Interview with the Texan who stopped the massacre

[jltrent]

He engaged with an AR 15. Active shooter was wearing body armor. He fatally wounded the attacker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HEchh ... e=youtu.be

 

[Bright Raven]

Might not have been a smart thing giving an interview. His actions might promt some form of litigation. I doubt it but it could happen. More likely a civil case if the shooter's family sees a way to collect on it. I doubt any legal counsel would have supported him giving an interview.

 

[Bigfoot]

I'd have probably had my lawyer with me.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Put me on the jury.

 

[slick4591]

Saw an interview last night that said the ME concluded that the fatal shot to the head appeared to be self inflicted. Still along ways to go before everything is conclusive.

 

[True Grit Farms]

I hope I have a few neighbors like him. Screw needing a lawyer by his side, he's the man. Hopefully our country is changing for the better right before our eyes. This guy is the real deal, we're blessed to have folks like him living among us.

 

[NEFarmwife]

Might not have been a smart thing giving an interview. His actions might promt some form of litigation. I doubt it but it could happen. More likely a civil case if the shooter's family sees a way to collect on it. I doubt any legal counsel would have supported him giving an interview.

This would be extremely difficult to do in Texas. While the shooter never entered the home or property of the "hero" who intervened... Texas does have the castle law. Someone trying to throw a civil suit on a Texan who saved lives by taking someone else's, is untouchable, so to speak.

 

[dieselbeef]

I hope I have a few neighbors like him. Screw needing a lawyer by his side, he's the man. Hopefully our country is changing for the better right before our eyes. This guy is the real deal, we're blessed to have folks like him living among us.

hell yeah still some americans around us!

 

[Bright Raven]

Might not have been a smart thing giving an interview. His actions might promt some form of litigation. I doubt it but it could happen. More likely a civil case if the shooter's family sees a way to collect on it. I doubt any legal counsel would have supported him giving an interview.

This would be extremely difficult to do in Texas. While the shooter never entered the home or property of the "hero" who intervened... Texas does have the castle law. Someone trying to throw a civil suit on a Texan who saved lives by taking someone else's, is untouchable, so to speak.

Yes. Texas would be a difficult venue for a civil case. But that does not influence the potential of a civil suit if someone decides to pursue it and even if the outcome is crystal clear, there is a cost associated with legal services. The use of lethal force does not come without consequences. The author of Use of Lethal Force in the State of Montana includes a caution in his book, always assume every case where lethal force is used will result in litigation if not in criminal court, in civil court. Therefore, he advises that a public statement not be given without legal representation. I do believe this Hero is enjoying the attention. Good for him, one of life's pleasures.

Edited to add: Castle law would not be applicable in this case.

 

[NEFarmwife]

Might not have been a smart thing giving an interview. His actions might promt some form of litigation. I doubt it but it could happen. More likely a civil case if the shooter's family sees a way to collect on it. I doubt any legal counsel would have supported him giving an interview.

This would be extremely difficult to do in Texas. While the shooter never entered the home or property of the "hero" who intervened... Texas does have the castle law. Someone trying to throw a civil suit on a Texan who saved lives by taking someone else's, is untouchable, so to speak.

Yes. Texas would be a difficult venue for a civil case. But that does not influence the potential of a civil suit if someone decides to pursue it and even if the outcome is crystal clear, there is a cost associated with legal services. The use of lethal force does not come without consequences. The author of Use of Lethal Force in the State of Montana includes a caution in his book, always assume every case where lethal force is used will result in litigation if not in criminal court, in civil court. Therefore, he advises that a public statement not be given without legal representation. I do believe this Hero is enjoying the attention. Good for him, one of life's pleasures.

Edited to add: Castle law would not be applicable in this case.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

[NEFarmwife]

I might also add that while I am not arguing that it is possible a case could come of it, I am stating "Good luck" to whomever tries.

