# Texas Church Shootings



## Kraut783 (Dec 30, 2019)

J. said:


> View attachment 31189



Here is a link to the video of the shooting  *Graphic Warning*

Shooting occurs at the top of the video, the guy who put him down with one shot is the head of the churches unofficial security of license to carry holders and runs a gun range. Bad guy shoots two with shotgun, good guy shoots the third shot, hitting suspect in the head.

Gunman kills two people in Texas church shooting


----------



## Kaldak (Dec 30, 2019)

Kraut783 said:


> Here is a link to the video of the shooting  *Graphic Warning*
> 
> Shooting occurs at the top of the video, the guy who put him down with one shot is the head of the churches unofficial security of license to carry holders and runs a gun range. Bad guy shoots two with shotgun, good guy shoots the third shot, hitting suspect in the head.
> 
> Gunman kills two people in Texas church shooting



That was unbelievably fast, and equally accurate, shooting by the good guy.

Bravo fucking Zulu.


----------



## Jaknight (Dec 30, 2019)

Kraut783 said:


> Here is a link to the video of the shooting  *Graphic Warning*
> 
> Shooting occurs at the top of the video, the guy who put him down with one shot is the head of the churches unofficial security of license to carry holders and runs a gun range. Bad guy shoots two with shotgun, good guy shoots the third shot, hitting suspect in the head.
> 
> Gunman kills two people in Texas church shooting


 Thank God that Mr.Jack Wilson was there to stop that scumbag otherwise it would have been a bigger tragedy with many bodies


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 30, 2019)

An interview with the man who took down the shooter.  Right man at the right damn time.

"I didn't kill an individual, I killed evil".






I'll moved the other related comments over here when I get a chance.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 30, 2019)

He needs to shut up.


----------



## Muppet (Dec 30, 2019)

policemedic said:


> He needs to shut up.



You mean, shut up pending further investigation and potential civil case? That kind of shut up?


----------



## policemedic (Dec 31, 2019)

Exactly.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 31, 2019)

Kraut783 said:


> Here is a link to the video of the shooting  *Graphic Warning*
> 
> Shooting occurs at the top of the video, the guy who put him down with one shot is the head of the churches unofficial security of license to carry holders and runs a gun range. Bad guy shoots two with shotgun, good guy shoots the third shot, hitting suspect in the head.
> 
> Gunman kills two people in Texas church shooting


Pretty good shot. At least a half dozen other church members had weapons drawn in that video as well.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 31, 2019)

I watched the video again, enlarging the screen to really see what happened.  One of the men who was killed was noticeably fumbling, dare I say, hesitating, to get his gun.  He went down trying to do so.

Not criticizing in anyway, but just reinforces something I've long thought about when sitting in a coffee shop, church, wherever.  

What if?

I was just sitting here on my iPad pasting a meme on ShadowSpear, suddenly there's a tool waving a gun around?  What are the rules-of-engagement?  

Wait til he starts shooting first?

Shoot him because he looks like a threat? (talking to you, Chipotle AR carrying weenies).

Watching that video has been sobering, at best.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 31, 2019)

policemedic said:


> He needs to shut up.



Ordinarily I would agree, but a retired FBI agent and a friend of probably every court in Texas will probably get a little more leeway.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 31, 2019)

Apparently he’s not a retired SA. Even if he was, I submit that he has not been cleared criminally and everything he says in the media is admissible. Saying the shooter was “an evil” and not human simply does not play well. More importantly, it’s admissible in a civil trial filed by the shooter’s family. 

He’ll be cleared criminally, no doubt. He shouldn’t muddy the waters, though. He also needs to realize that a grand jury returning no true bill or the DA clearing him means diddly squat; he can still be sued civilly. 

Wait until you’re cleared and until after it’s too late for them to file suit, then write a book or sell the movie rights. 

But for right now, shut the fuck up.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 31, 2019)

This...


policemedic said:


> Saying the shooter was “an evil” and not human simply does not play well




And his this this


policemedic said:


> More importantly, it’s admissible in a civil trial filed by the shooter’s family.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 31, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This this this.



Unless the family moves for a change of venue to an entirely different state, what jury will convict? Especially with that video?  Any attorney worth his or her salt will tell the family to not pursue.

Is a national hero, if they choose to sue that lawsuit will never see the light of day.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 31, 2019)

Without going too much off topic, I don’t think you are giving enough credit to an attorney “worth his or her salt”


Devildoc said:


> Any attorney worth his or her salt will tell the family to not pursue.



I think you might be giving too much credit to a perceived “Texas Justice” paradigm. 





