TexasCHLforum.com

I'm surprised that the grand jury was said to have taken the toxicology report on the BG into account. Ford would have no way of knowing what drugs the guy might have taken when he felt forced to shoot him.

Of course he could observe whacked-out behavior and act accordingly. But the circumstances under which deadly force is justified are generally those where a "reasonable person" believes it to be justified "knowing what they know at the time".

Maybe the grand jury took the toxicology results as validating alleged crazy or threatening behavior that Ford may have observed.

Trope wrote:We clearly don't have the whole story, but here is a thought. The vandal was busting in a windshield, which means he either had a destructive tool (weapon) or was doing it with his fists (on drugs?). Breaking a windshield from the outside requires the kind of force that if delivered to a 71 year old would be devastating, probably lethal. If the attacker then moved toward the homeowner, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the homeowner now feared for his life.

The missing parts of the story would appear to be quite significant.

Sure. But if a police detective asks a leading question and the guy says something like, "I shot him 'cause I figured I had the right to.", he could be in a whole lot of trouble.

Birds gotta fly. Fish gotta swim. And police detectives gotta detect crime if there is any possibility at all that one has been committed.

That means they frequently indulge in "role play", maybe pretending to be the suspect's friend, saying things like, "Hey, in that situation, anybody would have done that, right?". There is not a thing in the world that is wrong with a detective acting like that. He's just doing his job.

He gets paid for gathering evidence against people to put them away if they broke the law. He doesn't get paid for letting people slide.

This case seems to have the element of disparity of force built right in. A Almost any 70 year old is in reasonable fear for his life if threatened by a 50 year old, even if the younger guy is unarmed (unless the 70 year old is MUCH bigger). So if the guy said something like, "I shot him because he came at me and I was in fear for my life.", he walks.

Let's hope that that is what really happened, and that the old guy can articulate it.

flintknapper wrote: Apparently the homeowner thought he had the right to shoot the other man per Texas law.

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/local/7407371.html

Ford says he thought he had a right to shoot Fountain under a Texas law.

Now I'm getting worried that this old guy might blab his way into prison. He needs some good advice real quick, and it may already be too late.

I myself would NEVER shoot someone merely because I believed I had the "right" to.

I would only shoot someone if I was in fear for my (or another's) life and there was no other way to solve the problem available to me at the time.

In other words, only if I had to.

Not for any other reason.

Not ever.

For his sake, I hope he was badly misquoted.

tfrazier wrote: The real question is what was this guy doing out of the streets? He'd been previously apprehended walking down the road chewing the ears off a live puppy! .

100%

You nailed it.

fadlan12 wrote:If and a big IF the news story is exactly what happened then no way would I shoot someone for breaking my windshield with a bat. The cops would be called, but unless he came at me with it or made an attempt to attack my family...

I think what happened is the man confronted the vandal and made demands, the vandal then may have turned to attack or threaten the home owner.

I would probably go outside and tell the perp that the cops are on the way and to desist. If he then turned his attack on me I would have to defend. The reporter said he would have had to retreat. but if he is on his property I don't see how he could have retreated further. someone hitting my house or house windows could cause a lot of structural damage.

In the situation as described I most likely would have:

1) Called the cops.

2) Approached the guy (armed, but not showing) and ordered him to stop what he was doing immediately.

Note: In my personal situation, anyone messing with my car is gonna be about 500' inside my property line. As I often carry openly on the ranch, if this happened at my house I would be showing a gun. But that's not the situation described in the article.

If he stopped, I would have done nothing except wait for the cops. If he took off, I would simply try to note his description and where he seemed to be heading.

If he came at me with any kind of weapon in his hand like a bat or whatever, I would draw while at the same time backing up towards my house. If the distance got down to a point where I feared for my life, I would shoot.

If I could get back into the house before the guy got close to me, I would do that, and wait for the cops. If he continued to make a mess outside, I would do nothing except assume a defensive position inside the house.

If he was breaking my door down or otherwise forcing entry, I would shoot.

The bottom line is that I am not going to shoot anyone over some property.

But I have a right to order him to stop messing with my property. And if I do, and he turns his attention from the property to me, it then becomes an unprovoked threat to my life. And I will shoot to protect my life.

Of course, this all sounds neat and clean and analyzed. Real situations have a dynamic element that can change things very quickly. Split second decisions have to be made. It takes a lot longer to tell about something like this than it does for the situation to go down the toilet big time.

But that's my take on it.

From the tone of the DA's comments, I think there is more to this story than what was in the report. She seems inclined to cut the guy a break if she can.

I suspect that the old guy ordered the BG to stop, the BG came at him and the old guy shot him. Unless the old guy blabs his way into prison, the grand jury will probably no bill him.

Note: The fact that the guy was a well-known drug maniac has no bearing on things, unless the old guy knew it at the time. If he did, he would have reason to presume the guy was a threat. But if he didn't, it's a matter of historical interest only.

Remember, the duty to retreat depends on the ability of the victim. What may be easy for a 20 year old might well be impossible for a 70 year old. That's not the old guy's fault.

As a heart patient, I am very familiar with this. I can actually still run pretty fast, at 57, but I can't run very far. And I know it.

Remember the part about "knowing what you know at the time"? What I know, all the time, is that I can't run very far. So if someone is chasing me, I cannot allow the chase to go on for very long.