Standing her ground: Woman shoots assailant dead at Texas gas station

posted at 6:41 pm on July 24, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Charles Cooke and Legal Insurrection, which has the relevant Texas statutes. Quote:

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

No duty to retreat. LI argues, in fact, that not only did she have no duty, she had no real opportunity. I’m not sure I agree — we’d have to see the layout of the gas station, whether she could have made it inside to where the attendant was, whether she could have made it safely inside the car and driven away before he got the door open, etc — but the point is moot. In Texas, if a man swings at you with a knife, you’re entitled to protect yourself by pulling your gun.

Three points. One: Whether or not a duty to retreat would have prevented the shooting, it might very well have cost her her car. If she had run off, all the attacker had to do was get in and drive away. That’s one of the points of SYG laws — why create an incentive for miscreants to intimidate innocent people into fleeing a scene by forcing them to run when violence is threatened? Two: Although I’m skeptical that any jury would be a stickler about the duty to retreat in a case of sexual assault, the respective genders of assailant and shooter here illustrate why SYG can in some situations be especially useful to women. If a man steps out from the bushes in front of a woman on an isolated path at night, brandishing a knife, and tells her to get undressed, in theory she’d be required in a “duty to retreat” jurisdiction to run if she has the opportunity, even if she has a gun in hand. Would any jury convict her if she decided to stand her ground and shoot the bastard right there? Almost certainly not, but that’s because even people in DTR jurisdictions recognize the injustice of making a victim take a needless risk in a dangerous situation. Three: Er, what’s going on here with the woman pausing after the shooting to take photos? The news station’s legal expert says she likely won’t be charged, which is true, but if I’m the prosecutor I’d want to know more about that. Very strange.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Any riots scheduled anywhere over this?

justltl on July 24, 2013 at 11:22 PM

The woman seems to have done everything right. When accosted, she got her rifle and kept it pointed at the ground. The previously-deceased then lunged at her, at which point she fired.

Seems a legal shoot to me.

Liam on July 24, 2013 at 8:12 PM

I’m not going to argue with the “legal shoot” part, but no, she didn’t do everything right.

If you watch the video again and freeze frame it, you can see that once she retrieved her weapon – SHE APPROACHED the guy instead of trying to increase the distance between them. She got so close that she couldn’t even bring the muzzle to bare – which was why it was pointed at the ground. She was almost toe-to-toe with the guy.

She was downright lucky the perp was crazy as a loon. If he had been a SOBER and determined attacker, he would have taken the rifle away from her before she could use it – he had ample opportunity to do so. Instead, he made a wild roundhouse swing with his knife which gave her the opportunity to get the distance she needed to bring the rifle up. If he had chosen to stab instead of swing, the encounter would have gone the other way.

climbnjump on July 24, 2013 at 11:26 PM

You folks talking “shoot to kill” need to wise up. You shoot to stop. You shoot to end the threat. When the threat is ended, you stop shooting. If he dies, he dies, but you call 911 and mention an ambulance is needed, if necessary after you clear out.

You talk about shooting to kill, you’re sucking around for a manslaughter charge.

novaculus on July 24, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Says Biden. You shoot to kill. There is no guarantee a bullet will stop a perp. I talked with an ER doc who had a guy walk in with 4 bullets in his head, for a week.

Even if you do not shoot to kill, a ‘non lethal’ shot can take out someone. The gut? filled with lethal target arteries. Met a cab driver who almost bit the dust with a groin shot dropping off a customer at a drug house- just missed the artery to the leg. The limbs? Too easy to miss, and less likely to stop a perp

Even if you are an Annie Oakley, shoot someone in the hand, and the disablity lawsuit payments could be forever.

If someone needs to be stopped by gun, the only safe defense is a lethal shot. If they happen to live, and they are non threatening, you dont have to shoot them again

I would take pictures too, seeing how Zimmerman’s pics were withheld, and airbrushed to prejudice the case

entagor on July 24, 2013 at 11:30 PM

…”If everything you see in this video proves to be true…”

LOL!
That is like saying that you can’t believe your lying eyes.

OK! So the guy may be a “John” or a drug dealer and the woman is a common criminal with whom he has a grievance. She still has the right to defend herself after he threw that punch. Maybe the weapon was unregistered or stolen, but that does not mean that she did not have the right to use it to defend herself.

She may well get off of murder or manslaughter charges by claiming self-defence, but she still may face charges like:

Illegal-possession of a firearm
Possession of a stolen firearm.
Improper storage of a loaded firearm.
Illegal transfer of a firearm.
Unlawful discharge of a firearm.

The list is almost endless.

shorebird on July 24, 2013 at 11:39 PM

entagor on July 24, 2013 at 11:30 PM

Was taught in the military and in other weapons oriented settings that if you aim a weapon at anyone, you’d better have full intent to kill. Especially if it is close-in confrontation.