 

[Bigfoot]

I am employed in a field where lawsuits fly. All I can add is that, you can protect yourself from losing a lawsuit. You can't protect yourself from having to defend yourself in a lawsuit. Those are two different things.

 

[boondocks]

Anyone remember this church shooting a few years' back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville ... h_shooting One of the members saved people by standing in front of the shooter:

"The Unitarian Universalist church hosted a youth performance of Annie Jr. Some 200 people were watching the performance by 25 children when Adkisson entered the church and opened fire on the audience. 60-year-old Greg McKendry, a longtime church member and usher who deliberately stood in front of the gunman to protect others, was killed at the scene. A 61-year-old woman, Linda Kraeger, died from wounds suffered during the attack later that night[.] The shooter was stopped when church members John Bohstedt, Robert Birdwell, Arthur Bolds, and Terry Uselton, along with visitor Jamie Parkey, restrained him."

That heroism always amazed me. It makes one glad to see that wherever there is tragedy and horror, there is also bravery and kindness.

 

[Bright Raven]

I might also add that while I am not arguing that it is possible a case could come of it, I am stating "Good luck" to whomever tries.

My point is reflected in Bigfoot's post:

You can't protect yourself from having to defend yourself in a lawsuit.

I agree with you on the "good luck".

 

[callmefence]

It's ashamed so many would worry about being sued.
Those two men don't have any coward in them. They didn't hesitate to step up and I doubt their very worried about being sued.
Good luck with finding a lawyer to do it.
Texas also has pretty good frivolous lawsuit laws.

 

[ChrisB]

It's ashamed so many would worry about being sued.
Those two men don't have any coward in them. They didn't hesitate to step up and I doubt their very worried about being sued.
Good luck with finding a lawyer to do it.
Texas also has pretty good frivolous lawsuit laws.

Come on Fence, you know lawyers better than that. When have ethics ever kept a lawyer from trying to make a buck?

 

[Bright Raven]

It's ashamed so many would worry about being sued.
Those two men don't have any coward in them. They didn't hesitate to step up and I doubt their very worried about being sued.
Good luck with finding a lawyer to do it.
Texas also has pretty good frivolous lawsuit laws.

Come on Fence, you know lawyers better than that. When have ethics ever kept a lawyer from trying to make a buck?

In fact, some would jump at the chance. You don't have to live in Texas to practice law there.

 

[callmefence]

It's ashamed so many would worry about being sued.
Those two men don't have any coward in them. They didn't hesitate to step up and I doubt their very worried about being sued.
Good luck with finding a lawyer to do it.
Texas also has pretty good frivolous lawsuit laws.

Come on Fence, you know lawyers better than that. When have ethics ever kept a lawyer from trying to make a buck?

In fact, some would jump at the chance. You don't have to live in Texas to practice law there.

In Texas you lose , you pay both sides...

 

[greybeard]

Yes, good luck with that........
as of 2007:
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who uses force or deadly force
that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
the defendant's use of
force or deadly force, as applicable.
(Ch 9 [section 9.32] refers to the qualiers of Texas "castle Law in defense of another person--see Slick's previous post)
Can he still be sued? Of course, as that is a constitutional right but it will never make it into court. 1st judge it goes to will throw it out based on the above. Won't even have to defend himself, the state will do that for him in defense of their own legislation.

And the Texas Attorney General has already spoke his mind on the shooting and the defense.
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/arc ... -shootings

 

[Bright Raven]

Yes, good luck with that........
as of 2007:
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who uses force or deadly force
that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
the defendant's use of
force or deadly force, as applicable.
(Ch 9 [section 9.32] refers to the qualiers of Texas "castle Law in defense of another person--see Slick's previous post)
Can he still be sued? Of course, as that is a constitutional right but it will never make it into court. 1st judge it goes to will throw it out based on the above. Won't even have to defend himself, the state will do that for him in defense of their own legislation.

Assuming this use of force falls within those legal limits. It this point, it appears it might.