Ft.Worth CHL Holder Shoots Robbery Suspect

[txinvestigator]

Legal shoot on 2 counts:

1. armed robbers (still a threat while exiting)

Someone being a "threat' is not a justification for deadly force.

2. robbery isn't complete till the robber gets away with what they stole, therefore an aggravated robbery was still in progress.

Where is THAT legal precedent? I disagree with your assessment of this issue.

While I certainly have no opinion of the legality of the shoot based on that lousy article, we need to keep our points clear.

However, since the police are not charging him it appears to have been a justified shoot. I would really like to know ALL of the details.

[seamusTX]

three armed men walked into the store and began robbing customers and employees.

This story doesn't say what they were armed with.

Here's another story: http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news ... 58522.html

The victim's husband confronted the suspects in the store and shot one of the fleeing suspects after one had pointed a gun at him.

If two or more had firearms, this brave citizen was extremely lucky.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

And, typically, the Police say that they would rather someone call them instead of protecting themselves and their loved-ones...
Why?

Seriously? You sincerely ask why?

Because the police would be foolish to suggest that people start running into stores to confront armed robbers. The guy was outside in his car. He knowingly went inside to confront robbers. While I don't necessarily disagree with what what he did (don't necessarily agree either) the police are much better trained and equipped to deal with such situations.

If the police started suggesting people do this, the first time a citizen gets himself and/or other shot, guess who is blamed? It is a liability for them.

So that they can get some sort of 'glory' out of it?
Do police departments' budgets suffer if they aren't the ones protecting the populace?
I'm not a police hater by any means, but it's getting ridiculous, in my opinion, whenever a justified shooting takes place, it seems that the police say they'd rather everyone just 'roll over and take it' instead of providing for their own defense.

No, they say that when people seem to GO TO the criminal.

[Seburiel]

Seriously? You sincerely ask why?

No, although I appreciate a serious and candid response, my questions were simply rhetorical venting.

If the police started suggesting people do this, the first time a citizen gets himself and/or other shot, guess who is blamed? It is a liability for them.

I know that you are correct.

No, they say that when people seem to GO TO the criminal.

I may be misunderstanding this part of the statement.

(edit - oh, I get what you are saying here, but look, I'd do the same for a family member in danger, would you not?)

[Liberty]

Remember that the media constantly gets these stories wrong. He may have actually been shot in the backside while he was threatening one of his family members inside the store before running away for all we know.

I don't wish to judge the reactions of the CHL holder. My concern is how we (or I)to react to this scenerio as it is reported.

The CHL holder went outside to get the CHL holder.
The CHL's relative at this point was able to leave the scene and
presumably was safe at this point.

The CHL holder went inside or moved in that direction.
Was there another relative inside? If not Wouldn't it be prudent
for the CHL holder to move his relative and himself to safety?
Rather than to move towards the Bad Guy.

The Bad Guy was leaving this should be an opportunity to seek safety. Paladin supplies an answer to the legality of of the shoot

2. robbery isn't complete till the robber gets away with what they stole, therefore an aggravated robbery was still in progress.

I would be reluctant and hope that most CHLers would be reluctant to fire unless it was a clear matter of self defense. As the story is presented I would not have fired. It doesn't appear worth it.

We all know that there could be more to this than we know, and that Wea aren't in the shooters shoes. The BG may have had a bead drawn on his relative. we just don't know. I am just suggesting that as this story is presented, that the right thing to do might be to withhold fire.

[seamusTX]

The CHL holder went outside to get the CHL holder.

If you mean "the CHL holder's relative went outside," that's not what the story I posted says. It says she called him (presumably on a cell phone) from inside the store.

As to the question of why the police don't want citizens "taking the law into their own hands," as they often put it: When they arrive at a crime scene they want to be able to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. That's more difficult if multiple armed people are present.

- Jim

[Sludge]

Bottom line..... Police did not see enough to charge the individual. WE all should know how bad the media can screw a story up. I can not armchair quarter back this. What matters is no innocent people got hurt.

[Poke82]

Its a day old, police might not have seen suff. evidence, but the DA might try to take it further. Might see in a week or so that this man gets arrested. We'll see how it plays out.

[NAK]

Here is a link to the story with a video clip.

The broadcast indicates the suspect was shot multiple times. At one point, you can see a LEO caring what appears to be a collapsible stock weapon.

http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_185074228.html

[XDgal]

WFAA ch. 8 aired the story on their noon news cast with more info. The CHL holder was waiting for his wife in his truck and saw the BG's enter the store. He called 911. His wife then called him from the check out line inside. While she was talking, one of the BGs accosted her making her drop the phone. CHL holder heard a pop when the phone hit the floor and thought it was gun fire. He then entered the store, BG pointed a gun at CHL holder and they exchanged fire. He went in to defend his wife. Sounds like a good shoot to me, and, obviously, to Ft. Worth PD as well. WFAA called him a hero! Two BGs are still on the loose.

[AggieCPA]

I lived down the street from that store for the first 18 years of my life, that neighborhood had been going down the drain well before this, but its just one more thing that makes me glad my parents are out of that neighborhood. (Although my dad does carry, and I don't worry much about his safety.)

[stevie_d_64]

This really is a bad situation for the unfortunate and poor decision that was made by the 3 BeeGees...

With the trend in robberies being made in a more open environments like in major grocery stores, I am finding the odds of one of us being involved increasing these days...As was in this incident...Going after the general patronage in the store, in my opinion increases the odds dramatically that someone is not going to take lightly to that threat to them...

Knowing that a CHL was involved in this one...

Paladin summed it up pretty good...

If I allowed my wife to go into a grocery store like this, she would be packing anyway...So her call to me would be to tell me she'll be right out and to ignore the gunfire...(I'm kidding)...

So all I can think of is to be that much more aware of whats going on around you, never assume anything is what it seems...Keep your head on a swivle...Just don't look like you are ready to clear leather...

Seems like a difficult way to go around with your life...But seeings how trouble just keep finding its way into places you thought would be relatively free from threats like these...

You just got to keep on your toes...

[Paladin]

Legal shoot on 2 counts:

1. armed robbers (still a threat while exiting)

Someone being a "threat' is not a justification for deadly force.

2. robbery isn't complete till the robber gets away with what they stole, therefore an aggravated robbery was still in progress.

Where is THAT legal precedent? I disagree with your assessment of this issue.

You'll have to figure this stuff out on your own TXI. I know you can do it if you try.

[txinvestigator]

Legal shoot on 2 counts:

1. armed robbers (still a threat while exiting)

Someone being a "threat' is not a justification for deadly force.

2. robbery isn't complete till the robber gets away with what they stole, therefore an aggravated robbery was still in progress.

Where is THAT legal precedent? I disagree with your assessment of this issue.

You'll have to figure this stuff out on your own TXI. I know you can do it if you try.

That's what I thought. You HAVE no precedent or other proof that your assessment is correct. I understand that is your opinion, but is NOT fact.

Your facetious attempt to dodge is noted.

[Renegade]

I don't understand the legal justification for him shooting the BG. I wouldn't have taken the shot. The bad guy was leaving and doesn't sound like a threat at this point.

Texas law allows you to use deadly force to prevent the perp from fleeing, not that that is what happened, I imagine the perp was threatening deadly force as he was fleeing....

§ 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;
[blue] 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; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.[/quote]