TexasCHLforum.com

NTexCopRetired wrote:Whether the cars were occupied or not isn't the only issue at hand. If there were people in the parking lot, they are at greater risk of harm and/or death than people in a vehicle. Being on foot and having an unoccupied vehicle knocked into you will do serious damage.

There are two questions here:

1. Was shooting at a tire a smart thing to do in a public parking lot with people around?

Answer: As you point out, almost certainly not.

2. Could the shot be justified by a lenient reading of the law under that particular set of circumstances?

This would require a detailed analysis of more facts than we have available from news reports. Although it hasn't been reported that the citizen has been charged, it hasn't been reported that he has been cleared either.

In cases like this where no one was hit by the citizen's shot and the guys in the vehicle that was shot at apparently aren't in a hurry to present themselves to sign a complaint (and may even be reconsidering the wisdom of a life of crime), the interests of justice are often best served by letting the citizen go with a really stern "don't even think about doing that again" lecture from the investigating officers. I suspect that will end up to be the resolution for this part of the case.

rotor wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

RockinU wrote:I really hope that it comes out that the LTC holder had a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety. Irresponsible decisions are something the other side would love to be able to lob at us...and absent an obvious and legitimate threat, this can be nothing but a bad choice.

RE: "a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety". That is not the legal standard for defense of property.

The person was clearly was justified in using force, per TPC Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. However, simple shoplifting during daylight hours would not, in my opinion justify deadly force.

But if the perpetrators pushed or touched anyone during the incident, or targeted any person in the parking lot while fleeing in the car, or even said "Get out of my way" (with the implicit "or else"), then a theft can become robbery pretty darn quickly. Deadly force is authorized if the actor believes the person is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property and it cannot be protected or recovered by any other means in TPC Sec. 9.42.

What would you call ramming into cars by the fleeing vehicle which was reported?

That would depend on whether the cars being rammed were occupied or not, and whether ramming happened before or after being shot at.

puma guy wrote:Far too little info to comment on the incident itself. However, I counted a minimum of 9 police vehicles in the parking lot responding to this incident and at least as many officers. There could have been more not visible in the aerial shot. Does any one but me wonder why it would necessitate that many of the area's law enforcement being pulled out of action to handle this. Before anyone thinks I'm anti police - I'm not and am in fact a big supporter of LEO's. I just can't imagine why it would take this many to handle it.

It may have something to do with how the call was presented to dispatch by persons who most likely did not know exactly what was going on. Actual calls very likely were something along the lines of "There's been a shooting at the Academy in the Woodlands. Multiple shots fired, people running. Please get here quick!" is much more likely than "Some idiot just fired a few shots at fleeing shoplifters' vehicle." In situations like this, police almost always have only partial information which may or may not be accurate. When the call involves weapons, they're going to err on the side of too much response rather than too little because wanting to go home at the end of the shift is not an unreasonable objective, and winding down an overresponse has few negatives. Underresponding to a shooting situation is something to be avoided at all costs.