Does this guy have a case?

[just Warren]

He claimed self-defense and was acquitted but is suing for false arrest.

He says the video is clear evidence that it was self-defense. Granting that that is true does he have a case against the cop or the department? Don't they have immunity against this sort of thing?

I'm not asking should they, I'm asking if they do.

Also, did he steal the car parts? Were the two decedents trying to get the parts back? Does that even matter? If he did steal the parts does he, as a thief, get to claim self-defense?

[RoadKingLarry]

The video should have been front and center in any court proceedings.

According to the federal lawsuit, prosecutors never mentioned that police had video that showed what led up to the shooting.

If the prosecutors did in fact withhold the video they need to be behind bars.

[Chester32141]

Guy spent 11 months behind bars … I don't know if he has a case but it seems like a legitimate gripe to me … 

[Hawkmoon]

They pursued him, they attacked him ... looks like self-defense to me.

Can he prevail in a claim of false imprisonment? I don't know. If it were heard by a jury and if I were on the jury, I'd be inclined to vote in his favor.

[HankB]

In some places, people who were imprisoned and later acquitted because of actual innocence have been awarded cash compensation - I recall a figure of about $80,000/year. In one case in Texas, a man got well over $1,000,000. Seems like a lot, but I'm sure he would rather have had a couple decades of his life back.

I don't have any idea of whether or not this sort of cash compensation would apply to pre-trial incarceration.

[MechAg94]

They pursued him, they attacked him ... looks like self-defense to me.

Can he prevail in a claim of false imprisonment? I don't know. If it were heard by a jury and if I were on the jury, I'd be inclined to vote in his favor.

I tend to agree with this.  There should be no immunity if there was misconduct.  We don't know a whole lot about it just from this article though.  

I am curious about some facts.  He turned himself in the next day.  Did he leave the scene after the shooting?  Why?  It said that police arrested him also so I am unclear on that.  Did he in fact have stolen car parts that perhaps prosecutors were never able to prove were stolen?  Someone made a claim that he had a criminal record.  What was it?  I guess it didn't prohibit him from having the gun so I am curious what it might be if that was true.

[Firethorn]

I tend to agree with this.  There should be no immunity if there was misconduct.  We don't know a whole lot about it just from this article though.  

I am curious about some facts.  He turned himself in the next day.  Did he leave the scene after the shooting?  Why?  It said that police arrested him also so I am unclear on that.  Did he in fact have stolen car parts that perhaps prosecutors were never able to prove were stolen?  Someone made a claim that he had a criminal record.  What was it?  I guess it didn't prohibit him from having the gun so I am curious what it might be if that was true.

There was a self defense case in Florida where a felon was attacked, he managed to wrest the gun away from his attacker and shoot him with it, killing him.

The police attempted to hit him with felon in possession, and argue that it wasn't legal self defense because he was holding an illegal gun.  The courts shot that down right quick.

You're not allowed to attack somebody over stolen property in most states.  Even in Texas there are strict limits.

[MechAg94]

There was a self defense case in Florida where a felon was attacked, he managed to wrest the gun away from his attacker and shoot him with it, killing him.

The police attempted to hit him with felon in possession, and argue that it wasn't legal self defense because he was holding an illegal gun.  The courts shot that down right quick.

You're not allowed to attack somebody over stolen property in most states.  Even in Texas there are strict limits.

I won't argue on those points.  Just exploring what might have been left out of the article if anything.  At face value, prosecutors withholding evidence is pretty bad IMO and should be punished with severe and excessive legal force.  

[Strings]

I'm not so sure he's gonna get this to fly. Although, if the video WAS withheld, that's a major issue

[230RN]

The landmark Brady Case with respect to exculpatory evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure

Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant's sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution. In practice this doctrine has often proved difficult to enforce. Some states have established their own laws to try to strengthen enforcement against prosecutorial misconduct in this area.

Terry

[KD5NRH]

Also, did he steal the car parts? Were the two decedents trying to get the parts back? Does that even matter?

I'd have to say no, no even if it had happened in Texas; they were well past the point where they could claim to be using force to prevent him from taking property, and had plenty of opportunity to call police and identify him to get the property back.  Instead, they cornered him and started swinging.  Pretty sure NM is somewhat less generous than TX about use of force to recover property.

If he did steal the parts does he, as a thief, get to claim self-defense?

Given that their actions were excessive for the situation at hand at that point, yes.

[griz]

Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant's sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution. In practice this doctrine has often proved difficult to enforce.

Wonder if that's because the same people that withheld the evidence in the first place are the ones that enforce the doctrine?

[230RN]

^ Yeah, that's probable.

Say, I thought Texas law only allowed the use of deadly force to protect property at night.

Is that a myth, or is that for real?

[Brad Johnson]

^ Yeah, that's probable.

Say, I thought Texas law only allowed the use of deadly force to protect property at night.

Is that a myth, or is that for real?

Myth.

Texas parameters for use of deadly force are built around the idea of "fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death" to the point they actually use this exact language in the statute. There context modifiers for certain specific situations but the SBIoD criteria is the general rule of thumb regardless of time or day.

It's also very plainly stated that it's a defense against prosecution, not a defense against being arrested.

Brad

[MechAg94]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TlTnQ0XNTQ

Defending property in Texas is complicated.  There is a provision in the law for that, but it is limited.  This is a video from US Law Shield that talks about the issues a bit.  I agree the law is murky.  The murkiness is worse as it can depend on the attitude of your local prosecutor (good or bad).  

[Hawkmoon]

Myth.

Texas parameters for use of deadly force are built around the idea of "fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death" to the point they actually use this exact language in the statute. There context modifiers for certain specific situations but the SBIoD criteria is the general rule of thumb regardless of time or day.

It's also very plainly stated that it's a defense against prosecution, not a defense against being arrested.

Not myth. Texas penal code allows the use of deadly force to prevent theft of property at night. Different statute than the self-defense statute.

[Mannlicher]

Videos show what they have been edited to show

[Hawkmoon]

Videos show what they have been edited to show

The video still shows that he walked away from the other two dudes, and that they pursued him and assaulted him.

Case closed, IMHO.

[Brad Johnson]

Not myth. Texas penal code allows the use of deadly force to prevent theft of property at night. Different statute than the self-defense statute.

Oh, right. Yeah, completely glossed over the nighttime part. Falls under TPC 9.42.

Sec. 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;  and
(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
     (A)  to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
     (B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and
(3)  he reasonably believes that:
     (A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or
     (B)  the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Important to note that being at night is not a standalone criteria. The situation must be one where an average person would reasonably believe using other than deadly force would expose them to "substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury". Super-critical qualifier, that.

Brad