If you are not of that frame of mind…to shoot, to kill…you will get hurt or killed…most likely by your own weapon, in someone else’s hands.

This is why the video of this shooting just does not sit right to me…something else going on. Warrants a more full investigation before the local authorities call this one done.

coldwarrior on July 24, 2013 at 11:39 PM

If any of those lesser or included charges are proven, than SYG is no longer a defense for her shooting. One csnnot use SYG in the commission of a criminal act or while involved in a criminal activity.

coldwarrior on July 24, 2013 at 11:41 PM

farsighted on July 24, 2013 at 10:33 PM

At least one report is that she told police she took the picture of the perp, and his knife, to prove he was armed. If so, as I said above, remarkable presence of mind suggesting she has some experience with life on the street in the hood.

novaculus on July 24, 2013 at 11:46 PM

If any of those lesser or included charges are proven, than SYG is no longer a defense for her shooting. One cannot use SYG in the commission of a criminal act or while involved in a criminal activity.

coldwarrior on July 24, 2013 at 11:41 PM

LOL!
I’m sure that she was just an upstanding citizen filling up her tank for for her drive volunteer at the local hospice.
I’m still looking for the photos of the dead guy on her MyFace page….

shorebird on July 24, 2013 at 11:52 PM

shorebird on July 24, 2013 at 11:52 PM

I’d like to see the email back to Mogadishu, saying, simply, “Got him.” with jpg’s attached.

coldwarrior on July 24, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Glad she shot the son of a b1tch.

blatantblue on July 24, 2013 at 11:58 PM

If Obama had a son…or a daughter…or a clue…

Kenz on July 24, 2013 at 11:58 PM

OK! So the guy may be a “John” or a drug dealer and the woman is a common criminal with whom he has a grievance. She still has the right to defend herself after he threw that punch. Maybe the weapon was unregistered or stolen, but that does not mean that she did not have the right to use it to defend herself.

Oh sure, speculating that this woman stole her fire arm, was a prostitute and potentially a drug addict is A-OK aruond here. But suggesting George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin is the worst kind of racism? I rest my case about this blog’s racial politics.

As for this incident. Absolutely horrific, we’re allowing individuals to administer executions without a jury trial. Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

coldwarrior on July 24, 2013 at 11:39 PM
coldwarrior on July 24, 2013 at 11:39 PM

I stand by my remarks.

I train to aim for center of mass, not because it is likely to kill, but first because it is most likely to result in a hit on target, and second because it is most likely to result in a threat-ending hit on target.

I would also recommend not running your yap to the police directly after. Just say you’re shook up and need to collect yourself. Because you almost certainly are, and do. Even if you don’t realize it.

But you guys go ahead and tell the cops in the immediate aftermath that you shot to kill.

novaculus on July 25, 2013 at 12:04 AM

As for this incident. Absolutely horrific, we’re allowing individuals to administer executions without a jury trial. Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Of all the things you’ve said here, this is probably the most ignorant. Professor my ass. You are a silly troll, nothing more.

ShadowsPawn on July 25, 2013 at 12:09 AM

novaculus on July 25, 2013 at 12:04 AM

Never touched upon any sort of discussion with police or any one else following a shoot of any kind.

But, have seen locally, or read about in other locales, people being killed, or seriously maimed by their own weapon after they brandished it about, hoping to scare an intruder, ex-boyfriend, whatever…with no intent to fire it,let alone actually aim and fire it.

You draw it, you fire. You fire, you end it. If the “perp” is dead…well, it happens. Their choice.

coldwarrior on July 25, 2013 at 12:10 AM

…You shoot to kill. There is no guarantee a bullet will stop a perp…

…If someone needs to be stopped by gun, the only safe defense is a lethal shot. If they happen to live, and they are non threatening, you don’t have to shoot them again.

entagor on July 24, 2013 at 11:30 PM

Intent. Intent. Intent.

If the worst happens and you end up in court after a shooting, your intent will be examined by the prosecution. You have a couple of possible responses for the jury when you are asked, “Did you intend to kill him?:

1. Yes, I was trying to kill the bastard who attacked me.

2. No, I didn’t want to kill him – I was in fear of my life and was just trying to stop the threat to it.

Your mindset – before, during and after – is important. Yes, aiming for center of mass – maybe even the head depending on circumstances – is the correct point of aim. And the perp may very well not survive, but you are NOT trying to kill him – you are trying to stop the threat.

climbnjump on July 25, 2013 at 12:11 AM

As for this incident. Absolutely horrific, we’re allowing individuals to administer executions without a jury trial. Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 A

M

Ax brother Obama that, teacher’s aide.

arnold ziffel on July 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM

Oh sure, speculating that this woman stole her fire arm, was a prostitute and potentially a drug addict is A-OK aruond here.

