TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.fox4news.com/news/113493099-story

Meanwhile, Devon Todd, who police say was seen on that surveillance video tackling and disarming the shooter, is in trouble over what happened that night.

He's been hit with 11 parole violations, including felon in possession of a gun and assault. We're told the video we received from police ends before Todd is seen firing a shot at Burton's car after taking the gun away from her.

Wondering if he hadn't taken a shot if he would still have been charged?

Keith B wrote:http://www.fox4news.com/news/113493099-story

Meanwhile, Devon Todd, who police say was seen on that surveillance video tackling and disarming the shooter, is in trouble over what happened that night.

He's been hit with 11 parole violations, including felon in possession of a gun and assault. We're told the video we received from police ends before Todd is seen firing a shot at Burton's car after taking the gun away from her.

Wondering if he hadn't taken a shot if he would still have been charged?

Probably since he turned in the gun he was "in possession". Hopefully, if everything else in the article is true, they dismiss the charges.

Perhaps, I don't completely understand, but if the guy is involved in a passel of parole violations, he should be back in prison, no waiting.

Yes, he apparently did a good deed, but he's still a criminal.

Or, should he get a "get out jail card" for doing the right thing?

Or, am I overlooking something?

As you can tell, I'm not a fan of criminals even if they manage to do the right thing now and again...Yeah, I'm hard core anti-criminal.

Abraham wrote:Perhaps, I don't completely understand, but if the guy is involved in a passel of parole violations, he should be back in prison, no waiting.

Yes, he apparently did a good deed, but he's still a criminal.

Or, should he get a "get out jail card" for doing the right thing?

Or, am I overlooking something?

As you can tell, I'm not a fan of criminals even if they manage to do the right thing now and again...Yeah, I'm hard core anti-criminal.

I agree, that criminals should be in jail, and I qualified my statement with the disclaimer that if everything in the article is correct, so if he had not been involved in any criminal activity since his release as stated, and just happened to be where a crime was taking place, and he tried to stop the commission of that crime, then I believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt. But if there are other mitigating circumstances that aren't listed in the article, and he was involved in other crimes, then yes, his parole should be revoked and he should be returned behind bars.JMHO

Abraham wrote:Or, am I overlooking something?

I think you are overlooking the circumstances in which he came into possession of the weapon. He did not seek it out for himself. He took it from someone to prevent a murder and then tried to prevent that person from fleeing after the commission of a felony. If I understand the article correctly, all of the parole violations he faces are as a result of those actions. He had already paid his debt for his other crimes and may not have committed any parole violations were it not for the actions of this woman.

I hope all the charges against him are dropped and the parole board takes his intentions to help another into account. I see this a bit like not charging a parent for making a firearm accessible to a minor that ultimately uses it to defend his or herself or family member from another, like in a home invasion.

If the parolee's only "violation" is he intervened on the side of the good guys, then yes, the parole board needs to lay off. Doing otherwise might not be unlawful but it would be unjust. If he's out on parole for the wrong reasons, then address those reasons.

Unfortunately I don't have a reference, but a few years ago there was an upper court decision that favored a felon who used a firearm in self-defense and was charged for doing so. He did not have the firearm prior to being attacked, but got ahold it somehow during the event. The court noted that even felons have a right of self-defense and this guy's use of what was immediately at hand did not violate the felon-in-possession law.

Doing otherwise might not be unlawful but it would be unjust.

Channeling Mr. Bumble, it's too bad the law is an idiot.

If all his violations are a result of this incident I would hope the parole board would render a decision in his favor. There's no information regarding his original sentence length and how long he's been on parole, but if he's found guilty of a violation he'll have to complete what remained of his sentence when he was paroled. At least that's the law in Texas.