Tyler Texas Shooting
Down here, it goes before the Grand Jury and they decide if criminal charges should be filed. The real shame of it all though..... he would still be subject to civil action by the family. The last I heard when I got my license renewed the last time, was the good guys are out about $30,000 if there is a civil suite for a "justified shooting".
Most likely he wouldn't be charged with criminal charges because he was well within the law when he engaged the shooter. In Texas, he had a legal right to use deadly force in that situation.
Penal Code 9.33 - Deadly Force in Defense of Third Person
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: 1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and 2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Instances under Section 9.32 where deadly force is specifically allowed are to prevent imminent aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery.
Needless to say, it was perfectly LEGAL for Mr. Wilson to engage the shooter with deadly force as the shooter was in the process of committing murder....and in my opinion he was right to do so.
Unfortunately, as Crobtex said, had he lived there is still a chance that the family of the shooter could have filed a civil suit against him. In this situation it PROBABLY would have been dismissed, but they could still file the suit.
Penal Code 9.33 - Deadly Force in Defense of Third Person
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: 1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and 2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Instances under Section 9.32 where deadly force is specifically allowed are to prevent imminent aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery.
Needless to say, it was perfectly LEGAL for Mr. Wilson to engage the shooter with deadly force as the shooter was in the process of committing murder....and in my opinion he was right to do so.
Unfortunately, as Crobtex said, had he lived there is still a chance that the family of the shooter could have filed a civil suit against him. In this situation it PROBABLY would have been dismissed, but they could still file the suit.
Here's a new article related specifically to the CCW aspect of the Tyler shooting....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149250,00.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149250,00.htm
I was just about to post a link to that story.
Actually, I will anyway because the link above doesn't seem to be working.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149250,00.html
Actually, I will anyway because the link above doesn't seem to be working.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149250,00.html
Here is a quote from Hoss's linked article:
~Rob
Only two stories mentioned that the AK-47 was a semi-automatic, not a machine gun, and, while it is understandable, none of the articles provided context by explaining that Arroyo’s weapon functioned the same as deer hunting rifles, firing the same caliber bullets, at the same rapidity, and doing the same damage.
~Rob
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vctowpig
Natl. and Regional Chapters / Special Events
3
Oct 23, 2005 10:38 PM




