TexasCHLforum.com

this guy represents us well

http://kotv.com/e-clips/?id=5600

I could not get it to open up.

I just tried it and it worked for me.

Here is another link. It has more information anyway.

http://kotv.com/e-clips/?id=5604

Hope this works better.

If not just go to kotv.com and look under video links for 4-11-07 and click on that.

Very good statement.

Notice that, even though he is calm and rational, he becomes emotional when talking about the rightousness of what he really had to do.

This is a good lesson. I wonder if I can download that for use in class?

Video worked for me. He was successful in putting an end to a potentially deadly situation and obviously (and understandably) this event has affected him. He also did a good job of communication, for example the the value of training, etc...

However, I wonder if he should have said everything he did in this interview, e.g., "you shoot to kill...why else would you do it?"

We were taught in our CHL class that we shoot to STOP the threat.

I am glad everything turned out OK in this case.

I believe he did well...

oilman wrote:Video worked for me. He was successful in putting and end to a potentially deadly situation and obviously (and understandably) this event has affected him. He also did a good job of communication the value of training, etc...

However, I wonder if he should have said everything he did in this interview, e.g., "you shoot to kill...why else would you do it?"

We were taught in our CHL class that we shoot to STOP the threat.

I am glad everything turned out OK in this case.

Yeah, that last few second when he said that made me cringe a little bit...

But all in all he did good...

stevie_d_64 wrote:

oilman wrote:Video worked for me. He was successful in putting and end to a potentially deadly situation and obviously (and understandably) this event has affected him. He also did a good job of communication the value of training, etc...

However, I wonder if he should have said everything he did in this interview, e.g., "you shoot to kill...why else would you do it?"

We were taught in our CHL class that we shoot to STOP the threat.

I am glad everything turned out OK in this case.

Yeah, that last few second when he said that made me cringe a little bit...

But all in all he did good...

I agree all in all he did well..

ONe of the robbers shot had served EIGHT years of a FORTY year probation for rape, robbery, torture, and scalding.

He should have remained locked up.

I noticed he said,-- had the robbers returned fire so that he would
have to do more shooting, he would be out of ammo.
He also bought another SA. with a larger cap. mag.

I think he did good. I hope I would have done that good in that situation.

What's with the choppy editing?

I agree completely with his decision to act, and I think that he did the right thing.

I am curious to know if he legally had the right to act as he did. It sounds like the BG was moving away from him with his back to him. He personally was not in any danger, right? Once again I fully agree with his actions. I'm just curious of the legalities of such a situation.

ScubaSigGuy wrote:What's with the choppy editing?

I agree completely with his decision to act, and I think that he did the right thing.

I am curious to know if he legally had the right to act as he did. It sounds like the BG was moving away from him with his back to him. He personally was not in any danger, right? Once again I fully agree with his actions. I'm just curious of the legalities of such a situation.

Don't know about Oklahoma, but Texas law offers justification to use deadly force to protect an innocent third person.

CWOOD wrote:this guy represents us well

I agree. This guy did well in a tough situation.

http://www.okla-law.com/whatsnew.html


Deadly Force Sometimes Allowed in Defense of Another

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that the use of deadly force in the defense of another may be a defense to a manslaughter prosecution.

In a juvenile proceeding, the defendant was charged with first degree manslaughter after having shot and killed a man who was attacking the defendant's brother. For a homicide to be "justifiable" in the defense of another, Oklahoma Statutes allow that the person being protected be a "husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant". Since one's brother is not included, the trial court held that the defense was not available to the juvenile.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that "the proper statutory interpretation and application dictates that when the person sought to be defended does not fall into those specifically listed in [the statute]," then other Oklahoma Statutes, allowing use of "reasonable force" to prevent the commission of a crime, may be considered. Whether or not the force actually used was "reasonable" depends upon the facts of a particular case. OWM, Jr. v. State, 68 OBJ 3122.

txinvestigator wrote:

ScubaSigGuy wrote:What's with the choppy editing?

I agree completely with his decision to act, and I think that he did the right thing.

I am curious to know if he legally had the right to act as he did. It sounds like the BG was moving away from him with his back to him. He personally was not in any danger, right? Once again I fully agree with his actions. I'm just curious of the legalities of such a situation.

Don't know about Oklahoma, but Texas law offers justification to use deadly force to protect an innocent third person.

TXI

Where did I miss that? Do you know off hand what statute?