Houston Cops Arrest Man Who Defended Woman From Being Kidnapped

[JimBowie1958]

They claim the dude is in a gang and so his actions were thus criminal.

Houston has always been a city run by criminals and idiots.

Fiancé arrested after shooting at woman's attempted abductors

Much to the confusion of neighbors and the victim, deputies arrested Morin, saying he was affiliated with a gang and charging him with deadly conduct with a firearm. They alleged that he shot recklessly into the neighborhood while aiming for the attackers.

"During the entire investigation, detectives with the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office Major Crimes Unit were met with resistance and a lack of cooperation from the victim and Morin as to the motive and details surrounding the attack," the agency said in a statement.

The news release also said Morin was known to be affiliated with a gang.

"She's very lucky that he came out and had a pistol and he was able to defend her," Nichols said.

Morin's fiancée denied that he was involved with a gang and said she was outraged that he was arrested while the masked men got away.​

 

[irosie91]

Hang 'em HIGH

 

[S.J.]

The Houston cops acted stupidly.

 

[WinterBorn]

Two possible reasons for the cops reaction.

1) If he is, in fact, a gang member, the chances of him having had a felony conviction is pretty good.

2) He fired at the backs of the criminals as they ran away. Obviously, it was enough of a distance from them that he was spraying bullets and endangering others in the neighborhood. And its hard to call it self defense when you are shooting at someone running away.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ I disagree with that last thing you say about it being hard to call what he did self defense. Because of his choice of action, he doesn't have to worry about them coming back. Them running away did not mean that they would not return again at some point. Because they had already proved what it is that they were capable of doing, I don't blame the guy for firing at them.

God bless you and him and the woman always!!!

Holly

 

[JohnPrewett]

Police actually protect criminals .....

 

[JimBowie1958]

2) He fired at the backs of the criminals as they ran away. Obviously, it was enough of a distance from them that he was spraying bullets and endangering others in the neighborhood. And its hard to call it self defense when you are shooting at someone running away.

This thing about a criminal's back indicating no more threat is an interesting belief so many people have.

There are many threatening reasons to turn ones back (mask the drawing of a weapon, to retrieve another weapon stashed around a corner, or to retreat to re-arm or reload) and I dont think that it is proof of no longer being a threat at all. Is this a legal standard or something?

And how is it reasonable, in the heat of a fire fight, to expect a would be victim who is defending themselves to be responsible for making changes in their fight-flight mental state that are shorter spans of time than the sight-recognition-decision-muscle cycle takes itself?

I remember a case of a black female Marine in Virginia whose BF said he wwas going to kill her, and she knew it was a genuine threat, so she slept with her handgun. He woke her one night standing at the foot of her bed with a large knife and said he was going to kill her. She shot him twice through the sheets, but the first shot apparently caused him to turn and the second shot hit him in the back. How can she be held responsible for not firing the second time when physiologically she could not have responded so quickly to the change of her BFs posture?

If that is the legal standard, it is unreasonable and needs to change.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

2) He fired at the backs of the criminals as they ran away. Obviously, it was enough of a distance from them that he was spraying bullets and endangering others in the neighborhood. And its hard to call it self defense when you are shooting at someone running away.

This thing about a criminal's back indicating no more threat is an interesting belief so many people have.

There are many threatening reasons to turn ones back (mask the drawing of a weapon, to retrieve another weapon stashed around a corner, or to retreat to re-arm or reload) and I dont think that it is proof of no longer being a threat at all. Is this a legal standard or something?

And how is it reasonable, in the heat of a fire fight, to expect a would be victim who is defending themselves to be responsible for making changes in their fight-flight mental state that are shorter spans of time than the sight-recognition-decision-muscle cycle takes itself?

I remember a case of a black female Marine in Virginia whose BF said he wwas going to kill her, and she knew it was a genuine threat, so she slept with her handgun. He woke her one night standing at the foot of her bed with a large knife and said he was going to kill her. She shot him twice through the sheets, but the first shot apparently caused him to turn and the second shot hit him in the back. How can she be held responsible for not firing the second time when physiologically she could not have responded so quickly to the change of her BFs posture?

If that is the legal standard, it is unreasonable and needs to change.

