Home› Main Category› General Firearms
timc
Senior MemberPosts: 6,684 Senior Member
Guns in the news
timc
Senior MemberPosts: 6,684 Senior Member
Here is a local story from Last night in San Antonio, Would be robbers should be more careful when they commit their crimes - Good shoot by CHL holder! :guns:
http://www.kens5.com/news/Customer-shoots-suspect-in-convenience-store-robbery-128584468.html
A robber had a surprise waiting for him after attempting to hold up a convenience store overnight. A customer was armed with a gun and used it on him.
The robbery happened after 9:30 p.m. Sunday at the Shell gas station on Les Harrison and Culebra.
Investigators said a robbery suspect walked into the store. He was concealing a hammer beneath a rag while trying to make the clerk and customers believe it was a gun.
Detectives said the suspect demanded cash while pointing the weapon at the clerk.
Police said the crook placed $900 in stolen goods in a bag and ran out the front door.
A witness to the crime then opened fire on the robbery suspect, striking him once in the back. The cashier believes the robbery suspect is a frequent customer.
The suspect is at University Hospital in critical condition.
Police said the witness who shot the robber has a license to carry a concealed weapon and is not facing any charges.
http://www.kens5.com/news/Customer-shoots-suspect-in-convenience-store-robbery-128584468.html
A robber had a surprise waiting for him after attempting to hold up a convenience store overnight. A customer was armed with a gun and used it on him.
The robbery happened after 9:30 p.m. Sunday at the Shell gas station on Les Harrison and Culebra.
Investigators said a robbery suspect walked into the store. He was concealing a hammer beneath a rag while trying to make the clerk and customers believe it was a gun.
Detectives said the suspect demanded cash while pointing the weapon at the clerk.
Police said the crook placed $900 in stolen goods in a bag and ran out the front door.
A witness to the crime then opened fire on the robbery suspect, striking him once in the back. The cashier believes the robbery suspect is a frequent customer.
The suspect is at University Hospital in critical condition.
Police said the witness who shot the robber has a license to carry a concealed weapon and is not facing any charges.
timc - formerly known as timc on the last G&A forum and timc on the G&A forum before that and the G&A forum before that.....
AKA: Former Founding Member
AKA: Former Founding Member
Replies
When you commit armed robbery here you are fair game; might as well paint a target on your back.
AKA: Former Founding Member
What this CCW shooter is very chancy in a legal sense. He/she wasn't being threatened or attacked, far as I can see, and was therefore not within rights to use deadly force.
Shooting anybody in the back at any time is a legally risky act, way I see it. There had better be a very good reason, like the person has just stolen your property or just harmed a loved one. Something like that.
In Texas you do have the right to use deadly force to defend a third party here is the law... Take note of section 2 "B"
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force
was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is
presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the
deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom
the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at
the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using
deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an
actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of
AKA: Former Founding Member
How they look at it here is if they are still on the premises they are still committing the crime. So shooting they guy and taking the money back is preventing the crime. Gotta love Texas; more states should take this attitude.
AKA: Former Founding Member
Which is the way it SHOULD be everywhere.
Luis
§ 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
After dark, things change.
(We own a farm in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and I'd move out there if it wasn't so dad gummed HOT!)
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery." ? Sounds like after the fact, post imminent, egress from the scene.
You are correct in that I did not read the part about:
"(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"
My bad and thanks for the correction. Makes this a much better story.
Correct. :up: I want neighbors like that.
Luis
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
The prime motivating factor for presenting your CCW and using it is fear. Fear for your life, or a loved one's life. Protecting property is not a proper motivation for use of deadly force, unless it's in the nighttime.
CHL does not an LEO make.
Well, there is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, as I know you are well aware of. The letter of the law is unbending, while the spirit of the law allows flexibility to juries and grand juries.
Laws probably should always be written with as few ambiguities as possible, so as to make them fair and enforceable across the board, for every citizen. Texas criminal law is fraught with ambiguities, either by design to allow latitude in their enforcement, or maybe just as a result of compromise between politicians. While the letter of the law may seem fair, it does sometimes allow the guilty to go free. Laws can never be written in a way that anticipates all the subtleties of individual cases, and when the law does not spell out exactly what must be done, the default is to examine the intent of that law, and try to satisfy that.
Texas has a history of allowing its citizens to use extreme measures to protect life and property, and unless there is a clear injustice, the administration of the law will usually give a citizen with a history of being law-abiding the benefit of the doubt, over one that has a history of not obeying the law, or even a non-citizen whose past is unknown. There will always be arguments over whether that is right or wrong, and it would be dishonest for me to try to claim that race, religion, or social status has never played a part in the administration of justice.
But overall, the incidents of the innocent being unjustly prosecuted are rarer than one might expect, at least as far as they can be accurately determined, and the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Texas seem to believe that the percentage of error is acceptable. The sometimes questionable interpretation of the statutes, as in the Joe Horn case, are generally approved of or acquiesced to by the majority, and end up setting precedents that can be used in other cases.
I personally believe that the citizens of a free country have the right to 'adjust' the interpretation of the law, according to the region they live in, because outsiders often have no understanding of regional issues, and no real stake in the outcomes. The intent of the law is to protect the weak from the strong, basically, and when citizens are being overwhelmed by predators who will take whatever they want from whoever they want, whenever they want...that qualifies, in my opinion. The details of where the perpetrator was when he got taken down are less important to me than what he did and how he did it.
A reasonable argument can probably be made that Texas is too heavy-handed, or that its LEOs over-use profiling, or that it allows its citizens too much latitude in defending property. But from a realist's point of view, people are not flocking out of here, as they are in most of the places that pretend to be enforcing the letter of the law.
now that would be true justice