I think he's dead

[Matthew Hajicek]

That is just stupid.

"Sorry I was just tryin to wing em'"

You didn't read what I wrote, you read what you expected me to have written.

Aiming to stop the threat is usually center mass, maybe at the head if you think they have armor.  The target often dies, and that's fine.  The difference is in your intent.  Are you shooting the guy for the purpose of killing him, or for the purpose of eliminating the threat?  The latter is legal, the former is not, and that has been clearly and repeatedly established by law and precedent.  Also well established is that the instant you know the threat has ended, you no longer have the right to shoot.  You do not have the legal right to finish someone off after they're on the ground and have dropped the weapon.  Doesn't matter if he twitched, he no longer held a lethal weapon.

If you're brought into court for a self defense shooting, and at any point you admit that you intended to kill your attacker, or it can be shown by evidence and testimony that such was your intent, there's a very high chance you'll be convicted.  The ONLY legal justification is that you shot to end the threat.

[Matthew Hajicek]

[Matthew Hajicek]

USCCA:

[JParis]

This is irrelevant to this case...Texas state law here is all that matters.

[CNCAppsJames]

Aiming to stop the threat is usually...

Oh wise one... please oh please enlighten us by telling telling us how many hours of formal firearms training you have. Not just on the range but in the classroom, CQ, etc... AND tell us how your training is relevent in TEXAS.

We'll wait.

[Matthew Hajicek]

This is irrelevant to this case...Texas state law here is all that matters.

Not irrelevant at all.  Texas law:

https://txpenalcode.com/sec-9-32/

A self defense shooting is justified if it is for the purpose of stopping an imminent threat.  In Texas, it is also legal to shoot for protecting property under certain circumstances.  Our "hero", after downing the badguy, walked over, checked him out, picked up his weapon, and then shot him one more time in the head, just to make sure he was dead.  At that point in time, the badguy was unarmed and on the ground.  "He might have had another weapon" is not a legal justification for shooting someone; that is not an imminent threat, it's a hypothetical one.  "He was already dying" is also not a legal justification.

[TylerBeer]

I think this was a lover's quarrel

[JParis]

Not irrelevant at all.  Texas law:

https://txpenalcode.com/sec-9-32/

A self defense shooting is justified if it is for the purpose of stopping an imminent threat.  In Texas, it is also legal to shoot for protecting property under certain circumstances.  Our "hero", after downing the badguy, walked over, checked him out, picked up his weapon, and then shot him one more time in the head, just to make sure he was dead.  At that point in time, the badguy was unarmed and on the ground.  "He might have had another weapon" is not a legal justification for shooting someone; that is not an imminent threat, it's a hypothetical one.  "He was already dying" is also not a legal justification.

Time is going to tell here but unless he has past legal problems, he is going to otherwise be fine...

We'll see

"He needed killin'" is good enough

[YoDoug]

This is definitely a location sensitive issue. If this had happened in Minneapolis the shooter would be charged with murder and possibly a hate crime and the criminal would get murals and streets named after him. In Texas, not so much.
 

[Matthew Hajicek]

"He needed killin'" is good enough

I can't find that in Texas law, can you?

I do agree that time will tell, and as I said right away they might let him get away with it considering the totality of the circumstances.  But I still hold that if he were put in front of a judge and jury, he would have a really hard time justifying that final shot.

[Matthew Hajicek]

"Keep shooting him until the threat stops. Then stop shooting immediately. Then get a lawyer, because the attacker's family will demand to know why you shot him "so many times."

- Kevin Michalowski, USCCA

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/many-times-shoot-2/

[Matthew Hajicek]

"
Don't shoot to kill, shoot to stop
We teach conceal carry students that should you need to fire your weapon in self-defense you shoot to stop the attacker that is threatening your life.  Once the attacker has run away, surrendered, or stopped being a threat, you should stop shooting.  Once the attacker is not an imminent threat to yourself or others there is no reason to continue fighting. It goes without saying but be alert for other attackers or the same attacker returning to fight but barring that, you are done shooting.

Are "shooting to stop" and "shooting to kill" the same thing, since any time a human is shot, chances of them dying are high?
No, they are not the same thing; the two phrases are referring to your intent and not how likely the shots are to kill the person. Shooting someone is using lethal force and should only be done when serious bodily harm or death is imminent as a result of someone's use of unlawful force against you or a third person (UC 76-2-402). Any time you use lethal force in self-defense, death of the attacker is a potential outcome by nature, but should not be the intent. "Shooting to kill" means your intent is to kill the attacker, whereas "shooting to stop" means your intent is to stop the attacker from continuing their unlawful attack.
"

https://trainasdi.com/articles/Always-Shoot-To-Kill

[CNCAppsJames]

So in other words not only did you not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, you only have Interwebz self defense Training @Matthew Hajicek

Check.



Your legal opinion and $6.00 still only gets a cup of Starbucks coffee... especially since the only thing you seem to know about Texas is what you read on the Interwebz. Take some Texas specific CCW classes and get back to us.

[mowens]

Here is the take from the guys at Active Self Protection. You will have to click the button to show it on youtube. They say that he opened himself up to legal consequences since he had picked up the gun when he shot the perp in the head. They say it depends on the prosecutor but think he will be okay. They encourage him to get a lawyer and report to the cops.

[Matthew Hajicek]

So in other words not only did you not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...

So in other words you can't support your arguments, or refute mine, so you attack my credibility.  That's an ad hominem fallacy.

Again, please point out in where in Texas state law it says it's ok to kill someone who "needs killin'", who is not an imminent threat.