We don’t care who she is, or what the color of her skin is. All we care is if she was justified in the shooting and from the looks of it she was. We support her right to defend herself and we don’t demand that she be the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary to get that support.

But suggesting George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin is the worst kind of racism?

Of course Zimmerman profiled Martin. That’s why he was following him. You say that like its a bad thing?

As for this incident. Absolutely horrific, we’re allowing individuals to administer executions without a jury trial. Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

How dare that women fight back! She should have let that guy carve her up, rape her, or do whatever he wanted to because a jury hadn’t passed sentence on him yet.

Seems us evil conservatives care more about the life of that black woman than you fake champions of racial justice such as yourself.

sharrukin on July 25, 2013 at 12:14 AM

As for this incident. Absolutely horrific, we’re allowing individuals to administer executions without a jury trial. Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Given the Obama regime’s total disregard for the laws, you might actually have a good point.
Why have laws if the government can choose to ignore and violate them any way they wish?

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2013 at 12:17 AM

coldwarrior on July 25, 2013 at 12:10 AM

Being prepared to kill is one thing. Planning to kill is another. The difference can be life in prison.

novaculus on July 25, 2013 at 12:19 AM

The law professor quoted as Gerald Treece. He’s always good at distilling the law in a way everyone can visualize. His moot court teams are frequently among the top in the nation. His principal area of expertise is in Constitutional law, but he knows enough about this area (and more importantly how a Texas grand jury would view it) to accurately peg the outcome. No indictment seems likely.

He was one of my favorites from law school. Another was Teresa Collett, whom Ed interviewed during her 2010 run for Congress from MN.

lawwizard on July 25, 2013 at 12:21 AM

But suggesting George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin is the worst kind of racism?

Of course Zimmerman profiled Martin. That’s why he was following him. You say that like its a bad thing?

sharrukin on July 25, 2013 at 12:14 AM

The Sandford PD NWP coordinator and trainer, a black woman who trained Zimmerman and thought highly of him, testified in the trial that the behavior Zimmerman observed and described when he called the NEN was “exactly” the kind of behavior that should trigger a call.

The race baiting bigoted troll is also f’n stupid.

farsighted on July 25, 2013 at 12:22 AM

Being prepared to kill is one thing. Planning to kill is another. The difference can be life in prison.

novaculus on July 25, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Yes, exactly.

This is why the video of this shooting just does not sit right to me…something else going on. Warrants a more full investigation before the local authorities call this one done.

coldwarrior on July 24, 2013 at 11:39 PM

I agree. I think she knew the guy. After she retrieved the rifle from the back of the car, she actually approached him and stood almost toe-to-toe. That was her choice and it was a strange one because at that point, she had eliminated her ability to actually use the rifle. She was very lucky that the perp allowed her to correct that mistake.

climbnjump on July 25, 2013 at 12:50 AM

As a rule of thumb it’s a bad idea to attack someone holding a rifle with a knife.

By the way distance at which you are in mortal danger from someone with a knife is generally thought to be 21 feet. If someone within 21 feet makes a determined attack with a knife unless you already have your hand on your gun out the chances of being seriously injured or killed are good. So if you see someone in your general vicinity with a knife at least get your hand on your gun before they are within 7 yards.

Yes, I have been attacked by multiple assailants at night. It was a surprise ambush with knives, sticks and chains. It wash’t a complete surprise since I had a loaded double barreled shotgun in one had and a 100 pound German Shepard on a leash in the other. They desisted without immediately, although a friend of theirs down the street fired a pistol in my general direction —two shots I think.

I went into the Army a short time after. It was much safer there.

claudius on July 25, 2013 at 12:51 AM

I’ll blockquote this for emphasis:

Incredible. A community activist that is supporting this female assailant says that the shooter had the legal right to stand her ground. Two weeks ago this same activist was leading rallies calling for Zimmerman’s murder conviction.

See a press conference with the female assailant and the community activist: http://kfor.com/2013/07/24/texas-gas-station-shooter-gives-her-side-of-the-story/

anotherJoe on July 25, 2013 at 2:08 AM

I rest my case about this blog’s racial politics.

Says one of the 3 biggest racists on HA.

Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

You should ask obama this question several times a day, alas, hypocrite. Find a mirror. It will shatter, instantly.

Schadenfreude on July 25, 2013 at 2:10 AM

Actually Americans need to be held to the same ROE as our soldiers in Afghanistan. Only shoot in self defense, when shot at first.

