Defensive Gun Use –Elderly Couple versus Mugger

Not much to the story has came out yet. I’ll probably follow it in detail as it unfolds.

 

DALLAS – A man shot and killed the person who tried to rob his wife outside a popular Dallas grocery store.

It happened Tuesday night at the Aldi store on Forest Lane and Webb Chapel Road.

According to police reports, the elderly couple was walking to their car when a man approached them.

The suspect grabbed a gold necklace off the woman’s neck and knocked her to the ground in an attempt to rob her, police said.

The woman’s husband was carrying a concealed handgun and fired multiple shots, police said.

The 36-year-old suspect jumped in a car and tried to drive away, but ended up crashing in the parking lot and dying. His name has not yet been released.

Police said the husband does have a valid concealed handgun license.

His wife and other witnesses told police the shooting was in self-defense.

The case will be referred to a grand jury.

A couple of key points here — is there a disparity of force here?
I would argue probably yes; given the stated ages of the criminal and the victims. Certainly a disparity of force existed between the wife and the criminal.

Second — an earlier report had the shots being fired as the criminal drove away (not that it would make much difference here in Texas) but this report shows the shots being fired during the commission of the crime.  So, how does the State of Texas view this type of shooting. Let’s look at the penal code,

 

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.

So, without a duty to retreat and clearly there was a robbery or aggravated robbery in progress; the Concealed Handgun License holder had the legal authority for his actions.

This report on WFAA indicates the robber may have been trying to get away when he was shot. Of course, this being Texas we have that covered also.

That’s right — a legal justification for the use of deadly force regarding protection of property.

 

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Criminals, you might want to consider that when you think about committing ‘just a robbery’, is it possibly worth your life to take something that doesn’t belong to you?

Left out of the report is how close the car was, how fast all of it went down. There is a world of difference in  “He was driving away when he was shot” and”He immediately jumped in the car as the victim’s husband started shooting.” Both may technically be correct but the second shows how shooting could happened during the crime instead of minutes later.

Personally, I think this is a great law. Criminals shouldn’t get a free pass simply because they are “getting away” and “only stole property”. The criminal who pushed down an elderly lady risked her life doing so; isn’t it only fair he risks his life committing the crime.

Please join the discussion.

I voted…..and for Prop 1 I Voted NO

Texas makes it fairly easy to vote early; the polls are even open on Sunday. So after church, I stopped by and cast my vote.
As usual, I voted for those I believe will support a small government. Or at least not growing it as fast as possible.

On the ballot is a state-wide Proposition

“The constitutional amendment providing for the use and dedication of certain money transferred to the state highway fund to assist in the completion of transportation construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation projects, not to include toll roads.”

Let’s look at what the Proposition does and then I’ll explain why I voted against it.

The additional transportation money would come from directing a portion of the state’s annual oil and gas production tax collections to the State Highway Fund. Currently, the state’s Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF) receives 75 percent of the state’s annual oil and gas production tax collections that exceed the amount collected in fiscal year 1987, when it was created. If approved by voters, half of the money currently destined for the ESF would be dedicated to the State Highway Fund. The remaining half would continue to build the unspent balance of the ESF. According to estimates from the Texas Comptroller, if voters approved the Constitutional Amendment $1.7 billion would be transferred in to the State Highway Fund in the first year alone.

Okay….First reason is right there — it takes money that is supposed to be dedicated to the Economic Stabilization or “Rainy Day” Fund and directs it to transportation projects such as roads and bridges.

Second reason;

(c) Not later than the 90th day of each fiscal year, the comptroller of public accounts shall transfer from the general revenue fund to the economic stabilization fund and the state highway fund the sum of the amounts described [prescribed] by Subsections (d) and (e) of this section, to be allocated as provided by Subsections (c-1) and (c-2) of this section. However, if necessary and notwithstanding the allocations prescribed by Subsections (c-1) and (c-2) of this section, the comptroller shall reduce proportionately the amounts described by Subsections (d) and (e) of this section to be transferred and allocated to the economic stabilization fund to prevent the amount in that [the] fund from exceeding the limit in effect for that biennium under Subsection (g) of this section.Revenue transferred to the state highway fund under this subsection may be used only for constructing, maintaining, and acquiring rights-of-way for public roadways other than toll roads.

Breaking down the politician weasel wording; Each legislative session the politicians would vote for a ‘floor’ on how little money has to stay in the Rainy Day fund and then split any money (remaining  above and beyond that) and new money into the Rainy Day fund and the State Highway fund.

So letting the politicians decide how much we should keep in the rainy day fund is a bad thing (more on this later). Related to this is the tendency of politicians to vote against appropriating the necessary amount of money for the important projects and then use other money to prop it up.
Sorry folks, if the State Highway fund isn’t getting enough money; the answer is simple; either vote for more taxes or stop spending money wastefully.

 

Lastly,

The constitutional amendment would provide significant progress in addressing the state’s unmet transportation needs by providing $1.7 billion in the first year alone. However, this amendment alone does not “solve” Texas’ transportation funding challenge. Experts say Texas has at least $5 billion in unmet transportation needs each year. This measure is expected to provide $1.7 billion annually to address these transportation needs.

