aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Incorrect. There is nothing that states I have only1 shot for self defense, even if the perp is hit.

---

Not what I said at all.

---

Quote:

---

Or too many shots. Self defense for maybe the first shot but then continued shooting after the threat was neutralized.

---

That is what I was responding to. There is nothing out there that states or even implies that after the first shot you are no longer in self defense mode. Nothing.

Now if you are Mr. Delta Force and dome the perp on the first shot and then proceed to pump a full mag into them while they are lying on the floor with half a head, sure, you are going to have to answer a lot of questions. Which is what I think you were implying, more or less.

But what internet warriors mostly don't realize is that it is not uncommon for somebody that is in a very high stress situation - say like when somebody breaks into your house - to empty the magazine because adrenaline takes over and your body goes into a fight or flight mode. I've done traning classes where I was shooting at paper with almost no stress outside of the instructor or my buddy watching and didn't realize my mag was empty until no bang when I pulled the trigger. It's shockingly easy to go through all of your rounds and not even realize it.

CDUB98 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Someone breaks into your home, shoot to kill and that means more than one bullet.

---

Wrong.

You shoot until the threat is eliminated and you believe yourself safe.

Very important distinction.

---

....which means when the perp is no longer moving, incapable of moving and thus incapable of doing any further harm.

Which means he has been well ventilated because I'm not a fuggin EMS, operator or any other type of person that is qualified to determine when the perp is 100% neutralized and no longer poses a threat.

Which is also why I'll 100% never be selected for a jury in a case like this. Because as long as the perp is breathing, they are a threat IMO. Getting your head canoed after taking several rounds to the chest is just a hazard of the job if you are willing to break into somebody's house IMO. Sucks to suck.

---

If you reasonably incapacitate someone, have taken their weapon, and they are lying on your floor bleeding out, and then you dome them, it's gonna look a lot like murder, not self-defense.

---

Reminiscent of the Houston taqueria shooting a few years ago. If you remember, dude shoots an armed robber, takes the money and gives it back to everyone, then walks out while popping the robber one last time. I don't think he ever faced any charges.

Until we know why the police decided to arrest him, which element(s) of self defense are missing from the police perspective, innocence, imminence, proportionality or reasonableness there are variables that have not been answered in the current reporting. Not that I have seen, anyway.

Do you have updated information?

torrid said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Someone breaks into your home, shoot to kill and that means more than one bullet.

---

Wrong.

You shoot until the threat is eliminated and you believe yourself safe.

Very important distinction.

---

....which means when the perp is no longer moving, incapable of moving and thus incapable of doing any further harm.

Which means he has been well ventilated because I'm not a fuggin EMS, operator or any other type of person that is qualified to determine when the perp is 100% neutralized and no longer poses a threat.

Which is also why I'll 100% never be selected for a jury in a case like this. Because as long as the perp is breathing, they are a threat IMO. Getting your head canoed after taking several rounds to the chest is just a hazard of the job if you are willing to break into somebody's house IMO. Sucks to suck.

---

If you reasonably incapacitate someone, have taken their weapon, and they are lying on your floor bleeding out, and then you dome them, it's gonna look a lot like murder, not self-defense.

---

Reminiscent of the Houston taqueria shooting a few years ago. If you remember, dude shoots an armed robber, takes the money and gives it back to everyone, then walks out while popping the robber one last time. I don't think he ever faced any charges.

---

Did they ever find that guy? For a log time they didn't know who he was.

I have eaten at that taqueria 50 times at least. Worked in the same shopping center right after college.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Yeah, the Harding Street raid and its aftermath were widely reported on and definitely not kept quiet.

---

Maybe locally, but not nationally like other much less egregious incidents involved white cop on black victim. Daniel Shaver is hands down the absolute worst police shooting in modern history. The cop who gunned him down didnt spend a night in jail, retired full benefits. He made Chauvin look like a saint.

agsalaska said:

---

torrid said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Someone breaks into your home, shoot to kill and that means more than one bullet.

---

Wrong.

You shoot until the threat is eliminated and you believe yourself safe.

Very important distinction.

---

....which means when the perp is no longer moving, incapable of moving and thus incapable of doing any further harm.

Which means he has been well ventilated because I'm not a fuggin EMS, operator or any other type of person that is qualified to determine when the perp is 100% neutralized and no longer poses a threat.

Which is also why I'll 100% never be selected for a jury in a case like this. Because as long as the perp is breathing, they are a threat IMO. Getting your head canoed after taking several rounds to the chest is just a hazard of the job if you are willing to break into somebody's house IMO. Sucks to suck.

---

If you reasonably incapacitate someone, have taken their weapon, and they are lying on your floor bleeding out, and then you dome them, it's gonna look a lot like murder, not self-defense.

---

Reminiscent of the Houston taqueria shooting a few years ago. If you remember, dude shoots an armed robber, takes the money and gives it back to everyone, then walks out while popping the robber one last time. I don't think he ever faced any charges.

---

Did they ever find that guy? For a log time they didn't know who he was.

I have eaten at that taqueria 50 times at least. Worked in the same shopping center right after college.

---

Police did eventually get in contact with him, via a lawyer. News articles say a grand jury declined to indict him. I'm not sure the DA or police were actively seeking to prosecute, but maybe it needed to go before a grand jury to get a ruling of self-defense.

Interesting. Thanks

MyNameIsJeff said:

---

Sounds like the news is just running with the details they were given by law enforcement. I wonder why LE would release just enough info to make it sound controversial?

---

I don't think LE releases just enough info to make it sound controversial. I think LE releases only the bare minimum facts they can while an investigation is ongoing, and the media and public turn it into something controversial before more facts are learned.

I'm guessing there were no visible signs or indicators of forced entry at the house and I'm guessing there are prior relationships between the living and the dead. Guessing they let him in or he was already in before they killed the guy. Circumstances that led to the killing will come out in time, and speculation about possible love triangle here may or may not end up being true, but LE clearly had doubts about an open and shut "stand your ground" defense here and learned enough right there on the scene to ask for murder charges. Will be interesting to follow.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The police department determined there was probable cause to charge Florez with murder.

---

Isn't that decision above their pay grade? Or sloppy wording and the police found probable cause for an arrest?

---

probably sloppy wording.