TexasCHLforum.com

“Unless you’re in the situation where a suspect is causing you to be in fear of your life or serious bodily injury, or a death, you cannot use deadly force,” Capt. Craig Treadwell said.

Those are the sorts of stories that help further the narrative of the antis. From the article, the shooter had no reason to even unholster his weapon, let alone discharge it.

Flightmare wrote:

“Unless you’re in the situation where a suspect is causing you to be in fear of your life or serious bodily injury, or a death, you cannot use deadly force,” Capt. Craig Treadwell said.

Those are the sorts of stories that help further the narrative of the antis. From the article, the shooter had no reason to even unholster his weapon, let alone discharge it.

There is being helpful, and there is thinking, that a right to carry, makes you Dirty Harry.
Even the police are not justified in shooting a fleeing suspect, who poses no direct threat to them, or the general public. Not sure how the citizen believed that he had the authority for his actions, but I can't see this ending well for him.

He is fortunate it is only aggravated assault, but like you said Jusme....I don't see it ending well for him.

There's IS an instance where it IS legal to fire upon someone who is running away. That is if it an inmate.

Sometimes it is far better to be a good witness than an active (and unnecessary) participant.

Hang on.

Was he wearing his LTC badge?

Hmmmm?

Hmmmmm?

Story doesn't say whether he was a licensed carrier. Kind of hoping he wasn't. Makes the rest of us look bad.

Yeah, that's not good. Even if he has a license to carry a gun, the way the article reads, he was in the wrong. News articles get the story bungled sometimes, so I won't pass judgement. But as the story reads he had no justification for pulling his weapon.

AdioSS wrote:There's IS an instance where it IS legal to fire upon someone who is running away. That is if it an inmate.

So if this guy ends up escaping from prison someone will be legally able to shoot him. OK, ya gotta admit that would be pretty darn ironic.

Like I've said plenty of times - I'm not planning to do the job of LEO's, and I am also not planning on having LEO's do my job for me. My job is to keep me and mine safe (along with anyone else I choose to protect). LEO's job is to find and punish criminals after harm has been inflicted, so they can't do any more harm.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

AdioSS wrote:There's IS an instance where it IS legal to fire upon someone who is running away. That is if it an inmate.

So if this guy ends up escaping from prison someone will be legally able to shoot him. OK, ya gotta admit that would be pretty darn ironic.

Like I've said plenty of times - I'm not planning to do the job of LEO's, and I am also not planning on having LEO's do my job for me. My job is to keep me and mine safe (along with anyone else I choose to protect). LEO's job is to find and punish criminals after harm has been inflicted, so they can't do any more harm.

More accurately, it is LEO's job to find and arrest - NOT punish. Punishment is the court's decision.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

AdioSS wrote:There's IS an instance where it IS legal to fire upon someone who is running away. That is if it an inmate.

So if this guy ends up escaping from prison someone will be legally able to shoot him. OK, ya gotta admit that would be pretty darn ironic.

Like I've said plenty of times - I'm not planning to do the job of LEO's, and I am also not planning on having LEO's do my job for me. My job is to keep me and mine safe (along with anyone else I choose to protect). LEO's job is to find and punish criminals after harm has been inflicted, so they can't do any more harm.

More accurately, it is LEO's job to find and arrest - NOT punish. Punishment is the court's decision.

Correct. I was paraphrasing a bit. It's tough to be 100% accurate and also have a motto that rolls off the tongue.

For the purposes of my motto the distinction between law enforcement and the rest of the justice system is not that impactful.

A few, thankfully very few, think having an LTC officially establishes them as an adjunct of Law Enforcement.

It doesn't and one of the reasons I think idiotic LTC badges should be ridiculed into non-existence.

The few, the proud, the stupid, who're think holding an LTC is something akin to being an LEO are just that...stupid.

If you happen to still hold out hope that actually putting your LTC into a badge holder you can then strap on your gun belt gives you police powers, you're an idiot.

Abraham wrote:A few, thankfully very few, think having an LTC officially establishes them as an adjunct of Law Enforcement.

It doesn't and one of the reasons I think idiotic LTC badges should be ridiculed into non-existence.

The few, the proud, the stupid, who're think holding an LTC is something akin to being an LEO are just that...stupid.

If you happen to still hold out hope that actually putting your LTC into a badge holder you can then strap on your gun belt, you're an idiot.

I think there are a fair amount of "wannabe cops" out there who are not actual LEO's for a variety of reasons. I see this with security guards as well.

I dunno - a lot depends on what Lennox did to make the po-lice (I grew up in Dallas - that's how we pronounced it there) chase him, and whether he presented a threat when Pitts caught up with him. O' course, in this case Georgia law applies, but I know in Texas citizens may use deadly force to prevent the escape of perpetrators of certain serious crimes. Also, if Lennox somehow posed a credible threat to Pitts or another person, or caused Pitts to fear for his safety, deadly force may have been justified. We also don't know how long it took the police to catch up with Lennox after Pitts caught him. Was it likely that Lennox would have escaped if Pitts hadn't acted? The short article does not present the full story. This may be a case of the cops bein' irate 'cause a citizen had to to do their job for them, and they jammed Pitts up in revenge.

I ain't sayin' it was smart, but what Pitts did may not have been illegal. Hopefully he'll get a competent lawyer and a judge and jury will discover the truth.