Last Chance To See 600 sq mi: Hidden
Missed Connections: Gefilte Fish...and "Chain Connections"
H-Town Rock
Rock Talk, Vol. IX
More on Garrett William Mallot, the man who shot a fellow passenger to death aboard a Metro bus back in March: A grand jury decided Friday not to indict Mallot for the shooting because jurors determined it was done in self defense.
Details were in short supply when the shooting took place — all that was reported was that Mallot was walking along the center aisle when he brushed up against the victim, Otis James Francis. The two had words, then Mallot pulled a gun and shot Francis, police said then. And those were the basics — but now we know some more information: The two men apparently bumped into each other as Mallot boarded the bus, and Mallot walked to the back of the bus and sat down. Witnesses report that Francis then walked to the back of the bus, saying he was going to beat Mallot — as Mallot said, "That guy said he was going to kick my ass." When Francis approached Mallot, Mallot pulled out a 3.5-inch knife — apparently to scare Francis — but it had no effect. Francis continued moving toward Mallot, so Mallot pulled a gun and shot him. Francis ran to the front of the bus, where he collapsed and died; Mallot stayed at the back of the bus, with his hands up, until police arrived.
Assistant Harris County DA Katherine McDaniel cited "apparent danger," a legal doctrine that allows the use of deadly force if a person believes he or she is in imminent danger and can't escape. "I believe that Mr. Mallot did have a perception of apparent danger," McDaniel said. "And I believe he was reasonable in using deadly force." As you'd expect, that didn't go over well with Francis' family: Etta Francis, his mother, said she doesn't believe that Mallot shot Francis out of fear for his safety. "How can you call something 'self-defense' when the other person didn't have a weapon at all?" Etta Francis asked. Though she said she has forgiven Mallot, "everybody has to be held accountable for anything that they do wrong. I didn't expect him to just get a slap on the wrist, and that was it."
Mallot is white and Francis was black — but that's just a coincidence in this case, Mallot's lawyer, Alvin Nunnery, said. Not so, said community activist Quanell X, who is calling for the case to be presented to another grand jury: "It's a slap in the face to the entire African-American community, and we have a right to be outraged," he said.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
It is not mentioned but I am curious whether or not Mallot was legally carrying that weapon (i.e. did have a concealed handgun permit). If he did not he should be charged with illegal possesion of a firearm at the very least.
Oversight on my part: Yes, Mallot had a license to carry a concealed handgun.
Hmm... still, he opened fire on a bus in a confined space and the victim was unarmed, I don't think I would be as leniant as they were.
Well -- and I'm just going by the law here, not really trying to espouse an opinion -- the jury would typically be prevented from taking the "confined space" factor into consideration. The law essentially states that you are responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel of your gun. Since the shooter seems to have only struck his attacker, the issue pretty much drops there. Now, if he had hit someone else or destroyed property as a side-effect he would probably be charged with aggravated assault or murder (if they were killed). Since it seems that the only bullets fired were stopped by the target, the confined space doesn't come into play. Was it a good idea? That's debatable and since I wasn't there I simply cannot make that call. Could it have turned out much worse? Yes, absolutely.
Just to head off any potential argument, let me replace the words "good idea" at the end of my post with "necessary". That conveys my thought somewhat more accurately.
Anyone else remember the "Squash It!" anti-violence commercials from back in the day? Google it to refresh your memory.
Obviously that movement failed. Now it's more like someone messes with you, don't walk away... just kim them instead. Oh my how things change.
Seriously though more details around the event would be nice. Killing someone just to keep from getting your a** kicked seems kind of weak to me. Back in my day it was "You win some, you lose some. But you live... you live to fight another day." --Friday
First off, based on what I know (the article above is my only real source of info) the shooter didn't have the option of "walking away". He was confined in the back of a moving bus with his alleged attacker blocking the only exit.
Second, in order to get "no-billed" by the grand jury he had to show that he was in "imminent fear of grievous bodily injury or death". I'm guessing that the witnesses to the event backed him up on that. I doubt it was as simple as some guy saying "I'm going to kick your butt" and then getting shot. Threatening speech is not an excuse to use deadly force under Texas law. But, as I said earlier, I wasn't there.
Once key point of interest in the article is how the Asst. D.A. was defending the shooter's actions. Keep in mind that the D.A. is the person that files criminal charges against you. When the D.A. (who REALLY wants convictions) is on your side, there's probably a pretty good reason.
I was joking. However, I still think killing this guy was cowardly. I also think it's sad that we live in a society where someone fears that they could be beaten to death on a bus sourrounded by on-lookers.
I'd like to think someone would have kept this guy from seriously harming the shooter but you never know. I rode the bus everyday in DC and if that happened I know others and myself would have stopped this person before he seriously hurt the guy, but people do tend to "mind their own business" during the lead-up.
By no means am I anti-gun or anything. I believe people have a right to own guns and protect themselves if it's truly necessary. If this guy didn't have a permit though odds are he would be facing a murder change, not just having a gun without a permit, and that is a good (thought loose) litmus test in my opinion. Of course this is all speculation on my part seen I wasn't there. But that must have been one scary dude.
I think it's sad that so many of you posters are so willing to side with Frances even though he is a Bully, and Mallot was just protecting himself. Now, I'm starting to understand why crime is so prevalent - it's people like many of you guys - who always sympathize with evil at every opportunity.
Oh, Jim. And there we were having such a reasonable conversation.