Its the same thing as shooting someone who broke into your home with deliberate intent to do you harm(had a gun). If you shoot and kill them, you just committed murder. Whether you are justified under Chapter 9 is a fight to be waged in court if a grand jury sees fit.

[Odin]

Texas Penal Code
§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense
if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent
danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a
firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless
as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor
knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another
whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation,"
and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section
30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A
misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the
third degree.

He did break the law by shooting at the criminal. Now it is up to the court to find him guilty of the charge, or to find in favor of him for defending the life of another as Chapter 9 may allow.

It does appear that way. I skipped right over that one when I was looking through the PC.

[kauboy]

You indicate that you believe the shooter should "come forward and receive his just desserts", but in today's legal era of baseless and frivilous civil lawsuits he may fear getting a lot more than his just desserts. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the robber's family is prepared to testify that the poor little "victim" was on his way to church at the time of the shooting, would have started a new job on Monday morning, and had turned his life around and was trying to get past his long and illustrious criminal record.

But in a county with a political climate that elects a criminal as the new DA, a non-police officer with no experience as sheriff, continues to re-elect various criminals to the county commissioner's court and city council, and remains under a cloud of FBI investigation for corruption, I can understand the shooter's reluctance to throw himself at the mercy of the system.

Again, I'm not stating a personal stance on the actions of the shooter, just throwing the situation out for discussion. I thought the story was interesting.

None of that matters from the law's POV. He still has to take his licks. He may get lashes, or a handshake, but either way, he still committed a crime and must face the music.

He also committed Aggravated Assault.
As you can see, even though we may find ourselves in a justified shooting situation, there are still tons of legal hurdles to deal with.

[Odin]

You indicate that you believe the shooter should "come forward and receive his just desserts", but in today's legal era of baseless and frivilous civil lawsuits he may fear getting a lot more than his just desserts. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the robber's family is prepared to testify that the poor little "victim" was on his way to church at the time of the shooting, would have started a new job on Monday morning, and had turned his life around and was trying to get past his long and illustrious criminal record.

But in a county with a political climate that elects a criminal as the new DA, a non-police officer with no experience as sheriff, continues to re-elect various criminals to the county commissioner's court and city council, and remains under a cloud of FBI investigation for corruption, I can understand the shooter's reluctance to throw himself at the mercy of the system.

Again, I'm not stating a personal stance on the actions of the shooter, just throwing the situation out for discussion. I thought the story was interesting.

None of that matters from the law's POV. He still has to take his licks. He may get lashes, or a handshake, but either way, he still committed a crime and must face the music.

I guess the next question is, will the law bother to look for him in this case? Probably not much. I don't know if the grand jury can indict in absentia on this case, or if the Da will present a bill against the shooter in absentia, but if they grand jury declines to indict then I suspect there won't be much of a manhunt for the shooter.

I suspect that the shooter either freaked out and split, or has his own legal problems outside this incident and didn't want to talk to the police. It's the first time I'd heard of a situation like this in the D/FW area.

[kauboy]

I'm not sure how this will pan out either. Like you, I couldn't find anything in the PC about leaving the scene, even though I'm sure its in there somewhere. I don't know how the DA will handle it. I guess they could technically issue an arrest warrant for him since he technically did break the law. But will they???

TXI, I know you're gonna spot this eventually. What do you think?

[stevie_d_64]

In any event he'll need to lawyer up and get his story on the record...

Since the yute who committed the aggravated robbery in the first place has been "handled"...

The shooter (whether he was a CHL'er or not) needs to close the loop...

I actually have a gut feeling the shooter was NOT a CHL...

If they were, we would not be having this conversation...

I would like to be wrong in this case though...

[Odin]

I agree, I doubt the shooter was a CHL holder. Even without a CHL it's almost unthinkable that a grand jury would issue and indictment in this case. In the northeast US maybe (probably), but in Texas it's almost unheard of for a person lawfully defending themself or others to be prosecuted for technical violations incident to the shooting, so long as the shooting was a "clean" shoot.

[kauboy]

I actually have a gut feeling the shooter was NOT a CHL...

I have the same feeling... but it could be the chili I just finished.
However, not being a CHL holder would not necessarily negate him from the protections the law offers in Chapter 9. But he would still be charged and convicted for UCW.


An interesting note I just found in the PC to help understand why somebody can be arrested even when not "guilty."
§ 2.01. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. All persons are
presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense
unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable
doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted
for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no
inference of guilt at his trial.

[HankB]

There's probably a lot of truth in the adage that "flight implies guilt" and if law enforcement tracks him down, they're probably going to approach things with that in mind.

But I'm unaware of any statute that legally equates "leaving the scene of a shooting" with the automotive "leaving the scene of an accident."

As far as being LEGALLY REQUIRED to turn himself in so he can "take his licks" . . . wouldn't that be in effect saying the 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination no longer apply?

The shooter's #1 priority should be to "lawyer up" before he talks to anybody - and I mean ANYBODY - else.

[Odin]

There's probably a lot of truth in the adage that "flight implies guilt" and if law enforcement tracks him down, they're probably going to approach things with that in mind.

But I'm unaware of any statute that legally equates "leaving the scene of a shooting" with the automotive "leaving the scene of an accident."

As far as being LEGALLY REQUIRED to turn himself in so he can "take his licks" . . . wouldn't that be in effect saying the 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination no longer apply?

The shooter's #1 priority should be to "lawyer up" before he talks to anybody - and I mean ANYBODY - else.

I agree. I don't find a statute anywhere in the penal code that requires anyone to stick around after they commit any crime other than an accident or reporting a felony that they are aware of. I've never heard of a bank robber being charged with failing to report that he robbed the bank, so I don't think that statute is intended to require people to turn themselves in when they think they might have committed a crime.

[txinvestigator]

There's probably a lot of truth in the adage that "flight implies guilt" and if law enforcement tracks him down, they're probably going to approach things with that in mind.

But I'm unaware of any statute that legally equates "leaving the scene of a shooting" with the automotive "leaving the scene of an accident."

As far as being LEGALLY REQUIRED to turn himself in so he can "take his licks" . . . wouldn't that be in effect saying the 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination no longer apply?

The shooter's #1 priority should be to "lawyer up" before he talks to anybody - and I mean ANYBODY - else.

I agree. I don't find a statute anywhere in the penal code that requires anyone to stick around after they commit any crime other than an accident or reporting a felony that they are aware of. I've never heard of a bank robber being charged with failing to report that he robbed the bank, so I don't think that statute is intended to require people to turn themselves in when they think they might have committed a crime.

Several things. He was probably justified in his actions; however, he did commit an aggravted assault and it must be investigated. Remember, deadly force is only a defense to prosecution and defense FROM prosecution.

You can bet the police will try to locate this guy, and since he fled, he will probably be indicted.

Oh, here's your penal code law;

Texas Penal Code
§38.171. Failure to report felony.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances
in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been
committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted;
and

(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense
to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in
which:

(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of
the offense had not been reported; and

(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the
offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering
serious bodily injury or death.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

That law required him to not only report the robbery, but his shooting of the robber.