Man Shot Dead After Harassing Store Customers
July 5, 2012 9:52 PM

DALLAS (AP) – Police say a man is dead of a gunshot wound after witnesses say he harassed and slapped customers in a convenience store in northeastern Dallas.

According to a Dallas police statement, the incident happened about 4:00 p.m. Thursday when the man walked into the store, began harassing customers and began to slap the face of one customer. Witnesses say the man chased the customer from the store, then re-entered and began to harass and punch a second customer.

That attack moved to the parking lot, where the customer got a handgun and shot the assailant, who died at Baylor University Medical Center about an hour later.

Homicide detectives are questioning the customer, who remained at the store until police arrived. No identities have been released.

It's those damned Slurpees!!

twinkies

SSR

Darwin deepening the gene pool, one idiot at a time.

Darwin award candidate, that is for sure.


I would be interested to know if the customer
gets charged for the shooting.

.

Hard to guess without having actually witnessed what went down.

I suspect he will be charged with something, because harrassment and face-slapping will probably not sound like assaults justifying lethal force to most grand juries.

I can see why the shooter might have had fear for his life, but proving the reasonableness of that fear justifying deadly force might be a little tough.

Still, being charged in a death isn't the same as being convicted, though it is very expensive to defend one's self.

I would say there is not a chance in hell he'll be charged in Texas unless there is more to the story than outlined in that short article.

You may be right Gato, but if was the DA I'd certainly take it to a grand jury and get their decision. Two reasons at least...one, it makes certain that claims like mental illness, etc. of the dead man are considered up front in this specific instance, along with the question of whether an armed person can shoot an unarmed person under these specific circumstances where not even a fist is raised in the initial assaults.

And if the Grand Jury returns a "no true bill" decision (justifies the shooting), it will be very useful to the shooter in case a civil case is brought against him by the dead man's relatives for "wrongful death".

Mental illness of the perpetrator has nothing to do with your right of self defense. You don't know that "not even a fist was raised", the article says "harass and punch". The shooter retreated to his car, apparently under attack the whole way, and gave the perp a well deserved dirt nap. Good for him.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Mental illness of the perpetrator has nothing to do with your right of self defense. You don't know that "not even a fist was raised", the article says "harass and punch". The shooter retreated to his car, apparently under attack the whole way, and gave the perp a well deserved dirt nap. Good for him.

Mental illness does not remove the right to self defense. But rather than have some slimy defense attorney launch a lawsuit based on that issue, it is best to deal with it right up front.

If it turns out that self defense to the point of lethal force was justified, it would be nice to have a grand jury decision agreeing with that. I know if I was the shooter I would certainly like to have that backing.

And my comment about not a fist being raised was based on the post which started this thread, and which refers first to harrassing and slapping, and then punching...but punching when both are in motion leaving the initial scene may or may not be any more than one person's view of it as understood by a reporter. It would be nice to have all the witneses describe in detail to a grand jury panel what they actually saw, under oath and where the panel could ask their own questions of the witnesses.

It doesn't matter. My comment about a grand jury hearing still stands. The primary objects of a grand jury are to

1. Protect the injured (in this case the deceased).

2, Protect the potentially accused (in this case, the shooter).

3. Protect the public faith in the judicial system to deliver justice.

Holding the hearing and getting either a "true bill" (there was a crime committed and there is sufficient reason to try a specific person for it),

or "no true bill" (either no crime was committed, or there are not enough facts to justify trying a specific person for that crime),

does all three.

It assures that the facts are heard by a neutral panel, that the appropriate ensuing action(s) are taken, and that both the facts, the neutral decision regarding the facts, and all pursuant actions are formally documented.

That avoids questions of vindictiveness or white-washes by authorities. And that reassures the public that justice is being done by the justice system.

If the shooter was indeed protecting himself from potential death or great bodily harm, then he has a right to shoot. That is what a grand jury should be determining, in my view.

Being yelled at and slapped probably doesn't qualify for that level of force to be exerted. Being punched may justify it.

