TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:

txbirddog wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I don't have much to say about why the officer approached said suspects without proper backup, but I do wonder how taking wild shots at a speeding car "AFTER THE FACT" would be called coming to the aid of an officer.

The car was already moving when the officer fired. 30mph (pretty slow for fleeing the immediate scene of a felony) is 15 yards per second. Thus, unless he was better than the typical IPSC shooter, the car covered 15-45 yards in the time it took him to draw and get sights on target. It was probably coming at him for at least part of that time, so he would feel threatened as well. Since he got one or two hits, (an impressive feat with a fast moving target) it's reasonable to assume he was pretty close.

Of course, it might have stopped or slowed significantly, in which case he would be reasonable in assuming they were either preparing to finish off the officer or shoot him to eliminate witnesses.

Maybe I should have been more clear. I don't have the ability or law enforcement knowledge to question why a duly authorized officer of the law makes the decision to fire. My only question about the officer was why he did not wait for backup. The citizen had NO business firing. Warning... don't try this trick at home... you will likely find yourself in jail. Joe citizen is real darned lucky he got away with this.

What exactly is the "trick"? Do you have instances where this has happened before and the CHL holder has gone to Jail? IANAL, but I believe he is fine under Texas statue Sec 9.32 and as the the FTW police are commending his actions.

Yep...your right. Your not a lawyer. He was NOT defending anyone!!!!! The crime had already taken place and no further danger to the cop was involved. This situation is called revenge... not self defense.

I am also not as arrogant as you seem to be coming across on this thread. As far as you're concerned you are the only one who makes a correct assumption. You still never answered my question regarding the PROOF or PRECEDENTS that has put others in jail as you purport to put us in jail. You may want to reread section 9.32 of the Texas code. Since you have a such a good grasp of the law, please cite the code section that you're referencing.

Have a good day.

txbirddog wrote:I am also not as arrogant as you seem to be coming across on this thread. As far as you're concerned you are the only one who makes a correct assumption.

Stop the personal attacks.

Chas.

MadMonkey wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:He just waved and turned off his headlights as he drove by to avoid overexposing the shot.

Now that's a conscientious cop!

Most of the deputies working the night shift around here like to do a bit of stargazing from time to time. After all, on a quiet night in the middle of nowhere, with a pair of really good binoculars, it gives you something to do besides hang out at a convenience store. As a result, I've had several of them cut back to parking lights or park well back and walk up with only a small flashlight when I was out with a telescope at a remote picnic area.

I've also had a few take interest in the photography after they saw how much I could clean up surveillance footage; it still doesn't look great, but it can make the difference between "it's a light colored sedan" and "it's a light colored late 1990s Impala with a dented fender." The process for astrophotography on-the-cheap is to take video with a converted webcam, then stack the frames in software to eliminate random noise and enhance the signal; the same thing works great for nighttime surveillance video, which tends to suffer from the same problems.

Looks like the citizen shooter did not have a CHL and it not going to face any charges.

FORT WORTH -- A 55-year-old man who police suspect tried to run down a Fort Worth officer last month, prompting the officer and a concerned citizen to open fire at the car, is now in jail, police officials confirmed Tuesday.

Fugitive officers who arrested William "Louie" Melear on Thursday morning discovered that he had apparently been wounded in both legs during the May 27 shooting - injuries that he had been treating himself.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/08 ... z0qIQDsFAB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No CHL.

Criado said the concerned citizen did not have a concealed handgun license but "we don't see any reason to charge the citizen who fired at the suspects believing they had killed the officer."

That's good to hear.

Fangs wrote:

Criado said the concerned citizen did not have a concealed handgun license but "we don't see any reason to charge the citizen who fired at the suspects believing they had killed the officer."

That's good to hear.

No it's not, get the blankets....

Well, if someone tried to run me over after doing a bunch of illegal drugs, I wouldn't mind having this guy there to shoot at them.

I also think that any time the local LEOs give a good Samaritan a pat on the back instead of arresting him on some part of the law that he didn't follow the letter is a win. I hope the LEOs I have to deal with if I'm ever in a shooting incident are as understanding.

