Posted on 05/09/2008 8:07:51 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
A Fort Worth homeowner shot and killed a man who broke into a donut shop next to his house.
According to reports, the man heard commotion coming from the parking lot of the neighboring store in the 100 Block of Roberts Cut Off Road and went to investigate.
Police said the would-be robber broke the glass and demanded money from the female donut shop owner.
Authorities are questioning the neighbor, but it's not expected he'll face any charges.
Also, this story was one of three posted on GunDefense.net today, so be sure to stop by and catch up on the ones that weren't posted on Free Republic!
they may give him a medal instead
Sorry, the guy murdered a man - I really do not see a lot of humor in that - from the last thread posted here though many will.
I beg to differ... the robber committed suicide the hard way.
LOL. Robbing a doughnut shop would usually be the equivalent of holding up a police station. Where were the regulars?
No. He killed a man. Murder is a premeditated, wanton act to take an innocent life. Killing is simply the taking of a life. This man was acting to save the clerk’s life. You are correct, there is nothing humorous about it. I merely anticipate jokes about law enforcement officers and dough nuts.
Earlier...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2013523/posts
Neighbor Fatally Shoots Donut Store Robber (Ft. Worth TX)
05/09/2008 5:22:56 AM PDT · by Kimmers · 24 replies · 859+ views
nbc5 ^ | 5/9/08
Well . . . I think they should give him a medal . . .
and a box of donuts!
Actually, if you watch the video, there was a police officer down the road. He witnessed the neighbor shooting the perp, and is being considered a witness in the case.
Notably, in the recent Chicago store shooting, there was a police officer in the parking lot next door too.
So much for police response time. (I’m sensitive to that claim, because people against concealed carry on campus often say we should trust our police to protect us.)
Everyone should go to the linked story. There’s some great lines in it, too many to paste in without violating FR policy.
As usual the story isn’t totally clear, but it sounds as if this was the second time he robbed this donut shop, and also that he may have hit the donut lady on the back of the head during the robbery.
I don’t think he will be missed.
Dang! Our new search function is worthless, because I searched that exact title and nothing came up.
Funny!
He should Get a medal!
it should be a law that any Robber who is shot by an armed Citizen while he is commiting the crime, the citizen is immune from prosecution.
Sorry, not murder. GAZE...
Wow. They updated the text just since I posted the story.
9-1-1 When seconds count, we're there in minutes...
Nope, he came to the aid of the woman running the donut shop.
The robbery perp is the only criminal in this story.
Texas just passed a law very much like that called the “Castle Law”.
That, and of course, I wasn’t pinged to it. (WHY wasn’t I pinged to it?)
I stand corrected, he took his shotgun and killed an unarmed man. That is a different.
I have been corrected the guy took his shotgun and killed an unarmed man.
Let me guess, so the shooting wouldn't look quite so justifiable?
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2007-03-27.0601
Mar. 27, 2007
Gov. Perry Signs Law Allowing Texans to Protect Themselves
SB 378 Permits Texans to Use Deadly Force in Self Defense
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today signed into law Senate Bill 378, extending Texans’ rights to use deadly force for means of self-defense, without retreat, in their home, vehicle or workplace. The law takes effect Sept. 1, 2007.
“The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force.
“I thank Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Joe Driver and the Texas Legislature for their dedication to ensuring Texans’ rights to self-defense.”
In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat when an intruder unlawfully entered their home. Senate Bill 378 extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:
Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.
The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances. The use of deadly force is not lawful when it is used to provoke or if a crime other than a Class C misdemeanor is committed by the victim.
Sounds like a great place to live. Texas still taking American immigrants?
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the 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
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(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.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor’s differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 2, eff. September 1,
2007.
Maybe he was headed over to your next door neighbor’s place.
Doughnut shop is a workplace of the woman who was being thretened.
Makes sense, those San Fransisco babes would whup your sorry ass for implying that they can't take care of themselves...
Where did you see “shotgun” and “unarmed robber”?
An unarmed man was killed for breaking into a store. I personally find that somewhat disappointing. Many at this website feel killing an unarmed man is okay.
Don’t mess with Texans! I hope the guy gets a lifetime of free donuts!
on the previous post.
Are they sure the robber wasn’t an off-duty policeman?
No, the Californians snatched up all the available slots.
When asked if she was scared at the early morning break-in, she shrugged her shoulders and said: "If he shoots me, I know I go to heaven."Sounds like the criminal was armed, though the story doesn't explicitly say either way.
Why are you so quick to assume the worst about the citizen who came to the clerk's aid? (Just curious.)
He was unarmed? How do you know that? Sources?
It’s called defense of self, AND defense of others. If I have a weapon, and I see someone in danger of great harm, I can, if I choose, act so as to defend that person just as if I was defending myself.
The ONLY question at issue here is whether the perp was acting in a way that threatened great harm to the clerk during the commission of his felony. Since the story says the man struck the female, who was alone and unarmed, I would say the threshhold was probably met.
Why are you so eager to condemn an apparently appropriate use of firearms? Can you honestly say you’d react the same if a policeman had been the one to fire and kill the robber?
But if he acted as judge and jury and killed the man, because he caught the guy in the act of stealing, or because he was attempting to save the money or donuts, and valued those things more than the man's life, then that is murder.
FORT WORTH -- A robbery suspect entered an west-side doughnut shop early Friday armed with a BB gun rifle, but a good Samaritan who came to help a shop employee had a shotgun.
Conclusion: the robbery suspect died from a blast of 12-gauge buckshot to the chest, police said.
The man was robbing a business and assaulting the business owner. His body was his armament.
The problem is that at the time you shoot you can't always be sure he's unarmed. There are probably far more illegal concealed carries in this country than legal ones.
If you're going to San Francisco Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair If you're going to San Francisco You're gonna meet some gentle people there
I still don’t see the “unarmed”. You mean somebody on another thread SAID he was unarmed?
It’s not in the story.
The guy saved someones life. Good riddance to the scum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.