If I was the DA, I would want a neutral panel of citizens established for that very purpose to do their duty and make that determination for the best interests of all concerned, including the general public.

Ridiculous. The current purpose of grand juries is to indict or not. Not to protect the injured, or potentially accused, or the public faith. Indeed many states don't use grand juries anymore.

Finally, in 1985 former New York Court of Appeals Judge Sol Wachtler, said, "Any prosecutor who wanted to could indict a ham sandwich." So NO DA that I am aware of presents a case to a grand jury UNLESS he feels there is sufficient evidence to indict. It is NOT used to "clear" the person of interest.

Personally, I am DAMN glad the moron in this case is dead, and hope more examples will soon follow. The concept that citizens have to put up with personal assaults unless they can PROVE that it was deadly in nature is a prime example of the decline in American values caused by bleeding hearts and fortunately is not followed in Texas to any large extent. There used to be a law in Texas saying that a person is obligated to retreat "no farther than the air at his back". It is not in the current laws, but should be, but there is no obligation to retreat.

In Texas, at least, the actor (shooter, in this case) is granted civil immunity under the 2007 "Stand Your Ground" Law. So, if the shooter is not charged AND convicted, then there is no civil case.

BTW I am done arguing this with you. The dumb fuck is dead, which is what he should be, and that is the end of it.

One less moron to worry about? I guess you reserve the right to decide who lives and who dies? If the person retrieved his gun from his car why did he not get in and lock the doors, or get in and drive off? Oh, because he decides who gets to live and who dies! We will find out more I guess, but for starters lets just kill all the mentally ill people out there.
Peter.

You're exactly right, if the SOB is beating on me, and I get to my gun, then I will certainly decide if he lives or dies, and it won't take long for him to find out. He could be mentally ill or he could be certifiably sane, it won't matter.

And, just to clarify, who said he was mentally ill? Is your name Kreskin?

the use of lethal force is justified if the guy who did the shooting was in fear of his life. If he was just PO's i doubt that a judge would be to lenient on him. in the end there is only one guy who knows for sure. hopefully he will know enough to keep his mouth shut

My standard advice to my children (or anyone who I know well enough to advise them) is that if they are involved with the police/sheriffs/Feds/etc. in some possibly civil or criminal act/investigation IN ANY WAY beyond as just being a witness, then after offering Id, etc as required by law then the first AND LAST words out of their mouths should be, "I'd like to speak with an/my attorney." Obviously I'm not referring to something like a speeding ticket.

Finally, many a potential criminal or witness has NOT been convicted of any crime he may or may not have committed but instead was convicted of lying to a FBI agent.

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
the use of lethal force is justified if the guy who did the shooting was in fear of his life. If he was just PO's i doubt that a judge would be to lenient on him. in the end there is only one guy who knows for sure. hopefully he will know enough to keep his mouth shut

Actually, in Texas (and I am referring ONLY to Texas law) the fear for your (or other's) life is not the only or a required standard for use of deadly force. Besides certain crime preventions and situations as outlined in Texas Penal Code Chapter 9, the general standard is that if you are in danger of "imminent harm" or to protect oneself against the other's use or attempted use of illegal force then deadly force may be used.

I think the gold standard in comments to police in situations like this is one I heard many years ago. "I was attacked and defended myself. I'll make a full statement after I've consulted my attorney"

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
I think the gold standard in comments to police in situations like this is one I heard many years ago. "I was attacked and defended myself. I'll make a full statement after I've consulted my attorney"

+1 Excellent!!! I'll pass it on.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Ridiculous. The current purpose of grand juries is to indict or not. Not to protect the injured, or potentially accused, or the public faith.

And their indicting, if they choose to do so after having heard the evidence, protects victims, if they are still alive. It also protects potential future victims, if the first victim is dead. An idictment acts to prevent a good buddy of the sheriff or the DA's nephew from waltzing away free to hurt someone else. It makes certain the perpetrators are tried for a crime. Not convicted, but charged and tried unless they plead guilty before trial.

