This is, of course, the same Borris Miles who removed artwork from the state capitol - in other words, stole it - back in March.

Good thing for him that his alter ego wasn't guarding the art back then!

Kuff, from my perspective, there are a lot of problems with the justifiability of the shooting. Look, I'm about as big of a RKBA supporter as you are likely to find, and yes there is a strong sense of shadenfreude to see someone who voted against SB 378 defending his "castle" (literally!), but the bottom line is that he shot an unarmed man and he shot to wound instead of kill which means he KNEW the guy was unarmed because if the guy is armed, shooting him in the leg may allow him to shoot back. Bad tactical position to say the least. There is also a question of timing. the laws concerning deadly force change after dark, there appears to be some ambiguity as to when the shooting took place, but of the two times that have come up, neither would have been actually "after dark", although one would have been at dusk which may or may not count. I am told he is also facing an unrelated assault charge, if so, he may not have legally been allowed to carry his weapon with the charge pending anyway.

there is way too much wrong with this story. I suspect the man needs to be indicted in order for the truth to come out.

Well, I'm sure that if Chuck Rosenthal can think of a reason to pursue an indictment, he will. It's what he does.

Wait... so the criticism from Rorschach is that he DIDN'T kill the guy? Every story has clearly said that Miles shot at the guy in response to having a knife thrown at him. The Texas Penal Code clearly provides the right to the use of force in order to defend one's self.

Of course, if this were a Republican politician, there would probably be a graphic on the front page of Lone Star Times with that politician's face superimposed over John Wayne's face with all of the right wing moonbats cackling over how some scumbag got what he deserved.

Bobby, what I'm saying is that there is never a point in a shoot/don't shoot decision tree where intentionally wounding is the correct course of action. Wounding the man accidentally, or because that was the only part of the body available is one thing, intentionally shooting to wound is tactically stupid and contrary to what he had been taught repeatedly both as a cop and as a CHL holder. It simply IS NOT DONE. The reason is that if the attacker is still armed, he can still shoot and kill you even when wounded. Also, shooting to wound means having to aim for a smaller target, and in that sort of situation, the adrenalin is pumping and you are less likely to be able to hit what you are aiming at, therefore you shoot for the largest target possible, the torso/Center of mass. Police are also trained to take a follow-up head shot in case the suspect is wearing a bullet proof vest. Standard doctrine is usually two rounds to the center of mass followed up by one or more to the head. Therefore Miles could not have thought the suspect was still armed or he would have followed his training.
The only logical conclusion is that he knew or suspected that the suspect was unarmed and decided to either be punitive or he decided to wound him so he could not escape.

I have no problem with shooting a criminal dead that is a threat, I have a problem with shooting the guy just to punish him. At least doing so before the trial. Afterwards is perfectly fine. (due process and all...)

Bobby, what I'm saying is that there is never a point in a shoot/don't shoot decision tree where intentionally wounding is the correct course of action. Wounding the man accidentally, or because that was the only part of the body available is one thing, intentionally shooting to wound is tactically stupid and contrary to what he had been taught repeatedly both as a cop and as a CHL holder. It simply IS NOT DONE. The reason is that if the attacker is still armed, he can still shoot and kill you even when wounded. Also, shooting to wound means having to aim for a smaller target, and in that sort of situation, the adrenalin is pumping and you are less likely to be able to hit what you are aiming at, therefore you shoot for the largest target possible, the torso/Center of mass. Police are also trained to take a follow-up head shot in case the suspect is wearing a bullet proof vest. Standard doctrine is usually two rounds to the center of mass followed up by one or more to the head. Therefore Miles could not have thought the suspect was still armed or he would have followed his training.
The only logical conclusion is that he knew or suspected that the suspect was unarmed and decided to either be punitive or he decided to wound him so he could not escape.

By the Way, I've discussed this with a criminal Justice professor that is also a licensed peace officer, who also happens to be a member of the ACLU, he agrees that something about this shooting smells.

I have no problem with shooting a criminal dead that is a threat, I have a problem with shooting the guy just to punish him. At least doing so before the trial. Afterwards is perfectly fine. (due process and all...)

sorry about the double post, the site was acting flaky and taking forever to publish the post for some reason.