That was a split second instinctive movement. In this case, the man stopped firing, moved from the bedroom to the living room, opened the living room door, ran outside and resumed firing.

The standard is correct. The gunshots from inside the house through the bedroom window was legal in defense of his girlfriend. Running down the street chasing the kidnappers was not legal.

 

[WinterBorn]

^^^ I disagree with that last thing you say about it being hard to call what he did self defense. Because of his choice of action, he doesn't have to worry about them coming back. Them running away did not mean that they would not return again at some point. Because they had already proved what it is that they were capable of doing, I don't blame the guy for firing at them.

God bless you and him and the woman always!!!

Holly

I disagree. He has to worry about it as much as he would have if he had stopped when they ran.

Now they know he will shoot them. That is all. And yes, they will likely be back. Only better armed this time.

 

[WinterBorn]

2) He fired at the backs of the criminals as they ran away. Obviously, it was enough of a distance from them that he was spraying bullets and endangering others in the neighborhood. And its hard to call it self defense when you are shooting at someone running away.

This thing about a criminal's back indicating no more threat is an interesting belief so many people have.

There are many threatening reasons to turn ones back (mask the drawing of a weapon, to retrieve another weapon stashed around a corner, or to retreat to re-arm or reload) and I dont think that it is proof of no longer being a threat at all. Is this a legal standard or something?

And how is it reasonable, in the heat of a fire fight, to expect a would be victim who is defending themselves to be responsible for making changes in their fight-flight mental state that are shorter spans of time than the sight-recognition-decision-muscle cycle takes itself?

I remember a case of a black female Marine in Virginia whose BF said he wwas going to kill her, and she knew it was a genuine threat, so she slept with her handgun. He woke her one night standing at the foot of her bed with a large knife and said he was going to kill her. She shot him twice through the sheets, but the first shot apparently caused him to turn and the second shot hit him in the back. How can she be held responsible for not firing the second time when physiologically she could not have responded so quickly to the change of her BFs posture?

If that is the legal standard, it is unreasonable and needs to change.

If there was any hint that the two guys were retrieving a weapon, drawing a weapon ect, they would not have been running away. If you want to selctively pick the part where I talked about them showing their back, thats fine. But what I said was "He fired at the backs of the criminals as they ran away". So showing their back as they ran away. That is not going to hold up as self defense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I disagree. He has to worry about it as much as he would have if he had stopped when they ran.
Now they know he will shoot them. That is all. And yes, they will likely be back. Only better armed this time.

No, they wont come back unless there is a very good reason for that group (gang, crew, mafia, whatever) to target them other than normal criminal activity.

There are so many unarmed targets there is no reason to risk themselves again with a known armed target.

These criminals have to play the odds over the long run or they just end up in a casket or prison.

They dont waste time on those they know will shoot back.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If there was any hint that the two guys were retrieving a weapon, drawing a weapon ect, they would not have been running away. If you want to selctively pick the part where I talked about them showing their back, thats fine. But what I said was "He fired at the backs of the criminals as they ran away". So showing their back as they ran away. That is not going to hold up as self defense.

If the second weapon, additional ammo, or whatever they might retaliate with was in a place they were running to is not really the point.

The point is that the VICTIM here knows that it is still a possibility and has to remain vigilant at least, if not continue to fire at them as a threat.

This idea that 'OOOPS! They are running away with the backs toward us, so everything is peaceful, safe and just all around hunky dorey!' is pure fantasy.

I dont mean to be insulting, but really, this whole thing seems ludicrous to me.

 

[WinterBorn]

I disagree. He has to worry about it as much as he would have if he had stopped when they ran.
Now they know he will shoot them. That is all. And yes, they will likely be back. Only better armed this time.

No, they wont come back unless there is a very good reason for that group (gang, crew, mafia, whatever) to target them other than normal criminal activity.

There are so many unarmed targets there is no reason to risk themselves again with a known armed target.

These criminals have to play the odds over the long run or they just end up in a casket or prison.

They dont waste time on those they know will shoot back.

They weren't mugging him. It was very likely some sort of a hit. The fact that he shot back, or was there when they didn't expect him to be, doesn't change that. I can't see the top gang members saying "Oh, he SHOT at you? Damn. Better leave that dude alone."

