Home Main Category General Firearms

Guns in the news

timctimc 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.
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

Replies

  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Lucky for him, other jurisdictions might charge him for that type of shooting.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • timctimc Senior Member Posts: 6,684 Senior Member
    We run a different brand of justice here in Texas! :guns:

    When you commit armed robbery here you are fair game; might as well paint a target on your back.
    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
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Far as I know the law in Texas, if you're a bystander and not the person being robbed, you do not have a legal right to shoot the perp in the back after committing a robbery. You do have the right to try to retrieve your own property that way, however questionable that tactic might be.

    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.
  • timctimc Senior Member Posts: 6,684 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Far as I know the law in Texas, if you're a bystander and not the person being robbed, you do not have a legal right to shoot the perp in the back after committing a robbery. You do have the right to try to retrieve your own property that way, however questionable that tactic might be.

    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
    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
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,385 Senior Member
    Don't think that applies...the key word is "to prevent" and "imminent." His shooting was after the fact. Glad the shooter didn't get busted, however. Section C probably covers him.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • timctimc Senior Member Posts: 6,684 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Don't think that applies...the key word is "to prevent" and "imminent." His shooting was after the fact. Glad the shooter didn't get busted, however. Section C probably covers him.

    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.
    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
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    timc wrote: »
    We run a different brand of justice here in Texas! :guns:

    When you commit armed robbery here you are fair game; might as well paint a target on your back.

    Which is the way it SHOULD be everywhere.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,800 Senior Member
    You guys need to read the story more closely and also know the law a little better. Notice the time of the event: 9:30PM. Here is the part of the law that applies:

    § 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.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,702 Senior Member
    Ah, the old Exodus 22:2-3a ruling...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Gotta love TEXAS
  • woodsrunnerwoodsrunner Senior Member Posts: 2,725 Senior Member
    Our vehicle was broken into in Houston a couple of Christmassess ago, and when the Houston LEO arrived to make out a report I handed him my driver's license and my CCW since I was carrying at the time. Being pretty mad and upset at loosing over $900. in Christmas gifts and having the door on the Tahoe damaged in the break-in, I told the Officer, a hellova nice Hispanic fellow, that had I caught the "perp" in the act that I would probably had shot him and he, the LEO, would be taking me to the Station for an investigation. He told me NO! I would not have been detained OR taken Downtown. He said the PD would probably have given me another box of 9mm's with a "Thank You"! I Like Texas........!!!

    (We own a farm in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and I'd move out there if it wasn't so dad gummed HOT!)
  • ezzriderezzrider Member Posts: 63 Member
    I know of no jurisdiction anywhere that would allow shooting a robber or anyone else in the back while they are fleeing the scene if they pose no imminent danger to others. Although in my heart I am glad the robber was shot my head tells me the bystander is in trouble even in Texas.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 22,374 Senior Member
    ezzrider wrote: »
    I know of no jurisdiction anywhere that would allow shooting a robber or anyone else in the back while they are fleeing the scene if they pose no imminent danger to others. Although in my heart I am glad the robber was shot my head tells me the bystander is in trouble even in Texas.
    Then you need to reread the section of Texas law that Pegasus posted above.
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • BakermanBakerman Member Posts: 382 Member
    The bad guy was shot in the back running out the door. How does this constitute, ".... imminent commission of aggravated
    kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery." ? Sounds like after the fact, post imminent, egress from the scene.
    Bakerman formerly known as Bakerman
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 22,374 Senior Member
    Bakerman wrote: »
    The bad guy was shot in the back running out the door. How does this constitute, ".... imminent commission of aggravated
    kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery." ? Sounds like after the fact, post imminent, egress from the scene.
    He even bolded and underlined the pertinent parts
    Pegasus wrote: »
    Here is the part of the law that applies:

    § 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.
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • ezzriderezzrider Member Posts: 63 Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    Then you need to reread the section of Texas law that Pegasus posted above.

    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.
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    If the guy is carrying your or someone elses property out the door or even outside running from you he is still in the act of committing the robbery. If I remember correctly the first guy that tested the law shot two unarmed robbers on his neighbor's lawn because they were carrying his neighbors property to their car and got away with it.

    Correct. :up: I want neighbors like that.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Not in Texas, not since Rick Perry signed the Castle Doctrine into law. Everybody needs a Rick Perry. Maybe we can make him President.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,800 Senior Member
    Don't you guys remember your CHL class? You cannot shoot somebody that is stealing property just any time. Again, I point out the words "theft in the nighttime." In Texas, that event becomes as significant as a bodily assault. If the theft occurs during the daytime, don't even think of shooting during or after the deed has been committed.

    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.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,812 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    ...He is still happily at home because the grand jury saw nothing in his actions inconsistent with the law.

    I'm not discussing the right or wrong of his actions just the legality of what he did.

    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.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,800 Senior Member
    I remember the case, and it made headlines. They considered it for quite a while and decided ultimately to not press charges, but that was iffy at best. It really depends on the country you're in.
  • sarg1csarg1c Senior Member Posts: 1,707 Senior Member
    In Kentucky one has the RIGHT to protect another from bodily harm or another's property..Day or night.....But I don't know about shooting one in the back as he flees the scene.I'll get my manual out tomorrow and read this section....
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,420 Senior Member
    So if you catch them in the daytime, you make them lay on the ground while you get a lawnchair to sit in. When the BG asks if you are going to call the cops, you say, ''Nope..... waiting for it to get dark.'' :tooth:
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • Bad HabitBad Habit New Member Posts: 15 New Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    So if you catch them in the daytime, you make them lay on the ground while you get a lawnchair to sit in. When the BG asks if you are going to call the cops, you say, ''Nope..... waiting for it to get dark.'' :tooth:


    now that would be true justice
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement