Defensive gun use...
 

One Year Later: Vic Stacy and the Peach House Shootout | The Truth About Guns

The mainstream media doesn't report these story's, but here you go.

Stacy used a Colt Python which is sub zero cool, so extra points for that.

I also would like to mention that Texas is an awesome state. In CT he would have been arrested and we would be getting together a legal defense fund to try and help. In Texas he is given $5k worth of ammo and a nice rifle as thanks!

Thanks for posting. A good man that.

- Peter.

Very cool...

Good shooting with that Python, and keeping a cool head under stress. My Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt is capable of a little less accuracy, but then I got it with the 4 5/8" barrel. I think the 6" version would be its equal or better.

Note that in any defensive shoot, you should be prepared to ground your weapon and be cuffed, at least for a while, while the police figure things out.

Nice job, and a well deserved rifle.

Not to overshadow the OP's post, but lady did equally well (obviously at a huge risk):

The heroism of Antoinette Tuff reveals what's missing from politics | Gary Younge | Comment is free | The Guardian

If it is such an awesome state, why would the DA convene a grand jury?

Clearly, the DA figured that he might have a case for something other than self-defense.

Technically, the fellow was not personally at risk for anything until he left his RV and sought the DB. He truthfully has no claim of self-defense.

Be clear that I'm pleased the DB is history............but the law doesn't allow it to go down as it did with a claim of self-defense.

Brian,
Maybe not self defense but justifiable homicide in defense of an officers life had to be hashed out? I am not a lawyer by any means but the grand jury does seem a little overboard

I don't know Texas law very well.

If justifiable homicide was permitted by statute, the DA would have no need to convene a grand jury. The fact that they did convene a grand jury tells me that they did not have the law on the side of this fellow.

There iis a well-worn saying:

"You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich".

Your Honor, the autopsy results clearly show the decedent expired from a heart attack brought on by excessive fasting. The ham sandwich is blameless, if a bit stale by now. Cass Elliot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why this case is interesting from a legal perspective. The case would not have gone to the grand jury if there was any shred of Texas law for which the DA could get cover for ignoring it. Since he didn't have the law, he had to convene the grand jury, despite his misgivings about it.

Since your quote is very true, the fact that he failed to get an indictment tells me that he convened the grand jury just for show and never made a serious case for the indictment.

Personally, I would think that any DA worth his stones could get an indictment in this case, since I doubt Texas law allows any citizen to leave his abode and seek out a DB with a gun and then take him out, notwithstanding the fact that the DB is firing on a police officer.

Nobody said he claimed self defense. And the grand jury issue is a non-starter, the police officer was also no billed. The grand jury is not a trial so that junk does not apply, it is an investigative tool. And maybe the DA was also a tool (Democrat) and that was why they did the grand jury thing....

Well, your first sentence was correct.

I see nothing wrong here.

In NY, as most states, a grand jury is convened solely to allow the DA to get an indictment. He runs the show and there is nothing from the opposing side. Accordingly, with the deck stacked in his favor, the statement "you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" is apropos.

If it was perfectly clear that there was no crime committed, he would not have convened a grand jury.

Apparently, your ignorance of Texas law is equal to my own, and yet you live there.