Houstonist: Grand jury finds Metro bus shooter acted in self defense

Otter

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:27:47 -0600

Oh, Jim. And there we were having such a reasonable conversation.

Jim Waddell

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:28:08 -0600

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.

urbannomad

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:18:44 -0600

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.

Otter

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:58:02 -0600

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.

urbannomad

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:26:10 -0600

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

Otter

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:46:24 -0600

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.

Otter

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:42:08 -0600

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.

cybertoad

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:04:24 -0600

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.

jim

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:29:25 -0600

Oversight on my part: Yes, Mallot had a license to carry a concealed handgun.

cybertoad

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:25:36 -0600

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.