Two masked men ran up to a woman at her home in the Legends Trace subdivision Friday and tried to abduct her while one of her children were still in the car.
Source: Man arrested after shooting at fiancée’s attempted abduction
What we have here is a failure to understand when and where you’ve crossed the line from defender to aggressor and reckless idiot with a gun.
Force and deadly force can be justified ,”…to prevent aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.” But there’s a clause in the penal code that reads, “when and to the degree…necessary.”
Our “hero” exceeded that standard. Once he’d stopped the threat, he could and should have tended to his fiancée. Instead, he continued to pursue the suspects and became the aggressor as they tried to break contact. Worse, he became reckless in his actions and graduated to deadly conduct. And now Jeremiah Morin has gotten himself arrested for “defending” his fiancée.
If you’re going to make the decision to use force or deadly force, you have a responsibility to be sure you understand where your rights begin and end. Another problem we have in discussing these incidents is people, especially guys, tend to suffer diarrhea of the mouth, bragging about what they’d do in this situation or that with zero regard to the very real legalities that might arise. Folks, check that crap. Don’t let your ego and emotions take you over the edge into moronic misdemeanors and felony stupid.
A homeowner, who’d called 911 in response to a home invasion and exchanged fire with the intruders was ultimately shot by responding officers in Charleston, South Carolina. Officers arrived on the scene and saw to male suspects fleeing on bicycles. The local agency’s statement would seem to indicate they believe it was the homeowner’s own fault he was shot.
“Our deputies proceeded to the rear of the home and were confronted by an armed subject exiting or standing at the back door of the residence,” the sheriff’s statement read. “Our deputies challenged the subject and ordered him to drop his weapon, which he didn’t at the time. As a result, one of our deputies fired his service weapon striking the subject once in the neck area.” Police said the subject who was shot is a homeowner or resides at the property.
via South Carolina Police Responding to Home Invasion Call Shoot Home’s Resident – ABC News.
This isn’t meant to be a post about police brutality. We all have our own opinions on that and unfortunately, because the homeowner in this case was black, we are sure to hear the usual suspects bring up race. But, the more obvious lesson has nothing to do with race and everything to do with being at the scene of a high risk call with officers responding to a “shots fired” call.
If you find yourself in a home invasion and gain the upper hand, remember that continuing to chase them once they disengage and leave your home is fraught with exponentially greater risk. If you can, stay on the line with the operator/dispatcher. Give a clear description of who you are and what you look like (race, gender, height, build, clothing). If and only if it is safe to do so, leave the house and tell the dispatcher/operator to have officers meet you at a safe location rather than waiting for them to enter your home. If they ask why you want to do this, the simple answer is that you do not want to risk your family or yourself getting shot by responding officers. If officers are already there, put your gun down, and I cannot stress this enough, comply with their commands immediately.
“The safety of Papa John’s employees is a top priority for our company.
Company policy prohibits employees from utilizing firearms in the performance of their duties. We plan no changes to our current policy, which is designed to protect customers and employees.
Upon investigation and considering the specific facts of the situation, we have reassigned the employee to work in the store and are offering her counseling to help her recuperate from the incident.”
via Papa John’s Decides What They’re Going to Do About Female Driver Who Shot Robber in Self-Defense.
As one listener pointed out, it seems Papa Johns have done little more than taken the path of least resistance with respect to public relations. Firing the driver who saved herself from an armed robber, when her public defiance of their policy is the only reason she lived through the incident, would have created a PR nightmare. So they take the “easy” way out…For now.
Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, and Dominoes all have similar firearms policies with regard to the possession of firearms by customers and employees with the latter being forbidden. All citing “safety” as the reason for their policies. And all have had delivery drivers killed in robberies. All have previously fired drivers who survived specifically because they dis-obeyed company policy as happened in this latest incident. None can explain how their policies helped those who have been ribbed, injured, and/or killed while abiding by their policies. Yet they continue to insist on leaving defenseless, the employees who face the greatest risk. How much do you want to bet the CEOs of these firms all have armed protection details?
On Thursday, Houston’s First Court of Appeals said the jury’s instructions on the law on self-defense were so confusing that Rodriguez did not get a fair trial.
via Court overturns 'stand your ground' conviction – Houston Chronicle.
Some of you may remember Raul Rodriguez, a former Houston Firefighter. In 2012, he was convicted of killing his neighbor after recording a large portion of the confrontation with his own camera. That recording was part of the reason for his conviction as Rodriguez can be heard parroting the phrase, “I am in fear for my life,” over and over again while arguing with Kelly Danaher and Danaher’s father before Rodriguez ultimately shot the younger Danaher, a local school teacher. At the time of the incident, it was our collective opinion on the show that Rodriguez’s own video undermined his claim of self-defense. That opinion still stands.
It is highly likely that the Harris County District Attorney will appeal this ruling. In the meantime, Rodriguez may actually be able to request a bond for his release be set. By overturning this conviction, the appellate court is saying there was a mistake of law that is so egregious that it contributed to Rodriguez’s conviction. Specifically, they are saying the jury instructions were wrong or confusing. Time will tell but, it could be this case will have to go back to trial all over again.
Lawfully armed citizens have much of their identity invested in being the good guy, and tend to assume that society and the courts will recognize their assailants as the bad guys. But it doesn’t always work out that way.
via 5 Self-Defense Cases Where The Attacker's Past Meant Zero.
Say what you will about Ayoob, there’s some hard truth to the cases mentioned here. And if you talk to the folks at Texas Law Shield, these cases happen more often than many people realize. I don’t share this to scare anyone so much as it is an attempt to avoid romanticizing what we each potentially face when we decide to go armed.
Even when you do everything “right,” the law is NOT always perfect or clear cut. Cases like those mentioned here are part of the reason we remind folks that what they post online, even on our page, is discoverable and may be used against you. Even if that never happens, the facts of the incident itself may still be used against you and evidence that might help you could be excluded by a judge/prosecutor who has decided they don’t like you, the fact you shot someone, let alone, the fact you own a gun. But all of that beats the alternative of being unarmed and at the mercy of those who might do you or your family harm.