 

[WinterBorn]

If there was any hint that the two guys were retrieving a weapon, drawing a weapon ect, they would not have been running away. If you want to selctively pick the part where I talked about them showing their back, thats fine. But what I said was "He fired at the backs of the criminals as they ran away". So showing their back as they ran away. That is not going to hold up as self defense.

If the second weapon, additional ammo, or whatever they might retaliate with was in a place they were running to is not really the point.

The point is that the VICTIM here knows that it is still a possibility and has to remain vigilant at least, if not continue to fire at them as a threat.

This idea that 'OOOPS! They are running away with the backs toward us, so everything is peaceful, safe and just all around hunky dorey!' is pure fantasy.

I dont mean to be insulting, but really, this whole thing seems ludicrous to me.

There are definitions that apply. "Defense" is one. Shooting at people running away is not going to work as self defense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They weren't mugging him. It was very likely some sort of a hit. The fact that he shot back, or was there when they didn't expect him to be, doesn't change that. I can't see the top gang members saying "Oh, he SHOT at you? Damn. Better leave that dude alone."

I believe it was a kidnapping.

And yes, gang members say shit like that all the time for the reasons I gave. No one outside of the gang in all likelihood knows why they were trying to kidnap that woman.

But what is the alternative? Just let them kidnap you and others?

No, when you see the bastards going after you or someone you love you make it very damned clear that you are going to shoot back and not cooperate with them whatsoever.

They will either go their way to a new target or try again, and you give them more casualties.

I have had confrontations with a couple of neighborhood gangs before. They want to make money, not have heroics from their members. As long as they understand that you will shoot back they will very likely leave you alone.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There are definitions that apply. "Defense" is one. Shooting at people running away is not going to work as self defense.

I can see that argument for running away, though I still think it is erroneous.

I do not see it remotely applicable to cases where people have been shot int he back in split second scenarios.

 

[Vastator]

^^^ I disagree with that last thing you say about it being hard to call what he did self defense. Because of his choice of action, he doesn't have to worry about them coming back. Them running away did not mean that they would not return again at some point. Because they had already proved what it is that they were capable of doing, I don't blame the guy for firing at them.

God bless you and him and the woman always!!!

Holly

I tend to agree with this sentiment. As the victim it is difficult to discern if the person is "running away", or running to a more secure position from which to engage you. It gets dicey. Imagine not shooting the guy because his back was turned only to realize he was running for hard cover to engage you from... Tough call.

 

[WinterBorn]

They weren't mugging him. It was very likely some sort of a hit. The fact that he shot back, or was there when they didn't expect him to be, doesn't change that. I can't see the top gang members saying "Oh, he SHOT at you? Damn. Better leave that dude alone."

I believe it was a kidnapping.

And yes, gang members say shit like that all the time for the reasons I gave. No one outside of the gang in all likelihood knows why they were trying to kidnap that woman.

But what is the alternative? Just let them kidnap you and others?

No, when you see the bastards going after you or someone you love you make it very damned clear that you are going to shoot back and not cooperate with them whatsoever.

They will either go their way to a new target or try again, and you give them more casualties.

I have had confrontations with a couple of neighborhood gangs before. They want to make money, not have heroics from their members. As long as they understand that you will shoot back they will very likely leave you alone.

I have not said one thing against defending yourself and your loved ones. That is what he did when he fired from inside the house. That is perfectly reasonable.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ I disagree with that last thing you say about it being hard to call what he did self defense. Because of his choice of action, he doesn't have to worry about them coming back. Them running away did not mean that they would not return again at some point. Because they had already proved what it is that they were capable of doing, I don't blame the guy for firing at them.

God bless you and him and the woman always!!!

Holly

I disagree. He has to worry about it as much as he would have if he had stopped when they ran.

Now they know he will shoot them. That is all. And yes, they will likely be back. Only better armed this time.

Not if the guy's preparation is better than what they bring if they are stupid enough to return after learning what happens when they show up in such a way at all. Isn't there an old saying that goes something like "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."?

God bless you and the guy always!!!

Holly