To be sure, let them stab you or bludgeon you first to assure yourself a fair trial should others question your “right” to protect yourself.

ndanielson on July 25, 2013 at 2:19 AM

predator: 0
woman: +10
civil society: +10
po’d liberals: priceless

Feedie on July 25, 2013 at 3:29 AM

No duty to retreat. LI argues, in fact, that not only did she have no duty, she had no real opportunity. I’m not sure I agree — we’d have to see the layout of the gas station, whether she could have made it inside to where the attendant was, whether she could have made it safely inside the car and driven away before he got the door open, etc — but the point is moot. In Texas, if a man swings at you with a knife, you’re entitled to protect yourself by pulling your gun.

Amen. I am so glad that I live in Texas. :)

Theophile on July 25, 2013 at 4:04 AM

As far as her actions in the video…. One of the physiological effects of a survival stress situation is the blood flees the organs and goes to the muscles; you are stronger and faster then normal. You are also DUMBER then normal, because one of the organs that is low on blood is the brain. So, people in these types of situations do completely idiotic or stupid things. Things that we, sitting safely and comfortably in our offices or homes with a nice beverage close at hand guffaw at as being ‘unrealistic’. I bet when she’s asked why she took pictures, or approached the guy so close, she won’t have a good answer. Because she WASN’T thinking. She wasn’t physically capable of cogenitive thought.

As far as her ability to flee…yeah. She could have ran away and he’d've just gotten in the car. Or maybe he would have chased her, grabbed her, and stabbed her to death. The average person can cover 30 feet and strike a killing blow with a hand held weapon in about 1.5 seconds. Frankly, I’m flabbergasted at people who think criminals and crazy folk are so honest and dependable that you should immediately believe them when they wave a weapon and say, “Hey! If you do what I tell you I won’t hurt you! Honest to goshness!” Here’s a newsflash: A person who threatens to hurt or kill you WILL LIE TO YOU as well. I know, it’s an amazing concept…that a criminal might lie. I mean, if you can’t trust a criminal who CAN you trust?!?

wolfva on July 25, 2013 at 5:54 AM

Oh yeah; Novaculus mentioned ‘shoot to stop’ as opposed to ‘shoot to kill’. He’s right; you never shoot to kill. When you say you shot to kill, you’re saying you premeditively intended to end another person’s life. That looks bad. In certain cases an antagonistic jury might hold that against you. So, you ALWAYS shoot to stop. Trust me, you don’t want Al Sharpton playing the clip of you saying, “I shot to kill him” over and over again while screaming for your head on a pike.

But what does ‘shoot to stop’ mean? It means you shot the person in an attempt to stop his violent actions. And it just so happens that the easiest to hit spot to shoot to stop happens to be center of mass. Where the heart is. Go figure! And waddayaknow! Killing a person stops his violent attack! Win win situation. So yeah, you’re aiming center of mass for the heart. It’s a kill shot you’re going for. But still, you SAY you shot to stop. It’s semantics, but semantics that can save you from a lawsuit, or even jailtime.

As far as aiming for the extremities; only idiots in movies do that. If you admit shooting to wound you’re saying you were using lethal force in a situation you didn’t feel required lethal force. Big no no. Further, you can still kill a person if you hit the Femoral or brachial arteries. So, you shot to wound and the guy died? Yeah, you may get jail time. You’ll almost definetly lose the lawsuit. That is, if you lived. Remember, this guy is coming at you with a weaon. While you’re taking the time to aim for an arm or leg, he’s cutting you into shish kabobs. Remember…1.5seconds/30 feet.

wolfva on July 25, 2013 at 6:02 AM

Both the Obama administration and the MSM will describe the woman as a “WHITE AFRICAN AMERICAN”.

poxoma on July 25, 2013 at 6:21 AM

And she had the added benefit of rehabilitating this scumbag permanently. I doubt the DA would pursue this, and if it ever went to trial and I was on the Harris County Jury, I’d be asking on which lapel of her I should pin the medal.

As for Quannel the tenth, he has to do something to help pay for his Hummer and $4,000 suits…

golfer1 on July 25, 2013 at 7:02 AM

Maybe it’s just me but it looks like he attacks her after she shoots him in the foot. Watch his left foot – he jerks it up, then he attacks her.

shollen on July 25, 2013 at 7:05 AM

”If everything you see in this video proves to be true…”

Well, it would be suspect if it was an NBC broadcast, that’s for certain.

ProfShadow on July 25, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Why do we shoot to stop instead of kill?

Because that’s what we want…the bad guy to stop.

And because if you think “kill” then you might hesitate before doing what is necessary to save yourself. And then end up dead.

We shoot center of mass because the target is easier to hit, especially when adrenaline has mucked up all your fine motor skills.

And we double-tap because a drugged up attacker usually doesn’t notice the first one. And there is the “golden 10 seconds” worth googling that the perp, even though perhaps DRT, is still a threat.