Yeah, won’t come anywhere close to solving the problem but it would siphon even more money off from the Rainy Day fund. Yes, this is the final problem — the Rainy Day fund is a political slush fund that politicians tap on a regular basis and it needs to stop. NOW.

I feel we need to vote against every transfer of money out of that account. I think we need to hold politicians accountable for its depletion. Our recent history in the last 5 to 10 years shows how rocky the economy can be. We need to be prepared, as individuals and as a polity, to weather uncertain or hard times.

So, that is why I voted against it.

What do you folks think; would you vote for or against?

 

Terminator; Yet another Reason…

….not to trust them; “Never trust anyone over 30″. Hard to believe the movie came out in 1884

Remember when the 21st century seemed like an eternity away?

In the latter half of the last century, Hollywood got pretty imaginative guessing what awaited us in the near-future, with ray guns or hoverboards or some other gadget that is still, in 2014, years or decades away from even having the chance of becoming commonplace.

Some of these films, like 1989’s “Back to the Future Part II” (which depicted flying cars as a popular form of transportation in the year 2015) took an optimistic approach, while others (take 1982’s grim “Blade Runner”) held a more dystopian view — as was certainly the case with one of the most ground-breaking sci-fi films of that era, 1984’s “The Terminator.”

It was on one of the ‘classic’ movie channels a week or so back and I tuned in for kicks and grins. It is much easier to believe the passage of time looking at the way people dressed (thank goodness there are few pictures of me from that time period) and the guns used in the movie.

While some guns have maintained their value; how they are used has changed considerably.

This Smith & Wesson Model 15 no longer is representative of the duty gun most law enforcement officers carry. Some firearms like the Franchi S.P.A.S 12 fell victim to the ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban of 1994 and problems with the safeties.
Still looking back at the movie, it was and is one of the best movies that got people interested in shooting. Yeah, it was cheesy and hokey but it did show ordinary people handling firearms and doing okay. It showed interesting firearms and accessories; like the laser sight and the UZI.

I was able to avoid buying any guns based on the movie (or any other movie for that matter); mostly because I was in the Air Force and poor at the time.

So the question is, did this movie or one like it influence you to start shooting or purchase any firearms?

 

 

I’m Realizing….

….how spoiled I have been in the past.   For example, gas prices:

AAA Texas on Thursday reported the average unleaded price at the pump this week is $2.89, a drop of 10 cents from a week ago. The national average now is $3.08.

AAA says of the metropolitan areas in Texas, drivers in Dallas-Fort Worth are paying the least at $2.80 while motorists in Corpus Christi pay the most at $2.92.

 

In many locations in the DFW area, gas is selling at $2.69 per gallon. Recently, in other locations I paid $3.25 per gallon.

And if I can take a moment to talk to Texas Drivers, I would appreciate it. Now, I’m not going to let you folks off the hook. Far from it, I have good reasons to keep reminding folks of the rules of the road. I found out, recently just how much worse it could be.

I have complained about distracted driver’s in the past; people with their noses stuck in electronic devices. I found a place where they don’t have ‘distracted drivers'; they have people so far out in LaLa Land that they only occasionally remember they are in a car.

I have complained about people being slow off the mark at stoplights; I found a place where people wait until the yellow light comes on to start across the intersection.

I have complained about people who wander into my lane on the road; I found a place where people don’t understand the meaning of those lines on the road. I could go on but right now, I’m going to relax, mellow out and remind myself how much I really like Texas.

 

 

Say WHAT Hillary

If no other reason ever existed, this idiotic statement should be sufficient for this person to never hold public office again. EVER.

Of course that means she is the dream candidate for the leftist, nanny-staters.

Let’s Talk About Timing

This comment, one of many like it, regarding the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson Mo. really shows that the writers spend way too much watching television legal dramas and cop shows.

The fact that the Ferguson Police didn’t release a police report until weeks after the incident, which was full of redactions, and under pressure from the Department of Justice leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

 

 

I will be one of the first people to get onto police departments about releasing information; all too often they decide what the people ‘needs to know’ instead of freely releasing information. But in this case I really don’t think the criticism is warranted.
Turn it around — let’s say it was Michael Brown under suspicion of murder; how many people would want information released the next day, eh?

Part of the blame for this is the unfair consideration given to the timing of an officer making a statement. Many jurisdictions allow an officer 2 or 3 days to make an official statement. Somehow I just don’t see those same officers giving you or I that much time before we wandered in to make an official statement. Nor do we get to review the official videos, transcripts, etc before making our statements.

That said –  is it fair to take 7 days to release a police report on the shooting? Absolutely. Make sure you get the facts straight, make sure the information hasn’t been misunderstood (Can anyone say NBC and “effing coon”?) — this goes for both sides of the equation. I don’t want the police casting blame on someone who doesn’t deserve it and I don’t want the police being tried in the press — by the government statements at least. We can’t stop the race-baiters and media outlets from doing that but we can control what the government does.

We have enough reasons for criticizing the government; let’s not make up more especially when it just stirs people up with imagined slights.

Please join the discussion.

 

 

 

 

Bleg — Image Plugin

Since the start of the blog, I had been using “NextGen” photo gallery plug-in and it was great.

Until about a year ago, then they started updating it  and every update made the plug-in less and less usable.
Now it simply doesn’t work.

So, simple request for the WordPress crowd; what is a good replacement?

 

Thanks for your help in advance.