TexasCHLforum.com

I liked your reply free bullets for thieves!!


Some people have to learn the hard way, sounds like he will be described in his next criminal caper as a man with a limp!!

Sounds like it was a good shoot. Theft suspect when confronted reached into his pocket. That's when the LTC delivery truck driver pulled his gun and shot him in the leg.

joe817 wrote:Sounds like it was a good shoot. Theft suspect when confronted reached into his pocket. That's when the LTC delivery truck driver pulled his gun and shot him in the leg.

A delivery driver can hit the leg why cant the police.

suthdj wrote:

joe817 wrote:Sounds like it was a good shoot. Theft suspect when confronted reached into his pocket. That's when the LTC delivery truck driver pulled his gun and shot him in the leg.

A delivery driver can hit the leg why cant the police.

No the police are just supposed to shoot the gun out of the BG hand. You know like the Lone Ranger did!

This is an interesting case. Good shoot or bad shoot? Did they find anything in the thief's pocket? Not sure what LEO will do with this one. They can always just turn it over to the Lubbock D.A. who can take a look at it and decide whether to present to grand jury. If the bread truck driver is unlucky and gets indicted I would probably as a hypothetical juror say not guilty on this one. The thief was stealing stuff out of the bread guy's truck then the thief reached into his pocket when confronted...would certainly scare me and put me in reasonable fear for my life. Mayor Bloomberg and Piers Morgan may think differently.

Jusme wrote:

suthdj wrote:

joe817 wrote:Sounds like it was a good shoot. Theft suspect when confronted reached into his pocket. That's when the LTC delivery truck driver pulled his gun and shot him in the leg.

A delivery driver can hit the leg why cant the police.

No the police are just supposed to shoot the gun out of the BG hand. You know like the Lone Ranger did!

Do you know how many takes that takes, how many BGs the studio went through, before LR got it right?

JALLEN wrote:

Jusme wrote:

suthdj wrote:

joe817 wrote:Sounds like it was a good shoot. Theft suspect when confronted reached into his pocket. That's when the LTC delivery truck driver pulled his gun and shot him in the leg.

A delivery driver can hit the leg why cant the police.

No the police are just supposed to shoot the gun out of the BG hand. You know like the Lone Ranger did!

Do you know how many takes that takes, how many BGs the studio went through, before LR got it right?

Blasphemy......not the Lone Ranger

dlh wrote:This is an interesting case. Good shoot or bad shoot? Did they find anything in the thief's pocket? Not sure what LEO will do with this one. They can always just turn it over to the Lubbock D.A. who can take a look at it and decide whether to present to grand jury. If the bread truck driver is unlucky and gets indicted I would probably as a hypothetical juror say not guilty on this one. The thief was stealing stuff out of the bread guy's truck then the thief reached into his pocket when confronted...would certainly scare me and put me in reasonable fear for my life. Mayor Bloomberg and Piers Morgan may think differently.

I don't think it matters, even if he just had his hand in his pocket, if the delivery driver believed that it may contain a weapon, and he can state that he was in fear of his safety, then I don't think the DA will even take it to a grand jury. Obviously, the police didn't feel it was an issue, he finished his delivery route. Don't want to get bread to the stores late.

Russell wrote:Careful with the fear for your safety thing, that statement does not exist anywhere in the penal code.

.....how about "reasonably feared death or great bodily harm"......?

dlh wrote:This is an interesting case. Good shoot or bad shoot? Did they find anything in the thief's pocket? Not sure what LEO will do with this one. They can always just turn it over to the Lubbock D.A. who can take a look at it and decide whether to present to grand jury. If the bread truck driver is unlucky and gets indicted I would probably as a hypothetical juror say not guilty on this one. The thief was stealing stuff out of the bread guy's truck then the thief reached into his pocket when confronted...would certainly scare me and put me in reasonable fear for my life. Mayor Bloomberg and Piers Morgan may think differently.

Let's pick this one apart for a second (not your comment, but the situation)....

