Bar Patron Shoots, Kills Suspicious Man

[Lucky45]

HankB wrote: 1. The original post does not indicate how long the man was at his truck, getting his gun, before the shooting. If he reached in for the pistol and the BG came at him right away, that's very different than if he got the pistol and "went hunting."

I think from the report he said that he went to his vehicle to retrieve his gun. Now if he has a CHL (they never claimed he was Unlawful Carry) then I assume that he know the bar is off limits. 51% rule. So what is his motive for getting the gun. If he is not leaving and surely he is not going back into the bar, What else could he being doing or plan on doing when he got up out of his seat? Answer that question in terms of self defense to the judge.

2.

Guess they didnt say what his BAC was at the time of the shooting?

If he wasn't behind the wheel, WHY would he submit to a BAC test?

I don't think there is a limit for intoxication of a CHL holder. And obviosly he told the police he was in the bar. So it is safe to asssume that they have probable cause to believe he had a few "drinks." And the only way to prove it is a Blood Alcohol test by whatever legal means. They do it when you in vehicular accidents, why not a shooting outside a bar by a customer.

3. We don't know what kind of "tool" was displayed, we don't know if the two were known to one another, we don't know if words were exchanged . . . based only on what I've read, I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not this shooting was justified.

I think he was there long enough that he wasn't suprised, i could guess that. Because he had his gun, so the confrontation didn't occur on the way to the car. It occured after he retrieved it and safely turned around. Any criminal see you reaching would have used the tool already.

[KBCraig]

Lucky, any discussion of CHLs or the standards which apply to them is irrelevant. The shooter used a rifle, not a handgun.

[Lucky45]

Lucky, any discussion of CHLs or the standards which apply to them is irrelevant. The shooter used a rifle, not a handgun.

If so that makes it worst. But what is your source of this info?


(1/15/07 - KTRK/HOUSTON) Investigators say the startled customer pulled out his pistol and fired, killing the stranger.

(1/15/07 - KHOU/HOUSTON) A regular patron saw the man and went to his truck where he had a pistol and kept an eye on him.

(1/15/07 - KPRC/HOUSTON) The patron went to his pickup truck to get his gun, deputies said.

[KBCraig]

Lucky, any discussion of CHLs or the standards which apply to them is irrelevant. The shooter used a rifle, not a handgun.

If so that makes it worst.

Actually, it would make it better for him, legally speaking.

But what is your source of this info?


(1/15/07 - KTRK/HOUSTON) Investigators say the startled customer pulled out his pistol and fired, killing the stranger.

(1/15/07 - KHOU/HOUSTON) A regular patron saw the man and went to his truck where he had a pistol and kept an eye on him.

(1/15/07 - KPRC/HOUSTON) The patron went to his pickup truck to get his gun, deputies said.

Either later reports have changed, or I completely misread the first account, because I swore it said "rifle".

Sorry for the confusion.

[HankB]

HankB wrote: 1. The original post does not indicate how long the man was at his truck, getting his gun, before the shooting. If he reached in for the pistol and the BG came at him right away, that's very different than if he got the pistol and "went hunting."

I think from the report he said that he went to his vehicle to retrieve his gun. Now if he has a CHL (they never claimed he was Unlawful Carry) then I assume that he know the bar is off limits. 51% rule. So what is his motive for getting the gun. If he is not leaving and surely he is not going back into the bar, What else could he being doing or plan on doing when he got up out of his seat? Answer that question in terms of self defense to the judge.

Motive may be that he was threatened . . . maybe he was planning to leave, was attacked, and had time to grab his pistol from under the seat. Or maybe he was planning to "escalate" the situation. But this is pure specuation, as we really don't know for sure . . . even the statement that he went to his vehicle specifically ". . . to retrieve his gun . . . " may be just an assumption on someone's part.

Guess they didnt say what his BAC was at the time of the shooting?

If he wasn't behind the wheel, WHY would he submit to a BAC test?

I don't think there is a limit for intoxication of a CHL holder. And obviosly he told the police he was in the bar. So it is safe to asssume that they have probable cause to believe he had a few "drinks." And the only way to prove it is a Blood Alcohol test by whatever legal means. They do it when you in vehicular accidents, why not a shooting outside a bar by a customer.

There's an "Implied Consent" law pertaining to operation of a motor vehicle. I'm not aware of any requirement to submit to BAC screening unless you ARE driving - if there IS such a statute which applies in other cases, please educate me.

: . . . Because he had his gun, so the confrontation didn't occur on the way to the car. It occured after he retrieved it and safely turned around . . .

Maybe yes, maybe no . . . there isn't enough information in the first post to determine this.

Bottom line: Even though many stories posted here allow one to make a reasonably informed guess as to justification, in this case, I don't know if this was a good shoot or not.