You take photos to document the scene and help you remember what happened. Stress, remember? It isn’t something most of encounter every day, much less in a lifetime.

Then you dial 9-1-1, tell them there’s been a shooting and they need to send an ambulance. That you were in fear for your life when attacked. And that you are wearing ___ and that your weapon is ____.

Then wait. In some jurisdictions you might actually have to check on your attacker and provide some first aid…yeah, really.

Then when the cops come “He came at me with a knife. I was scared sh*tless. I’m so upset right now, I will talk to you after I get a chance to talk to my attorney.” And then STFU.

You might get arrested or detained. Go with it. Just STFU. Let your lawyer do the talking.

“I really can’t talk about it right not, I’m too upset. I know you have a job to do, but I respectfully exercise my right to an attorney and to stay silent.”

And wait. Don’t write down notes. Don’t mention you took pictures.

You can ask “Am I free to go?” and if the answer is yes…leave. If no, then you are being detained, possibly arrested. Just remember those for important words:

Shut The Frack Up.
—-
OF COURSE, your jurisdiction may vary. Check your local rules and with a local attorney.

ProfShadow on July 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Retired police officer here throwing in my 2 cents worth.

We were trained to aim for center mass to stop the threat if it was necessary to shoot the “bad guy”. As a SAT Member (Special Assignment Team) I took the training to an extra level – one shot center mass and then one to the head in case the bad guy was wearing a bullet proof vest. Needless to say, the end result was to make sure the “bad guy” never got back up.

I still maintain this same shooting technique as a civilian and still practice it from 3′ to 12′ at the range.

I’ve been involved in three shootings during those years and let me tell you – none of them was a pleasant thing to have to go through and all of them happened in an instant. Proficiency and practice is the key to firearm safety and self defense.

Cherokee on July 25, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Frack.

“Then wait…IF it is safe to do so.” In most places you are under no obligation to stick around. BUT then get on the phone to your attorney ASAP.

ProfShadow on July 25, 2013 at 8:47 AM

More to the story:

Not exactly what it is first purported to be.

She knew the “attacker.”

She “accidentally shot him.” The weapon discharged prematurely.

(Forensics will probably show this at autopsy and examination of the scene.)

This was no case of some stranger lunging out of nowhere to assault, rape or murder the intended victim.

The victim may have been f-up’d on drank or other intoxicant, may not have been “crazy” in a legal sense.

This is no “clean shoot.”

This is no example of Stand Your Ground.”

Wishful thinking does not make it so.

The shooter is no poster girl for SYG.

Going back to my initial assessment…there is something not right about this shooting, something hinkey, something that bears closer examination.

According to KHOU, the local Houston affiliate:

“He was a smoker,” said Nicole Brown, Daniels’ daughter. “He owed her $30.”

She heard on the streets that “she asked for her money” but he didn’t have it.

“I just went to the gas station to get gas,” McDonald said. “I didn’t go to hurt or harm anyone.”

She acknowledged recognizing Daniels by stating “he is from around this area” but she also said she did not personally know him.

McDonald said Daniels made sexual advances, threatening her with an umbrella in one hand, and a pocket knife in the other. The video shows the two arguing. She pulled a rifle from her trunk and he lunged at her before she raised the weapon.

“She shot in the ground and she did not know the bullet ricocheted in the ground and hit him like it did,” said community activist Quanell X, who called the press conference.

He also explained why McDonald took a picture right after the shooting. “She took out a phone to take a picture of the knife he had in his hand so no one would say that the man did not have a knife,” Quanell X said.

As for Quanell X, McDonald’s representation, leader of the New Black Panther Party in Houston, community activist, leader of the anti-Zimmerman marches in Houston…something not right, hinkey, and a bit ironic at the same time going on there, as well.

coldwarrior on July 25, 2013 at 8:48 AM

LOL this is so perfect to happen right now

Give her the hundreds of thousands of dollars that would have been wasted on that piece of garbage had he lived.

LIBS WOULD RATHER SHE JUST OFFERED UP HER THROAT

WisCon on July 24, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Yes, because every female is an emotional, tortured young girl, and every perp is really just a misunderstood dreamy vampire.

Nutstuyu on July 25, 2013 at 9:00 AM

As for Quanell X, McDonald’s representation, leader of the New Black Panther Party in Houston, community activist, leader of the anti-Zimmerman marches in Houston…something not right, hinkey, and a bit ironic at the same time going on there, as well.

coldwarrior on July 25, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Thanks for posting that. When I saw this on the local news, it sure looked we weren’t getting the full story.

ShadowsPawn on July 25, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Changing the syg law to require you to leave/retreat, is an infringement of the 2nd amendment in that it limits your ability to defend yourself. They failed to take away guns so they take away our ability to use the gun when it’s needed.

Kissmygrits on July 25, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Good for her.

nor on July 25, 2013 at 9:34 AM

something not right, hinkey, and a bit ironic at the same time going on there, as well.

coldwarrior on July 25, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Of course there’s something hinkey going on. However the visual fact remains that the guy was going after her with a knife in his hand. There were eye witnesses to the deed but they’re most likely going to claim temporary blindness. The only story the cops will get is from the shooter who has already lawyered up. The shooting is gaining a little internet notoriety but that will fade quickly. Don’t think this is going anywhere but self defense.

Oldnuke on July 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM

This may have been brought up elsewhere in this thread, but this may not even be a SYG case according to Andrew Branca. His argument is that the shooter really had nowhere to retreat to.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/houston-gas-station-shooting-syg-or-not-break-it-down-with-aoj/

NotCoach on July 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM

coldwarrior on July 25, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Was she defending herself or not? The video seems pretty concrete on this point. Outside of that I don’t why anything else matters. The only thing that might change any of this is if it can be proven she was making violent threats herself.

NotCoach on July 25, 2013 at 9:40 AM

“Bang” problem solved…Can I get a slushy to go please?

Zexerz on July 25, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Notice how the left decides what the hot topic is and the right immediately goes on defense about it and plays along? So sick of it. Conservatives have been conditioned and are pathetically predictable now. We are screwed.

ClassicCon on July 25, 2013 at 9:53 AM

“Bang” problem solved…Can I get a slushy to go please?

Zexerz on July 25, 2013 at 9:44 AM

I know you were injecting a little sarcasm there but dang if that video didn’t give that impression. That woman appeared a lot calmer than what I’d consider normal for such a situation. But appearances can be deceiving.

Oldnuke on July 25, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Agree with coldwarrior, there is more to this story.

John the Libertarian on July 25, 2013 at 10:28 AM

I’m not sure I agree — we’d have to see the layout of the gas station, whether she could have made it inside to where the attendant was, whether she could have made it safely inside the car and driven away before he got the door open, etc

Allah,
You made the point why the law exists in the first place. Before STG too many people – apparently including you – were second guessing folks, were saying exactly what you are saying; “Maybe she could have hid in the ladies room” “Maybe if she yelled real loud he would leave her alone”

She didn’t have to do any of that nonsense to defend herself and second guessers like you have no influence on the outcome, Thank God.

E9RET on July 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM

What the hell was the guy talking about the wild wild west and the guy didn’t have a gun or anything? SO? Will a knife not kill you? Was she supposed to rummage through her trunk and find a knife? Crazy.

Hannibal on July 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Absolutely horrific, we’re allowing individuals to administer executions without a jury trial. Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Tautology alert: Stand Your Ground Law is a… LAW.

We’ve got a lot of growing-the-hell-up to do in this country, and your statement underscores that. An EXECUTION is a SANCTION. Getting KILLED in the act of committing a violent crime is a CONSEQUENCE.

Sanctions against actions don’t always align with consequences of actions. To wit, you drive drowsy. A cop pulls you over because you are swerving. You might get a ticket. You might get a warning. But if you had fallen asleep and hit a bridge pier at 80mph you’d have died.

People who don’t exercise their Constitutional right to seek protection from victims and accusers under our justice system, whether guilty or innocent, cannot be protected by our justice system. That includes people who are in the act of committing a crime before given a chance to surrender to police.

Lastly, Justice is a process. Revenge is an outcome. Those fixated on one outcome for Zimmerman and therefore have no use for the process that led to his acquittal are simply desirous for revenge; thus, the rioting masked as “protests.”

shuzilla on July 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM

looks to me, the guy Is the one who had the “duty to flee” and if he had been a little smarter he would have…. GOOD SHOOTING GIRL…..

nonstopca on July 25, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Blake on July 25, 2013 at 9:11 AM
NotCoach on July 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Solid analysis by Mr. Branca. He makes reference to Ayoob’s Triad, Ability-Opportunity-Jeopardy, while I prefer a two step analysis, i.e., Intention – Capacity, but both analyses lead to the same conclusions.

No duty to retreat. LI argues, in fact, that not only did she have no duty, she had no real opportunity. I’m not sure I agree — we’d have to see the layout of the gas station, whether she could have made it inside to where the attendant was, whether she could have made it safely inside the car and driven away before he got the door open, etc — but the point is moot. In Texas, if a man swings at you with a knife, you’re entitled to protect yourself by pulling your gun.

I’m guessing Allah has no self-defense training and hasn’t thought about the prospect seriously. She could not retreat without exposing herself to ongoing and most likely enhanced risk. She didn’t dare to turn her back, hadn’t time to get safely into her car (even if she had enough gas to clear the area), and apparently there were a number of the attacker’s friends on the scene. Even if she could retreat, where would she go? Where was there safety to be found, secure from further threats? How much of this kind of analysis can we expect a person under violent attack to make?

While her after actions raise questions, the shoot itself appears to be absolutely justifiable. Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply.

novaculus on July 25, 2013 at 12:00 PM

It will be interesting to hear what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have to say about this one.

SC.Charlie on July 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM

JUSTICE FOR LOU DANIELS!

Seriously, if someone tries to kill you the gloves are off. Grease him.

CrustyB on July 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Who knew that dark pigmentation in your skin was akin to teflon? Nothing sticks to the non-white part of the population. Having said that, she took out a RIFLE and this idiot decided to THEN lunge at her with a knife and an umbrella?

She shouldn’t be charged with anything, he however should be charged posthumously with being FREAKIN STUPID!

God Bless Texas!

neyney on July 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM

As for this incident. Absolutely horrific, we’re allowing individuals to administer executions without a jury trial. Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

You are, without a doubt, the biggest troll trolling the Internet right now.

You just ate. Now go lay down.

Pale Rider on July 25, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Guess which “Community Activist” is on TV defending the shooter…none other than Quanel X, leader of the recent “Just Us for Trayvon” march. Funny how things change, eh?

Kenz on July 25, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Absolutely horrific, we’re allowing individuals to administer executions without a jury trial. Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Says the troll who routinely hurls charges of “intellectual dishonesty” at others.

farsighted on July 25, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Why do liberals think that criminals should have a modicum of safety while they are carrying out their criminal endeavors?

NOMOBO on July 25, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Why do liberals think that criminals should have a modicum of safety while they are carrying out their criminal endeavors?

NOMOBO

Because liberals tend to be criminals, and they want to be as safe as possible.

xblade on July 25, 2013 at 2:18 PM

They desisted without immediately, although a friend of theirs down the street fired a pistol in my general direction —two shots I think.

I went into the Army a short time after. It was much safer there.

claudius on July 25, 2013 at 12:51 AM

I forgot to add that the guy that fired the shots, went into an apartment on the next block and shot the resident dead the following year.

claudius on July 25, 2013 at 3:07 PM

I would be questioning why a citizen felt the need to drive around with a rifle in their trunk.

JAGonzo on July 24, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Because liberals pushed for and got a waiting period for handgun purchases.

James on July 25, 2013 at 4:50 PM

What a beautiful story. Smiles all around.

CW on July 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM

You folks talking “shoot to kill” need to wise up. You shoot to stop. You shoot to end the threat. When the threat is ended, you stop shooting. If he dies, he dies, but you call 911 and mention an ambulance is needed, if necessary after you clear out.

You talk about shooting to kill, you’re sucking around for a manslaughter charge.

novaculus on July 24, 2013 at 10:04 PM

No, you shoot to kill. Unload if you have to. When I shoot someone that’s broken into my home and injure them, the authorities get to hear my side of the story, plus whatever the low-life rapist/burglar made up with some coaxing from his lawyer. Now the little bastard is suing me for shooting him.

I shoot to kill. I would never point a firearm at anything that I didn’t want to kill. Now a jury doesn’t get to hear all about how some criminal broke into my house to deliver girl scout cookies.

My wife has been instructed the very same. Shoot someone justifiably? DO NOT LET THEM LIVE. Once you’re certain that they are dead, then you can call 911.

With the weapons and ammunition we pack at home, plus my wife’s Annie Oakley-like ability, we’re going to have to call Serv-Pro to clean that dipshit’s vaporized ass off our hardwoods.

Only once in my life have I ever been forced to draw a firearm on someone, but when I did you bet your ass it was aimed squarely between his punk-ass little ugly eyes. He took off running. I did not fire. What would he have done had I been aiming at a knee?

Shoot to stop is terrible advice. You’re likely to just piss the criminal off even more.

baldylox on July 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

A true thing of beauty. Good gals 1. bad guys 0.

CW on July 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

and shooting a firearm in full view of a gas pump. That poor gas pump is traumatized for life.

johnnyU on July 25, 2013 at 7:24 PM

baldylox on July 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

I urge you to re-read my posts on this thread. I don’t think you understand what I said. Several people who have some related experiences agreed with me.

Try to follow here: Shooting to stop a threat means an aim point most likely to score a disabling hit. That means center-of-mass. Obviously this shot placement carries a high probability of causing death. But causing death isn’t the purpose. Stopping the threat is the purpose.

Death may be a consequence, even a probable consequence, but it is not the goal and you don’t plan on killing. You plan on stopping. PERIOD.

Asserting you meant to “shoot to kill” is evidence of malice, an element of murder charges, and clearly supports a finding of wanton or reckless disregard for life, an element of manslaughter.