Devildoc said:


> if they choose to sue that lawsuit will never see the light of day.



In the 20 years of carry classes, renewal classes, and tactical handgun defense classes I have taken, every single instructor has always repeated the same mantra, “keep your mouth shut”.

See also:
You can say/do it, but how much “justice” can you afford?


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 31, 2019)

@Ooh-Rah , there doesn't need to be any witnesses.  The video alone will be enough, even if an attorney calls it inflammatory and tries to suppress.  A quarter of the church was armed and trying to take action.  

I see your points, but this guy can admit to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll and will still be a hero.  

I've also had the classes, yadda yadda yadda, and know what defense attorneys would say, and I agree.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 31, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> What if?
> 
> I was just sitting here on my iPad pasting a meme on ShadowSpear, suddenly there's a tool waving a gun around?  What are the rules-of-engagement?
> 
> Wait til he starts shooting first?




No. If he's "waving a gun" he's dead meat.

But it's a good question. 

Is it an "open-carry activist" or potential mass shooter? First you look for a badge. No badge, my hand is on my gun--in it's holster--and I'm getting ready. You watch his hands. If he starts drawing a handgun or the barrel of his long gun goes in _any direction I deem unsafe_, I'd feel justified blasting him.

Best case, you've saved lives and killed a homicidal nutjob. Worst case, you've rid the world of a fucking open carry moron and have to go to court.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 31, 2019)

@Ooh-Rah , does your state have the Castle Doctrine?  In NC, if I see that fella of whom you speak outside, I stay inside and call the cops. If he comes into my house then it's game on, I have no legal duty to retreat, and I am justified as legally his presence represent a threat to me and my family by merely being in my house as an intruder.

I don't know how I would act in a church or a store or a large establishment with a lot of people, and God willing I never will have to know. My bottom line is to protect me and my family and get the hell out of Dodge.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 31, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> @Ooh-Rah , does your state have the Castle Doctrine?  In NC, if I see that fella of whom you speak outside, I stay inside and call the cops. If he comes into my house then it's game on, I have no legal duty to retreat, and I am justified as legally his presence represent a threat to me and my family by merely being in my house as an intruder.
> 
> I don't know how I would act in a church or a store or a large establishment with a lot of people, and God willing I never will have to know. My bottom line is to protect me and my family and get the hell out of Dodge.


Although not specifically Castle Doctrine, we have the right to use deadly force in our home if it's reasonably believed you are in danger of "great bodily harm".  We're not a stand your ground state, you have a duty to retreat.   The statute has potential to leave you legally exposed.

Here's our statute on use of force:
Sec. 609.06 MN Statutes


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 31, 2019)

Muppet said:


> You mean, shut up pending further investigation and potential civil case? That kind of shut up?


Nope, Texas laws are quite clear.  100% justified.
He was stopping a criminal action, and deadly force is authorized. They will go through the motions, but this never sees a Grand Jury.
Texas also has a loser pays policy for civil suits, i.e. the loser pays the other parties legal bills.  It has really cut down on the number of nuisance/SJW lawsuits.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 31, 2019)

I hope his family DOES sue.  That will keep this issue, and that guy's words and deeds, in the public eye throughout next year's election.  Plus, I'm pretty confident there's no way he loses, firing one shot at a dude that just murdered two people, inside a church, in Texas...


----------



## Muppet (Dec 31, 2019)

DA SWO said:


> Nope, Texas laws are quite clear.  100% justified.
> He was stopping a criminal action, and deadly force is authorized. They will go through the motions, but this never sees a Grand Jury.
> Texas also has a loser pays policy for civil suits, i.e. the loser pays the other parties legal bills.  It has really cut down on the number of nuisance/SJW lawsuits.



Great to hear....


----------



## policemedic (Jan 1, 2020)

Here is where the concern lies.

Yes, this is pretty much a textbook justifiable homicide and he should not be charged criminally.  That's clear.  Laying criminal charges requires meeting the probable cause standard, which is a high bar.  There are multiple levels of review before this happens (agency and jurisdiction dependent).  Conviction, of course, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt--an even higher standard.

The thing to understand about civil suits is that there is no gateway mechanism.  You don't need probable cause and a win only requires a preponderance of the evidence, or 51% wins.  The truth is, anyone can be sued for anything at anytime.  Something you did, something you didn't do...doesn't matter.  It's not uncommon for a suit to begin with a demand letter, which is exactly what it sounds like.  Pay us $x or we will proceed with a suit.  Often this is enough to generate a payment (hence, why it's done).

