Another mass shooting in the US (Texas)

[Orwell]

The second gunman?? Was there a second gunman shooting innocent people? I hadn’t heard about that?

[Urbanredneck]

I just want to add to this that many churches I know of have persons with concealed carry watching for just this type of thing. And you would be surprised who they are.

[JXJohns]

@mikecurtis

…Even if you consider the second gunman a hero, there is nothing here to cheer about.

mc

Second gunman, how clever…

[Iggy]

@Spiderman

… Do you have a cite that states a private citizen can form their own posse to chase a bad guy?

What would possibly legally prohibit a good guy from chasing a bad guy?

There is no legal obligation for the general public to stand by while a criminal flees the scene. Indeed Texas law provides that “a peace officer or any other person” may effect an arrest under certain circumstances without a warrant.

So the law certainly presupposes that any person might arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence or within his view. It would be an absurd interpretation that limits such power to arresting only those who commit such felony and who then walk to within grasp of the arresting good guy. After all, any movement by the good guy might be interpreted as a pursuit.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Spiderman

THere’s no state that I know of that doesn’t allow one to act in self defense; what this vigilante did was not a defensive act but an offensive pair of acts, 1) engaging him in gunfire & 2) pursuing him after he had left the scene. A LEO would not only be allowed to do this but expected to do this but from what I’ve heard, our vigilante isn’t a LEO. Do you have a cite that states a private citizen can form their own posse to chase a bad guy?

Why do you need a cite for that? I’ll wager you any amount of money you’d like that neither the armed citizen not his driver are convicted of any criminal wrongdoing for their actions in these circumstances. That’s as close as we’re going to find for a legal stamp of approval (aside from perhaps throwing him a parade), and it’s plenty good enough for me. It apparently bothers you, but to most of us this guy acted courageously and righteously. Go ahead and keep calling him a “vigilante” if it keeps your blood from boiling at the thought of a good guy with a gun, but don’t expect to persuade many people with that out-of-touch-with-reality labeling.

[Orwell]

It apparently bothers you, but to most of us this guy acted courageously and righteously. Go ahead and keep calling him a “vigilante” if it keeps your blood from boiling at the thought of a good guy with a gun, but don’t expect to persuade many people with that out-of-touch-with-reality labeling.

QFT

[Spiderman]

@Magiver

Do you honestly feel the first responder WANTED to get involved?

Given he grabbed his gun, went to the church, & then chased down the bad guy; yes, I do think he wanted to get involved.

@HurricaneDitka

Why do you need a cite for that? I’ll wager you any amount of money you’d like that neither the armed citizen not his driver are convicted of any criminal wrongdoing for their actions in these circumstances. That’s as close as we’re going to find for a legal stamp of approval (aside from perhaps throwing him a parade), and it’s plenty good enough for me. It apparently bothers you, but to most of us this guy acted courageously and righteously. Go ahead and keep calling him a “vigilante” if it keeps your blood from boiling at the thought of a good guy with a gun, but don’t expect to persuade many people with that out-of-touch-with-reality labeling.

I know they’re not going to be charged, & they might just have a parade in their honor; in fact if the town wasn’t in a somber mood from burying 26 people, they probably would. However, if in his gun battle he shot someone who happened to be in the line of fire past the gunman, or if they took someone out in their 95mph pursuit they’d have the book thrown at them. The vigilantes aren’t going to jail only because of dumb luck. These two were never in danger; one can’t go on the offensive & then claim self-defense.

[Magiver]

@Spiderman

Given he grabbed his gun, went to the church, & then chased down the bad guy; yes, I do think he wanted to get involved.

Wow. I really don’t know what to say here.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Spiderman

… These two were never in danger; one can’t go on the offensive & then claim self-defense.

Except that’s exactly what happened here. How can you say “one can’t” with a straight face when they just did?

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
_ (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
_ (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
_ _ (A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
_ _ (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
_ (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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 an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
_ (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.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Spiderman

… if in his gun battle he shot someone who happened to be in the line of fire past the gunman, or if they took someone out in their 95mph pursuit they’d have the book thrown at them…

It’s certainly possible (key word being “if”):

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Bravo to them for executing their pursuit and takedown with skill that avoiding injury to any innocents.

[kambuckta]

After reports of another mass shooting with five dead in California, I’ve asked the mods to amend the title of this OP by removing (Texas). Might as well just keep it as ‘Another mass shooting in the US’. :rolleyes:

Report here

[Bone]

@kambuckta

After reports of another mass shooting with five dead in California, I’ve asked the mods to amend the title of this OP by removing (Texas). Might as well just keep it as ‘Another mass shooting in the US’. :rolleyes:

Report here

No. If you’d like to offer a topic for debate, feel free to start a thread. This one is related to the events in Texas.

[/moderating]

[Buck_Godot]

Just popped in to point out the amusing post poster irony of a poster named “Spiderman” complaining about vigilante justice.

Otherwise, carry on.

[PastTense]

Updating this thread:

Air Force ordered to pay $230 million to Sutherland Springs shooting...

[Paul_was_in_Saudi]

Thank you for the bump.