BUT the very first thing a grand jury decides after hearing the evidence is whether a crime has even been committed, and even if one was committed, it then decides whether there is ample evidence to try the specific person accused of the crime. That protects the person who may be facing an accusation from unreasonable prosecution.

Like it or not, the decision by a Grand Jury is a manner of assuring the public that justice is being served. In that respect it protects the rule of law, rather than the rule of arbitrary man.

BTW, DAs can and often do try to mislead grand juries. But Grand Juries do not serve at the DA's pleasure. They are selected by, answerable to, and under the direction of a judge. Having served on Grand Juries, I can tell you, a Grand Jury has a mind of its own. Sometimes it indicts who the DA wants indicted, sometimes it doesn't.

I hope you never shoot anyone thinking your interpretation of Texas law is an ironclad defense for killing them because they pissed you off or even were in the act of commiting a misdemeanor battery against you.

People need to understand that with the advent of cell phones cell phone cameras and surveillance cameras you better be dam sure of your actions. On the surface this guy left to arm himself knowing the assailant was unarmed, he could have easily and perhaps correctly called police. He can use the argument that he went back with superior force to prevent someone else from being injured and the suspect came after him once again and he had no choice but to stop the person, the key words are I shot to stop the person from doing what it appeared he was going to do and that is bodily harm, you don't shoot to kill; but hat is pure conjecture on my part. With witnesses around he better hope they saw what he saw.

Grand jury are used to deal with incidents that the the general public has an input , it is only a pre indictment meaning it appears a crime has been comitted and the court needs to deal with it. This way all evidence and witnesses will be looked into to determine exactly what happened. In most cases after all is exhausted either the charges will be dropped, plea deal or go to court.

quote:

On the surface this guy left to arm himself knowing the assailant was unarmed, he could have easily and perhaps correctly called police.

On the surface, you apparently can't read. That's not what happened at all. The guy who shot him was never disengaged once the guy started beating on him INSIDE the store and continued doing so, following him to his car, where the attack was stopped by his poor choice of victims, ie. one who armed himself.

quote:

Witnesses say the man chased the customer from the store, then re-entered and began to harass and punch a second customer.

That attack moved to the parking lot, where the customer got a handgun and shot the assailant, who died at Baylor University Medical Center about an hour later.

The way I read, it says he left the store and the trouble maker reentered the store and started on another customer or it isn't clearly worded such as Customer 1 or customer #2, not knowing all things I probably would have done the same but I am a retired LE who has been trained to deal with circumstances like this. Somebody throwing punches can be very deadly, a nephew of the previous mayor of Chicago got into a scuffle at a tavern and threw one punch at a guy who subsequently died a short time latter, and it happens several times since but most from multiple strikes. I have tuned down since I do not have the Umbrella that covers LE so they can do their job, as a private citizen you will stand on your own 2 feet as it is unlikely that someone will step forward with either legal or financial help.

"THAT attack"

Sounds like self defense to me but I see things in practical terms. I am certainly no lawyer but the way I read this it was a righteous shooting.

As far as I know, all shootings in Texas go to the Grand Jury.

I know all of mine did.

Let's see, we have an undocumented newspaper report from an unknown newspaper and from that we can determine whether a person is innocent or guilty of homicide? Vigilanty justice is alive and well on th internet.

465H&H

Sounds like a bunch of y'all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Criminal attacks innocent customers in a convenience store and is shot dead after following patron to his car....hooray!!! Only thing better would've been if the attacked customer had his weapon on his person and killed the criminal in the store.

Any argument?

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
My standard advice to my children (or anyone who I know well enough to advise them) is that if they are involved with the police/sheriffs/Feds/etc. in some possibly civil or criminal act/investigation IN ANY WAY beyond as just being a witness, then after offering Id, etc as required by law then the first AND LAST words out of their mouths should be, "I'd like to speak with an/my attorney." Obviously I'm not referring to something like a speeding ticket.

VERY good advice.