Where exactly does an offense become so grievous that killing is justified.
Scott, I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied the law and ethics of use of force and especially use of deadly force in depth and detail, primarily from a law enforcement perspective (i.e., use of force by police, against police, and against others being investigated by police).
First thing: at law, homicide is the killing of another person. If you have sufficient reason for killing another person, it is justifiable homicide, and it is not a criminal act. If you do not have sufficient reason, it is a crime. Everything hinges on justification.
Second thing: use of deadly force is only justified when the person using said force
justifiably believes he is in danger of grave bodily harm, which means danger of being killed or being permanently injured by the offender.
Justifiable is the key word in this definition, and it is the pertinent element of the shooting we're discussing in this thread. In order for a homicide to be justified, the offender must have demonstrated 3 things: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.
Ability means the offender has the ability to kill you or cause you grave bodily harm. He has a gun, an edged weapon, and the strength/size/apparent determination to use it; he's 7 feet tall and has a black belt; etc, etc, etc.
Opportunity means the offender is in a position to actually use his weapon on you. If a gun, within effective range of the weapon. If an edged weapon or bludgeon, within 7 yards or so. If he's got a broadsword but is on the opposite bank of a river and there isn't a bridge in sight, he doesn't have opportunity; if he's got a rifle, he's got opportunity.
Jeopardy means the offender has verbalized or otherwise demonstrated his intent to use the weapon against you
right now. Pointing a gun at you is sufficient in most cases. Pointing a pair of scissors at you and saying,'Your wallet or your life' is sufficient. Pointing the scissors at you and saying, 'I might come looking for you with these scissors one of these days' does NOT constitute jeopardy.
In this case, the offender had turned away from the shooter and was apparently leaving the scene of the crime. He still has ability, but opportunity is equivocal and jeopardy is highly doubtful.
Given the facts as outlined in this thread, this is not a justifiable homicide. This man would be arrested in any jurisdiction in the United States, including Texas. There is nothing about this shooting that speaks to duty to retreat or "castle doctrine". I facts come out in the investigation or at trial that contradict the facts presented so far, he may be acquitted, but at this point I would predict he will be convicted of criminal homicide of some kind.
