TexasCHLforum.com

stroo wrote:The CHLer got no billed by a grand jury. From the limited information available it appears that he a. was much smaller, b. retreated to the back of the bus, c. was followed by the BG, and d. had witnesses, plural, who testified that he acted in self defense. Finally you don't get a no bill if the prosecutor really wants to go after you. So we can infer that the prosecutor thought it was a good shooting. Given all that, why at this point is anyone on this board in doubt???

It seems pretty obvious to me.

Lucky45 wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Also, Mallot must have tried to apologize or do other things that a reasonable person woiuld do to try to de-escalate the situation, which the BG unfortunately ignored.

I wish people would stop assuming this idea in this discussion, because NOWHERE since this incidents has it been stated that the shooter tried to apologize in HIS STATEMENTS. He had NO PROBLEM saying to the POLICE and the GRAND JURY that he pulled a knife, then pulled a gun to solve his dilemma with the decedent. When the FIRST THING out of a REASONABLE PERSON's mouth would have been, "I tried to say sorry, but the decedent didn't give me a chance to or wasn't hearing it.

So don't make excuses for him, let's go on what we know so far.

Point taken.

I was merely stating my belief (opinion) that there's no way that the GJ would have no billed him if he didn't try to de-escalate the situation.

It's possible I guess, but not very likely IMO. If the BG threatened him verbally and the guy was argumentative and pulled a knife, then a gun, I would think the GJ would consider that "mutual combat" or something similar and indict the guy for murder.

So you're correct, we don't know what happened exactly. And assumptions can be misleading. But I was just trying to make sense out of the situation.

From yesterday's Chron story, it seems to me that the key elements here were: 1) Mallot was at the back of the bus where he clearly had no way to avoid the assailant. (Remember, 'Castle Doctrine' doesn't go into effect until SEP 1.), 2) The assailant was considerably larger, bringing the element of disparity of force into it, 3) The assailant must have been acting in such a way that a reasonable person would believe that he really was going to seriously beat on Mallot rather than just verbally hassle him up close. By this I mean that the witnesses who testified to the GJ must have agreed that the BG wasn't just shooting off his mouth.

Also, Mallot must have tried to apologize or do other things that a reasonable person woiuld do to try to de-escalate the situation, which the BG unfortunately ignored.

A big difference in size makes Mallot's fear of death or serious injury "reasonable".

Message to Texas: Don't go looking to beat someone up over a trivial issue like getting "bumped".

I suspect that Mallot might need a change of address. I don't know if he reads this forum, but he should know that Austin is a nice city to live in. The public transportation system is not as extensive as Houston, but it's getting there. Low violent crime rate too.

Venus Pax wrote:In no way am I saying that I know what went on. When information comes from the media, you can bet that none of us know.

What I am saying is that we give a little too much wiggle room for the perp in our discussions of what would you do.

This whole incident sounds so bizzare. Especially the knife-to-gun "transition". What could the guy have been thinking?

I feel at this point as if I have no clue at all as to what really happened. I can't picture the guy getting no billed from what I have read. That tells me that there must be a whole lot more to the story that to this point I have not read.

Venus Pax wrote:A man gets his drawers in a wad when you brush up against him on a Metro bus. (I don't imagine Metro buses are the roomiest of locations.) Said man charges you. What are you supposed to think? He's running to give you a big bear hug?
It's not exactly my first thought.

I wasn't there. The news reports that I've seen have been very strange and in some respects contradictory.

If a guy is verbally threatening me, I am going to make some attempt to gain some distance - i.e. to get away. Even in the confines of a bus, I would back off and hope that the other guy would be satisfied that he "ran me off."

For all we know, maybe the shooter in this case did something like that. It might be a reason why he was no billed. But we just don't know. The reporting in this case has been woefully incompetent.

I would never consider drawing a knife. If the other guy is much bigger than me, I'd be worried that he could take it away and use it against me. Even if he isn't, I have no skill at knife fighting whatsoever, and would probably end up on the wrong end of it.

In some circumstances, depending on the other guy's behavior, disparity of force if any, etc., I might get to a point where I was in reasonable fear of an imminent threat of serious injury or death, and resort to a gun.

But it depends on a whole lot of things that we have not been informed about in this case.

Paladin wrote:Another article with more info:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/13444644/detail.html

Grand Jury Clears Man In METRO Bus Shooting

POSTED: 9:40 am CDT June 5, 2007
UPDATED: 10:53 am CDT June 5, 2007

HOUSTON -- A man will not face charges in connection with a fatal shooting on board a METRO bus, KPRC Local 2 reported.

A grand jury decided Garret Mallot, 24, defended himself when he shot Otis Francis, 31, during a confrontation on the No. 82 bus on Westheimer Road near Royal Oaks Club Drive on March 28.

Mallot accidentally brushed up against Francis and got into verbal argument, officials said.


"Mr. Mallot, being significantly physically smaller than the victim, pulled out a knife," Mallot's attorney Alvin Nunnery said. "When he recognized that the deceased was still continuing toward him in an aggressive manner, already announcing his intention to hurt him physically, he (Mallot) pulled out his gun and he shot him one time."

Several witnesses testified that Mallot was defending himself. Mallot did not testify.

Mallot had been charged with murder, but the grand jury decided that there was not sufficient probable cause.

Francis had a lengthy criminal past and had been arrested on charges of felony assault of a peace officer and fighting on two METRO buses.

"I think he has a history of kind of bullying and intimidating people," Nunnery said. "I think the grand jury rightfully took that into consideration in assessing the entire situation."

Anybody else find it ironic that criminals with multiple arrests for fighting on METRO buses can still ride the bus, but Mayor Brown didn't want CHLs to ride METRO?

Again, I find it weird that grand juries seem to take into account things that the shooter almost certainly couldn't have known - like the dead guy's criminal record.

The usual standard is something like, would a reasonable person have done what you did, knowing what you knew at the time?

The guy could be Jack the Ripper, but if you don't recognize him as such, the reasonableness of your actions is properly judged in relation to the information that WAS known to you.