Man killed after bumping Metro bus passenger

[seamusTX]

As for civil suits by the decedant's survivors, I somehow doubt a guy who rides the bus has a lot of assets, especially after paying the defense attorney.

I see your point, but I don't think a monetary judgment in a civil suit case would help him out in his financial future.

An attorney who works on contingency has no reason to take a case against a defendant with no assets.

There's a chance that the defendant might win the lottery some day, but it's generally not worth the trouble.

- Jim

[austin]

I am sorry the man died, but glad to hear about the No-Bill.

I can still recall the Ft Worth CHL self-defense shooting trial years ago where the press reports got it all wrong from the get go when it was clear from even the preliminary evidence that the delivery driver was cornered in his car by a violent attacker.

Having been the subject of news articles on unrelated topics, I can say press rarely if ever gets the story right in the salient details. And the people willing to talk and say the most quotable things who end up being quoted know the least about what occurred and are most likely pathological liars in their personal lives.

It would be interesting if any of our Houston area members could try to contact the shooter to get his testimony of the event now that the case has been resolved.

[seamusTX]

It would be interesting if any of our Houston area members could try to contact the shooter to get his testimony of the event now that the case has been resolved.

If I were this guy, I would never say a word about the case.

Being no-billed is not like being found not guilty. The prosecutors can reopen the case if new evidence emerges.

If you search for the man's name, you can see awful things written about him on numerous sites.

- Jim

[Paladin]

New article:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 65492.html

June 5, 2007, 11:21PM
Grand jury clears shooter in March Metro fatality
Grand jurors find an unarmed bus rider's death was self-defense


By MIKE GLENN and BRIAN ROGERS
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

The deadly shooting of an unarmed man on a Metro bus two months ago was justified, a prosecutor said after a grand jury declined to indict the shooter, because the man appeared to be a threat. But the man's family said the recent decision to drop the murder charge was an "outrage."

Harris County prosecutors had charged Garrett William Mallot in the death of Otis James Francis after an altercation March 28. Assistant District Attorney Katherine McDaniel said Mallot originally was charged with murder because someone had been shot and authorities needed time to investigate.

While the investigation eventually indicated the shooting was justified, McDaniel said the case needed to be presented to the grand jury for review.

The Metro bus had about 30 passengers when Mallot, who had a license to carry a concealed handgun, climbed aboard shortly before noon in the 11700 block of Westheimer. As he boarded, the two men bumped into each other and began arguing. Mallot continued to the back.

McDaniel said several witnesses on the bus said Francis then walked from his seat at the front of the bus to Mallot in the back while saying he was going to beat Mallot.

"That guy said he was going to kick my ass," Mallot has said.

"He (Francis) made verbal threats, then I believe, started clinching his fists and moving in the direction of Mr. Mallot," said Mallot's attorney, Alvin Nunnery.

As Francis approached him, Mallot believed he was in "imminent danger" and pulled out a pocket knife with a 3 1/2 -inch blade, McDaniel said.

Nunnery said his client drew the knife in the hope that it would cause Francis to keep away from him, "but it had no effect at all."

Because Francis was continuing to move toward him, Mallot dropped the knife, pulled out a pistol and shot him, McDaniel said.

Francis rushed to the front of the bus, where he collapsed and died, authorities said. Mallot remained aboard, his hands raised in surrender, until Houston police officers arrived.

McDaniel agreed with Nunnery that Mallot was significantly smaller than Francis.

McDaniel cited a legal doctrine called "apparent danger" that allows the use of deadly force if a person feels he is in imminent danger and no retreat is available.

"I believe that Mr. Mallot did have a perception of apparent danger," McDaniel said. "And I believe he was reasonable in using deadly force."

Etta Francis said she didn't believe Mallot's claim that he fired out of fear for his own safety.

"How can you call something 'self-defense' when the other person didn't have a weapon at all?" Francis said.

She has been in counseling to help her deal with her son's death.

Uncovered during the investigation, McDaniel said, were complaints about Francis being involved in other bus altercations. On Tuesday she couldn't say if any resulted in criminal convictions.

Francis also had a Harris County criminal record, with past convictions for charges ranging from assault to drug offenses.

"He may have had a (criminal) background, but it didn't warrant him to be shot down like a dog," Etta Francis said.

Nunnery made his client available to speak to the grand jurors during the hearing.

Etta Francis said she has forgiven Mallot and prays for him and his family.

"But, everybody has to be held accountable for anything that they do wrong," she said. "I didn't expect him to just get a slap on the wrist, and that was it."

Mallot's lawyer said it was "merely happenstance" that his client is white while Francis was black.

"There was absolutely no racial component to this (shooting) at all," Nunnery said.

On Tuesday, community activist Quanell X called for the case to be presented to another grand jury with a new prosecutor.

"This is a disgrace," Quanell said. "It's a slap in the face to the entire African-American community, and we have a right to be outraged."

On Tuesday, Mallot could not be reached for comment. "They want this behind them so they can move on," said Nunnery, who plans to file a motion within the next few days to have the arrest expunged from his client's record.

Chronicle reporter Kevin Moran contributed to this story.

[GlockenHammer]

I'm almost always frustrated by media reports of incidents I am interested in. They are brief, sensational, and seldom have the follow up that this one did. I think it is interesting to quote an April article on the event ( http://www.click2houston.com/news/11521824/detail.html )

Investigators said Garrett Mallot, 24, bumped into Francis and when Francis demanded an apology, Mallot pulled a gun and shot him.

