TexasCHLforum.com

I can't believe this hasn't made it here yet.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 309503.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was 10:50 AM and the suspect was fleeing? It will be interesting to see if the victim is charged. I would have loved to see the suspects face as he is doing the burglary when the victim pops up from the back seat

texanjoker wrote:It was 10:50 AM and the suspect was fleeing? It will be interesting to see if the victim is charged. I would have loved to see the suspects face as he is doing the burglary when the victim pops up from the back seat

I think he may be covered with this

"Window punches are loud," she said. "Our victim initially thought he'd been shot at."

Did anyone else notice that they refuse to specify the race of the perpetrator? How can anyone help identify the perp based on the description given. I'm sure millions of people fit the description given.

Kawabuggy wrote:Did anyone else notice that they refuse to specify the race of the perpetrator? How can anyone help identify the perp based on the description given. I'm sure millions of people fit the description given.

If the suspect is Asian or European they usually mention it, if that helps narrow the pool.

It's the Houston Chronicle, don't expect too much. I'm actually surprised the it didn't say the 'victim went wild with gunfire..."

Technically didn't this guy shoot at a fleeing vehicle?

I'm not saying under the same circumstances I wouldn't have done the same thing.
But if the BG was in a car driving away are we not supposed to stand down?

I don't know if i could have either being all pumped up.

Moby wrote:Technically didn't this guy shoot at a fleeing vehicle?

I'm not saying under the same circumstances I wouldn't have done the same thing.
But if the BG was in a car driving away are we not supposed to stand down?

I don't know if i could have either being all pumped up.

Sounds as if that's the case from the story, however, it seems the cops didn't care or it wasn't noted in the story that any 'charges' against the victim were forthcoming. Personally, provided it was safe to do so(no bystanders etc.) I'm glad the guy fired off a few rounds. I hate criminals.

Justified.

The guy was in his vehicle. Because the BG with force entered the vehicle, his use of deadly force is "presumed reasonable".

Maybe it was OK for the GG to shoot at the BG's fleeing Buick because it was an attempt
to retrieve recently stolen property under Texas law. The thief had stolen $80 in the bank bag.

Besides 2 new windows for his gold Buick, he probably needs some new pants.
It can't be too soothing to have a Sig throwing some .40 into your passenger cabin! :-)

SIA

Kawabuggy wrote:Did anyone else notice that they refuse to specify the race of the perpetrator? How can anyone help identify the perp based on the description given. I'm sure millions of people fit the description given.

If you read the comments following the article, everyone knows the race of the perp. One commenter says he called the sheriff's office and was told the perp also had tats on his face (which would seem to be good info to include without it being necessary to mention race). On just about any article of this type where there are comments, it becomes clear that everyone has caught on to the media game --which makes it worse than pointless if the reason for omitting race is to foster better relations between the races. Obviously, it is not. At this point I can only draw the conclusion that the purpose of omitting race in these cases is to foster animosity and provoke resentment among the races. More of the liberal divide and conquer strategy. And given the omission of other details, such as the facial tats, while the gun used was specifically identified, I must also conclude that the media doesn't want the perp to be caught --also a feature of the liberal divide and conquer strategy: keep threats active and tensions high.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Maybe it was OK for the GG to shoot at the BG's fleeing Buick because it was an attempt
to retrieve recently stolen property under Texas law. The thief had stolen $80 in the bank bag.

Winner.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.