Frankly, when the shooting stops, and you have secured your position, you call authorities, request police and ambulance, and then render assistance to the extent you reasonably can.That doesn’t mean hanging around a dangerous location or exposing yourself to potentially infectious bodily fluids. So what you can actually do may be very limited. But all your actions will be under scrutiny. before and after, and rendering what assistance you can goes a long way to undercut later allegations of malice, which is an element in murder charges, or reckless disregard, which is an element of manslaughter.

As I said above, being prepared to kill is one thing. Planning to kill is another. The difference could be life in prison.

I sincerely hope you never have to explain a shooting in self-defense. Since that remains a possibility, I strongly urge you to do some reading on the subject or take a good self-defense course. I am a long time shooter and though a civilian I am law enforcement trained and qualified. Several other law enforcement trained folks have agreed with my posts. You are quite mistaken, and it could have some very serious consequences.

novaculus on July 25, 2013 at 9:06 PM

“Oh sure, speculating that this woman stole her fire arm, was a prostitute and potentially a drug addict is A-OK aruond [SIC] here. But suggesting George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin is the worst kind of racism? I rest my case about this blog’s racial politics.

As for this incident. Absolutely horrific, we’re allowing individuals to administer executions without a jury trial. Why even have laws?

libfreeordie on July 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM”

Why.. YES! You can kill a maniac trying to kill you with a knife!
(or trying to bash your head into the sidewalk.)
The original post was speculating that even IF the woman was using an illegal firearm, a prostitute, or even a drug addict, that she was STILL within her rights to defend herself.
This was horrific, but only because a crazed man with a knife attacked a woman at a gas station and she killed him dead-dead-dead!.

The next time some crazed-person wielding a knife slashes for your throat, you are free to grab your phone and call your lawyer for support. I, however, will grab my Glock 21 and do my best to end the threat.

shorebird on July 25, 2013 at 11:24 PM

No, you shoot to kill. Unload if you have to. When I shoot someone that’s broken into my home and injure them, the authorities get to hear my side of the story, plus whatever the low-life rapist/burglar made up with some coaxing from his lawyer. Now the little bastard is suing me for shooting him.

I shoot to kill. I would never point a firearm at anything that I didn’t want to kill. Now a jury doesn’t get to hear all about how some criminal broke into my house to deliver girl scout cookies.

My wife has been instructed the very same. Shoot someone justifiably? DO NOT LET THEM LIVE. Once you’re certain that they are dead, then you can call 911.

With the weapons and ammunition we pack at home, plus my wife’s Annie Oakley-like ability, we’re going to have to call Serv-Pro to clean that dipshit’s vaporized ass off our hardwoods.

Only once in my life have I ever been forced to draw a firearm on someone, but when I did you bet your ass it was aimed squarely between his punk-ass little ugly eyes. He took off running. I did not fire. What would he have done had I been aiming at a knee?

Shoot to stop is terrible advice. You’re likely to just piss the criminal off even more.

baldylox on July 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

I understand what you’re saying, but if you’re going to shoot to kill it’s important to emphasize that all shots enter into the front of the target. Otherwise you ARE looking at a manslaughter or murder charge.

Several years ago here in Pennsylvania, there was a guy named Paul Bellina who was in his bed sleeping with his wife one night when he heard a noise downstairs. He grabbed his pistol (don’t recall what caliber) and headed downstairs to investigate. He found a naked man in his kitchen, who had come through the sliding glass door. Belinna alleged that the man began to walk towards him, and that’s when Belinna fired a shot into the intruder. The injured intruder then turned and fled out the sliding glass door.

Bellina then proceeded to follow the intruder out the door, where he then executed him by firing several shots into his back. He later told police,

“I shot until the threat was dead”

. The prosecutor acknowledged that the shot Bellina fired inside his home was justified. However, once the man turned and fled, he was no longer a threat to Bellina and Bellina had no justification to discharge his weapon at that point.

If I remember correctly, Bellina was convicted of 1st degree manslaughter.

The man he killed was the adult son of his next-door neighbors. The guy was living in his parents’ basement. He was drunk that night, went out back to relieve himself (for whatever reason) and ended up stumbling back into the wrong house.

Pale Rider on July 26, 2013 at 10:32 AM

You’re taking the bait.

Genuine on July 27, 2013 at 1:17 AM

A true thing of beauty. Good gals 1. bad guys 0.
CW on July 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

There’s a hook hanging out of your cheek.

Genuine on July 27, 2013 at 1:19 AM

I drive around with a rifle or 2 in my back hatch every week or so. I go to a range about 8 miles from my place or sometimes other places where I might shoot. Usually they’re not loaded unless it’s hunting season.

claudius on July 28, 2013 at 2:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3