Texas Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Thief

**The Reaper** · 07-09-2007, 20:52

Hmm, good thing the bill passed regardless of his vote.

TR

Texas State Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would-Be Thief
Monday, July 09, 2007

HOUSTON — A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday.

Rep. Borris Miles told police he was fixing a leak on the second floor of the Houston house he's building Sunday night when he heard a noise downstairs and saw two men trying to steal the copper. After Miles confronted the pair, one of the men threw a pocketknife at him, Houston Police spokesman Victor Senties.

Miles, a former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the left leg, police said. The wounded suspect was being treated at a Houston hospital. Police were trying to identify the other suspect.

Charges of aggravated robbery are pending against the wounded suspect, Senties said.

Police said Miles, who is in his freshman term, is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. No charges have been filed against Miles, Senties said.

Miles, a Democrat, voted against a bill that gives Texans stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles, and workplaces. The so-called "castle doctrine," passed by the Legislature this year, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.

**Ambush Master** · 07-09-2007, 21:03

Since the Law does not take effect until 1 September, maybe he should be held accountable to the OLD Statutes that HE preferred!!!!

**The Reaper** · 07-09-2007, 21:12

Frankly, I would have to question whether a thrown pocket knife that missed required a deadly force response.

I wonder if the poor wounded man has a good personal injury attorney?

TR

**Ambush Master** · 07-09-2007, 21:15

In Texas, if it is after "sunset", you are cleared HOT!!!

Sdiver · 07-09-2007, 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Frankly, I would have to question whether a thrown pocket knife that missed required a deadly force response.

TR

"21 Foot Rule" was in effect.

Quote:

For more than 20 years now, a concept called the 21-Foot Rule has been a core component in training officers to defend themselves against edged weapons.

Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.

The implication, therefore, is that when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet an officer had better have his gun out and ready to shoot before the offender starts rushing him or else he risks being set upon and injured or killed before he can draw his sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.

I don't know if that's taught in CCW classes, but IMO, this guy was justified to use deadly force, once he saw the knife, regardless if the perp through it or not.

But in a way, I kinda like AM's answer better....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

In Texas, if it is after "sunset", you are cleared HOT!!!

**The Reaper** · 07-09-2007, 21:45

I understand the 21 foot rule and have used it in classes. It generally applies to an attacker closing the distance with a knife in hand, not someone who has just tossed a pocketknife at you.

However, in response to a thrown object, unless there was another potentially lethal object in the subject's hand, I am not sure that would justify subsequent use of lethal force.

The full details are not known here we are just speculating on the incident as described in a news article, I am sure that the incident will be investigated by the proper authorities.

Frankly, the whole point was the irony of a shooter in this situation who voted against indemnification from self-defense shootings.

TR

Sdiver · 07-09-2007, 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I understand the 21 foot rule and have used it in classes. It generally applies to an attacker closing the distance with a knife in hand, not someone who has just tossed a pocketknife at you.

However, in response to a thrown object, unless there was another potentially lethal object in the subject's hand, I am not sure that would justify subsequent use of lethal force.

The full details are not known here we are just speculating on the incident as described in a news article, I am sure that the incident will be investigated by the proper authorities.

Yes Sir, I agree 100%, in the fact that we don't know the whole story, as you've stated above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TR

Frankly, the whole point was the irony of a shooter in this situation who voted against indemnification from self-defense shootings.

TR

As did I. I was giggling the whole time I was reading the article.

**Ambush Master** · 07-09-2007, 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Frankly, the whole point was the irony of a shooter in this situation who voted against indemnification from self-defense shootings.

TR

This reminds me of a case recently where a Represenative, I believe in Ohio, that had voted againsed Consealed Carry, was assaulted and promptly went and got his CHL!!!!

Texian · 07-10-2007, 00:22

The most appalling part of all this is that neither he or his fellow dems will learn or come to realize a damned thing about how wrong they are on 2nd Amendment and self-defence rights. Bloody dems are thicker than the lead he fired into his assailant.

jatx · 07-10-2007, 06:35

I have a problem with shooting an unarmed man - he shoud have thrown the knife back!

Civil liability could be an issue for him. The best part of the 9/1 law is that it grants civil immunity to any lawful user of deadly force, which IMHO is more important than the "castle" elements.

Don't Mess With Texas

82ndtrooper · 07-10-2007, 07:05

I'd like to know his personal rationale for not supporting the bill. He was a former police officer, you'd think he'd know better.

Or, is this just more of the same..........."It's ok for me just not for you"

Gypsy · 07-10-2007, 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper

Or, is this just more of the same..........."It's ok for me just not for you"

That was pretty much my take...

Ranger Luna · 07-10-2007, 11:46

Funny how shit really is, don't you think................

Trip_Wire (RIP) · 07-11-2007, 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper

I'd like to know his personal rationale for not supporting the bill. He was a former police officer, you'd think he'd know better.

Or, is this just more of the same..........."It's ok for me just not for you"

Actually, I'm not that suprised that a former police officer or even a serving LE officer would think that way there are many LE Officers, who think that way for one reason or the other.

Many LE Officers are not firearms enthustasts and treat their firearm like a badge of office, rather then a weapon, etc. These same people only practice, or go to the range when forced to and most do not carry off duty, unless forced to by department regulations.

A number of them also think that citizens should not be allowd to own or carry concealed weapons and especially not be able to own military style semi-auto rifles, etc. They agree with all of the anti-firearms crowd in general.

In some cases it would seem the higher the rank in the department, the more likely you'll find these people, especially in the rank of Chief of police.

There always seems to be a few of these people in most larger departments in particular. There were some in my old department and the currant Seattle Police Chief is a good example of the rank thing I mentioned.

sf11b_p · 07-11-2007, 11:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Frankly, the whole point was the irony of a shooter in this situation who voted against indemnification from self-defense shootings.

TR

Especially since the article indicates it did not begin as a self-defense incident. The men were stealing copper wire, he had distance being a floor away but approached them. It might be said he could have called police, he could have approached with weapon drawn and visible negating any knife throwing. Sounds like he's the exact type that he wanted the self-defense option kept away from.

Irony, and hypocrisy.