Armed Texas jogger pulls gun to break up rape

I changed title of thread and removed part of it being about media burying story because they are anti second amendment. That's not what the article is about.

I do have a question. If the guy who had stopped the rapist shot him when he ran off would he be charged with a crime? In Texas I'm thinking likely not. But what's the law?

Like no way in hell are the guys who went after the church shooter w guns getting charged. But in this case if an active rapist runs off and he had shot him what would happen?

It sucks that an obvious rapist can't be legally shot by a citizen if he flees.

If the rapist were really "running off", and not a clear and present danger (or whatever the TX term is), I wouldn't think that a weapon discharge with insidious intent would fall under the Self-Defense exclusion.

A real hero would have jumped on the guy and beaten the sh*t out of him with his bare hands. Pulling a gun from a distance and then letting him scamper off? Come on.

iutfugu wrote:

It sucks that an obvious rapist can't be legally shot by a citizen if he flees.

I think you mean "alleged", not "obvious".

Regarding the fleeing: if there is reason to think that he might (allegedly) re-offend and/or torment the community before feasibility of capture becomes apparent (particularly if unknown identity, though here the guy was caught from the description, and other runners spotted him fleeing), then shooting to disable might well be warranted.

wejo wrote:

I changed title of thread and removed part of it being about media burying story because they are anti second amendment. That's not what the article is about.

I do have a question. If the guy who had stopped the rapist shot him when he ran off would he be charged with a crime? In Texas I'm thinking likely not. But what's the law?

Like no way in hell are the guys who went after the church shooter w guns getting charged. But in this case if an active rapist runs off and he had shot him what would happen?

I was told that if I pull my concealed weapon with the intention to fire that there has to be a threat to my life or the life of others. The moment the rapist retreats and runs away, I can't fire because I'm now the aggressor. That's just my stupid state and every state is different. As for the church shooter - he still was a threat to the lives of others because he had his guns and was firing.

He wears a Glock AND headphones? That just seems like a bad idea. One or the other, please.

iutfugu wrote:

It sucks that an obvious rapist can't be legally shot by a citizen if he flees.

Extremely dangerous precedent to set. How do you not understand that?

Remember kids, always carry when running.

I have always wondered why they have never put lights all along the trail on Lady Bird Lake in Austin. Traffic along the trail is fairly sparse early in the morning and there are lots of places to hide and surprise someone with an attack.

I also do not see how a firearm made a difference. The perpetrator would have taken off if anyone came up on the scene of the crime. The guy with the gun couldn't detain the perpetrator. And what if someone else arrived on the scene with a gun and thought the guy intervening in the crime was actually holding up the woman and the man?

Precious Roy wrote:

And what if someone else arrived on the scene with a gun and thought the guy intervening in the crime was actually holding up the woman and the man?

Maybe the liklihood of the woman desperately crawling away, probably screaming and crying, while the perp has his hands up might provide a clue as to what is actually going on. It would be much worse if the Samaritan jumped on the guy and they were wrestling around. Which one is the perp in that case?