While it's true "loser pays" helps, you'd be surprised at how many attorneys are willing to take a shot at a settlement being offered.  Depositions, meetings, prep...this all takes time and money.  And you're out of pocket for it, even if you're eventually reimbursed. 

Keep in mind that the family of the shooter is not the only potential plaintiff.  I can think of several others.

Speaking of settlements or jury awards (a jury being twelve people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty), who pays?  If you're acting as an individual, you're on the hook for everything.  If you're a volunteer security dude at the church, you'd better hope the church and its insurance carrier have agreed in writing to represent and indemnify you.   Insurance policies that specifically cover shootings are a good thing, and if you carry you should have one (I do), but they may not cover you if you're volunteering (read: working) to do armed security.  My policy only covers me out of state where I don't have police power.

My point with all this is that it is bad mojo to encourage civil action by making reckless statements.


----------



## 757 (Jan 2, 2020)

@policemedic is right from a legal perspective. Just find a non-profit law firm with an axe to grind and next thing you know...litigation hell. I am not sure if such an organization exists, however, remember that the ACLU is representing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other 9/11 conspirators...anything is possible.

That said, the optics for the pro-2nd argument are stellar. Plus, even if he was sued I have no doubt the man would become a millionaire overnight from donations. The man struck while the iron was hot...hopefully he doesn't reap any negative consequences.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 2, 2020)

Wonder if he’ll win 🤔

Hero of White Settlement Church Shooting Running for Hood County Commissioner - Texas Scorecard


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 2, 2020)

Ordinarily and in just about every other case I can imagine, I agree with @policemedic and @Ooh-Rah and their well-formed and lucid arguments in this thread.  I just think _this_ case is different, for a lot of reasons.  If there was any case where all the holes in the Swiss cheese align, it's this one.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 2, 2020)

policemedic said:


> Here is where the concern lies.
> 
> Yes, this is pretty much a textbook justifiable homicide and he should not be charged criminally.  That's clear.  Laying criminal charges requires meeting the probable cause standard, which is a high bar.  There are multiple levels of review before this happens (agency and jurisdiction dependent).  Conviction, of course, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt--an even higher standard.
> 
> ...


Agree with laying low after a shooting, this guy is running for office and runs/owns a shooting range/school.  Business is business sometimes.

He has some protections (Texas law) though.  He was acting as an agent of the church, so any lawsuits have to include the church.

That said, here is a short summary of the Texas Stand Your Ground Law:

*In Texas, individuals have no duty to retreat when they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of bodily harm or death if they’re threatened in their home, in their vehicle, or at their job. To raise the Texas stand your ground law defense, the person must be able to show that they didn’t provoke the person who attacked them. They must also be able to show that they weren’t breaking any laws at the time of the incident.  *

This will qualify.

Further more, you can not file a lawsuit if a shooting is covered under the stand your ground provisions.

People have tried, and the suit gets thrown out with the person filing getting hit with the other guys bill.
Any Lawyer filing a suit for SYG shooting opens him/herself up for bar action, or a malpractice claim by their client or the defendant.

Slowly, surely our laws get better.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 2, 2020)

Why is there even a question about this? Of all the stand-your-ground cases that have garnered publicity, this one is the poster child of open and shut. Christ, if you have to shoot somebody, this is the way you want it to be: video evidence of legal and justifiable self-defense.

Texas _loves_ this kind of shit. (Except maybe in Austin.)


----------



## policemedic (Jan 2, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Agree with laying low after a shooting, this guy is running for office and runs/owns a shooting range/school.  Business is business sometimes.
> 
> He has some protections (Texas law) though.  He was acting as an agent of the church, so any lawsuits have to include the church.
> 
> ...



Yet another reason to live in Texas. 

I’m trying to speak generally, though.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 2, 2020)

policemedic said:


> Yet another reason to live in Texas.
> 
> I’m trying to speak generally, though.


Totally understand and totally agree. 
The internet is forever.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 3, 2020)

Jack Wilson will never have to buy another drink in Texas for the rest of his life. And when he goes to meet his Maker they'll name roads and schools after him. 🍺😇


----------



## Grunt (Jan 3, 2020)

Blizzard said:


> Although not specifically Castle Doctrine, we have the right to use deadly force in our home if it's reasonably believed you are in danger of "great bodily harm".  We're not a stand your ground state, you have a duty to retreat.   The statute has potential to leave you legally exposed.
> 
> Here's our statute on use of force:
> Sec. 609.06 MN Statutes



It's sad that there are states like yours that don't have a "Castle Doctrine" statute on the books. But then again, it's sad that we don't have Constitutional Carry too....


----------