I know our CHLs aren't Batman licenses, but the guy wasn't shooting over some stolen iPhones, and his bullets might have resulted in these guys getting caught and taken off the streets. Another win in my book.

Would it be a reasonable assumption here to assume that
FWPD will not charge the citizen because he was legal to
have his handgun either "in his business" or "in his car/MPA" ?

Does anyone know from what location he retrieved his gun?

SIA

The article said the guy 'retrieved' his handgun. It could have been the business owner who grabbed it from under a counter, or even out of his car. So, the gun may have been legally stored and he 'retrieved it' to stop a felony in progress, which in that case, he would be totally legal and there would be nothing to charge him with anyway.

And SIA just asked what I was typing.

A good samaratin, eh? Aren't good samaratins the ones who get sued for helping vehicle accident victims?

I guess that I'm lost in "HIGH NOON" where the whole town cowered before known killers and would not lift a finger, let alone a gun, to help the town marshall whom three BG's came to kill in broad daylight for sending one of them to the penitentiary. I don't think illegal drugs were in vogue back then?

Could I possibly have an olfactory problem in that I can't discern between odor and bouquet? Oh well, all's well that ends well...I reckon.

Keith B wrote:The article said the guy 'retrieved' his handgun. It could have been the business owner who grabbed it from under a counter, or even out of his car. So, the gun may have been legally stored and he 'retrieved it' to stop a felony in progress, which in that case, he would be totally legal and there would be nothing to charge him with anyway.

And SIA just asked what I was typing.

There is serious doubt in my mind that this guy had time after seeing the incident develop to run into his establishment, grab a gun... and run back out.

Personally I believe the police covered for the guy with lies because he was trying to help a cop. heck... maybe the guy knows the hookers the cop visits. The whole deal stinks to high heaven and I don't believe the average citizen would have gotten away with such a move had it been just a normal citizen that got ran down. Crooked cops make me sick! Crooked police departments make me disrespect the whole darned institution. Our world is turning into garbage right before our very eyes by our rulers and we are being told it is sweet nectar of the gods.

03Lightningrocks wrote:
There is serious doubt in my mind that this guy had time after seeing the incident develop to run into his establishment, grab a gun... and run back out.

Personally I believe the police covered for the guy with lies because he was trying to help a cop. heck... maybe the guy knows the hookers the cop visits. The whole deal stinks to high heaven and I don't believe the average citizen would have gotten away with such a move had it been just a normal citizen that got ran down. Crooked cops make me sick! Crooked police departments make me disrespect the whole darned institution. Our world is turning into garbage right before our very eyes by our rulers and we are being told it is sweet nectar of the gods.

Oh Lightning, you have such a way with words! That was what I so feebly tried to say...sorta'.

Oldgringo wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:
There is serious doubt in my mind that this guy had time after seeing the incident develop to run into his establishment, grab a gun... and run back out.

Personally I believe the police covered for the guy with lies because he was trying to help a cop. heck... maybe the guy knows the hookers the cop visits. The whole deal stinks to high heaven and I don't believe the average citizen would have gotten away with such a move had it been just a normal citizen that got ran down. Crooked cops make me sick! Crooked police departments make me disrespect the whole darned institution. Our world is turning into garbage right before our very eyes by our rulers and we are being told it is sweet nectar of the gods.

Oh Lightning, you have such a way with words! That was what I so feebly tried to say...sorta'.

Glad I could be of assistance.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Quick question? Have the perpetrators of the first crime admitted they knew the guy approaching was a cop? Just curious... I guess I should read all the news stories. Heck... maybe they thought the cop was a guy about to jack them of their drugs so they ran him over. I could see something stupid like that happening if they were both stoned.

It would be like a team of undercover cops kicking down your door.

Well, I know there is 0% reason for the cops to break down my door so I will assume it is a fake raid.

Second, people doing drugs in a car (in public) should really have no expectation of the cops NOT showing up