Nice and tidy and fit for a newscast or webnews article, but hardly objective. The simple use of the word "when" links the shooting with the lack of apology instead of just a simple listing of the three facts (bump, apology demanded, bumpee shot). On top of that, this article was over a week since the original incident. I would think at least some of what the grand jury heard would have been available to "investigators" or inquiring reporters by then.

Very frustrating. At least I'm glad the follow up made the news.

[KD5NRH]

"He may have had a (criminal) background, but it didn't warrant him to be shot down like a dog," Etta Francis said.

Of course not, and he wasn't; dogs are shot to death as quickly and cleanly as possible when it is necessary to shoot them. He was shot to stop his actions, and happened to die as a result of the wound.

ISTR at least one story specifying that only one shot was fired, which is hardly consistent with the shooter wanting to kill.

[frankie_the_yankee]

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.

[Lucky45]

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.

[stevie_d_64]

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.

I kinda agree with this comment...And my wife made a similar comment earlier this week about this...So you guys are on the same page...And thats ok in my book...

One thing that gets me about the whole thing is, if anyone has ever ridden in a Houston Metro city bus, especially like the one they were in...

There is ample opportunity to step on or brush up against someone in those things...I know...I have been stepped on and push around on them many times when I worked downtown...Its a way of life...

And most reasonable people excuse themselves, apologize and everyone understands that and goes on with their day...

In this case, someone with a well established history of agressive and unreasonable behavior, and someone that carried a gun for lawful purposes "mixed"...

Obviously not a good combination that day...And someone lost their life because of that unreasonable behavior...

What is going to happen is that our community of people who have chosen to carry for this purpose of self defense have avenues and places where we can go and talk shop, get things resolved, and see how we can apply any lessons learned about incidencces like this...And that is not making excuses for apparant behavior of one of our folks...

The opposite side of this equation, as rediculous as it sounds, do not have discussion forums for I AM A RUDE AND ABUSIVE CITIZEN WITH A CRIMINAL HISTORY.COM

I believe we know enough about this incident, to understand why the court ruled the way it did...

And if there are elements in the community who wish to drag this situation out, well, thats their problem...And those people are well known to do that, for obvious reasons...

When the gavel falls, its a done deal, whether you like it or not...But to try a man again, for the same offense, after it has been ruled upon...What Quannel X is asking for is not an appeal...He just wants to try to get this guy again... Till he gets what he wants...Sorry Quannel it don't work like that...

[frankie_the_yankee]

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.

[stevie_d_64]

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.

My wife said we do not know if the defendant actually tried to apologize or make amends for brushing up against the other person who is dead now...

There may have actually been an apology extended and that the dead guy probably wasn't going to have anything to do with that at all...He has a history of being a bit unreasonable on several occasions, and again that is really not up to us to determine to a reasonable degree...

But we will probably never know...

[Lucky45]

One thing that gets me about the whole thing is, if anyone has ever ridden in a Houston Metro city bus, especially like the one they were in...

There is ample opportunity to step on or brush up against someone in those things...I know...I have been stepped on and push around on them many times when I worked downtown...Its a way of life...

And most reasonable people excuse themselves, apologize and everyone understands that and goes on with their day...

Very true. I have travelled on MASS TRANSIT for more almost half my life and in MANY COUNTRIES and this is very normal. Nobody tries to act all bravado to the point where you can't apologize. It is "normally" expected of you to apologize, because everyone knows it was unintentional. And generally, confrontation do arise immediately with those trying to ignore the unwritten rule. So daily, unarmed people descalate these situations without a law over their head. And we are suppose to be held to a higher standard than the general public.

I know some might be saying that is just third world countries etc, by gosh this is USA, etc, etc. You have internet, go search and see this problem hardly arises in different places.
Nobody gets killed like this in INDIA where thousands ride on TOP of a train because the cabin area is crowded.
JAPAN has people employed whose job is to push, shove and cram passengers into train before departure.

[stevie_d_64]

So daily, unarmed people descalate these situations without a law over their head. And we are suppose to be held to a higher standard than the general public.

Oh man, did you ever nail it!

No amount of speculation, based upon the news we have so far on this gives us the opportunity to actually grade the young CHL'ers behavior in the incident...I really wish we did have some idea of how and what he may have said inside that bus...

But you nailed it on how perceptions mean everything in the court of public opinion...If the public perception is generally negative towards anyone who carries a gun for any reason, see how the burden is on us to exemplify maturity, skill, and good manners in not escalating situations like this...We may never really know about this kid...And it just eats me up not knowing...Whatever the truth may be...

[Lucky45]

No amount of speculation, based upon the news we have so far on this gives us the opportunity to actually grade the young CHL'ers behavior in the incident...I really wish we did have some idea of how and what he may have said inside that bus...

But you nailed it on how perceptions mean everything in the court of public opinion.....

That is why in my opinion, ONLY until I hear or see a statement from the shooter saying that he made an attempt to descalate the situation by apologizing for bumping in the guy. Then I don't agree that he tried to descalate the confrontation and therefore was justified in using force. The decedant could have looked like frankenstein and had steam coming from his behind, but if the shooter learned to descalate by first pulling a knife when the guy said from the beginning that he just wanted an apology, then that is just plain sorry. Those were the shooter's statements made to police.

[stroo]

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???