1. A delivery driver observes a thief transferring merchandise from his delivery truck to another vehicle - presumably the thief's.
2. The delivery guy pulls his gun and announces to the thief that he has a CHL (not sure what value that has in the moment, but.....)
3. The thief puts his hand in his pocket, and continues to advance toward the delivery driver......demonstrating either his intent to do the driver harm, or his complete departure from reality. Either way, he's a danger to the driver.
4. The delivery driver shoots the thief in the leg.........unlike shooting him in center of mass, which most of us would have probably done......and the thief lives to see another day.
5. All things considered, the thief had a better day than he otherwise might have had, and now he gets to have three hots and a cot for an extended period on someone else's dime. He doesn't have to continue his life of crime to eat and live rent free for a while.

The bad guy made out like a bandit. (Pun intended.)

The Annoyed Man wrote:

dlh wrote:This is an interesting case. Good shoot or bad shoot? Did they find anything in the thief's pocket? Not sure what LEO will do with this one. They can always just turn it over to the Lubbock D.A. who can take a look at it and decide whether to present to grand jury. If the bread truck driver is unlucky and gets indicted I would probably as a hypothetical juror say not guilty on this one. The thief was stealing stuff out of the bread guy's truck then the thief reached into his pocket when confronted...would certainly scare me and put me in reasonable fear for my life. Mayor Bloomberg and Piers Morgan may think differently.

Let's pick this one apart for a second (not your comment, but the situation)....

1. A delivery driver observes a thief transferring merchandise from his delivery truck to another vehicle - presumably the thief's.
2. The delivery guy pulls his gun and announces to the thief that he has a CHL (not sure what value that has in the moment, but.....)
3. The thief puts his hand in his pocket, and continues to advance toward the delivery driver......demonstrating either his intent to do the driver harm, or his complete departure from reality. Either way, he's a danger to the driver.
4. The delivery driver shoots the thief in the leg.........unlike shooting him in center of mass, which most of us would have probably done......and the thief lives to see another day.
5. All things considered, the thief had a better day than he otherwise might have had, and now he gets to have three hots and a cot for an extended period on someone else's dime. He doesn't have to continue his life of crime to eat and live rent free for a while.

The bad guy made out like a bandit. (Pun intended.)

I agree with your breakdown. The crook wasn't shot because he was stealing bread. He was shot because he advanced on a man holding a gun, and made what could be perceived as a threatening move by reaching into his pocket for who knows what. I hate the term "good shoot", but I feel it was totally justified in this case.

The worse part of it all is the delivery guy has to deal with this dramatic situation, is open to lawsuits and persecution, and could even lose his job because he chose not to be a victim.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

dlh wrote:This is an interesting case. Good shoot or bad shoot? Did they find anything in the thief's pocket? Not sure what LEO will do with this one. They can always just turn it over to the Lubbock D.A. who can take a look at it and decide whether to present to grand jury. If the bread truck driver is unlucky and gets indicted I would probably as a hypothetical juror say not guilty on this one. The thief was stealing stuff out of the bread guy's truck then the thief reached into his pocket when confronted...would certainly scare me and put me in reasonable fear for my life. Mayor Bloomberg and Piers Morgan may think differently.

Let's pick this one apart for a second (not your comment, but the situation)....

1. A delivery driver observes a thief transferring merchandise from his delivery truck to another vehicle - presumably the thief's.
2. The delivery guy pulls his gun and announces to the thief that he has a CHL (not sure what value that has in the moment, but.....)
3. The thief puts his hand in his pocket, and continues to advance toward the delivery driver......demonstrating either his intent to do the driver harm, or his complete departure from reality. Either way, he's a danger to the driver.
4. The delivery driver shoots the thief in the leg.........unlike shooting him in center of mass, which most of us would have probably done......and the thief lives to see another day.
5. All things considered, the thief had a better day than he otherwise might have had, and now he gets to have three hots and a cot for an extended period on someone else's dime. He doesn't have to continue his life of crime to eat and live rent free for a while.

The bad guy made out like a bandit. (Pun intended.)

The threat of deadly force is justified when the use for force is justified. I would assume that the use of force is justified if a man is stealing property from your business. So then, the driver was justified in pulling his gun on the thief.

The driver would not have been justified to shoot at the thief had the thief not responded improperly to having a gun pointed at him. Maybe the bread thief was reaching for his keys? Maybe he was reaching for a picture of his starving family to show to the driver? But if a man points a gun at you. You probably should stay back, and keep your hands visible.

I think that the driver was justified in shooting, as long as he was justified in threatening to shoot.