Posted on 04/23/2016 3:28:47 PM PDT by smokingfrog
The getaway vehicle was smashing into other cars and stuff in the parking lot, so could have been seen as a threat. Whether or not he had a clear shot that would not endanger anyone else, I don’t know. People tend to get Tunnel Vision in a situation like that.
Then the shooter is an idiot who should be locked up just to keep him off the street.
Even ex cops have been quoted as saying that they would be a good witness and nothing more even if the robbery was under their nose.
No probably about it.
It depends, if you believe they are retreating to regroup and continue attacking, or think they will return, or are just running for cover to keep fighting, not he same thing as retreat.
I think the reaction in TX may be different that in other parts of the country.
It’s my impression that TX is more civilized in these matters, and the shooter may actually be praised.
As he should be.
“....not to go all Jane Wayne in public.”
I think they have a pill for that now. /s
Does Smith&Wesson have an injector for that?
:)
No “probably” about it.
+1
We like John Wayne in Texas. There will be no charges filed against this would-be Good Samaritan. That’s the way we like it, uh-huh.
Texas law is more in favor of the rights of victims.
Under Texas law, he will have a defense to the prosecution. Although his life may not have been in immediate danger, others in the vicinity could have been killed or injured by these thugs. Bet he’z no billed.
Thanks for the clarification.
Woodlands is about 40 miles north of Houston or so, up I-45.
In the state of Washington this guy would be okay. Shooting at a fleeing felon, day or night. Not saying it was the right choice or the best choice, and that some eager prosecutor might not try to make a name for himself, but it would be legal.
Definitely a bad move on the armed citizen's part, as it doesn't appear that his life was ever in danger from those he shot at.
If even one of his bullets so much as nicked any one of those thieves, he could wind up doing real prison time for it.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784
2007 a guy in Pasadena TX shot and killed two guys who were burglarizing his neighbor’s home.
Hi,
From what I read, Texas Law justifies a third party person using deadly force to stop a fleeing robber if not likely to get the property back. And it does not say if not likely to get reimbursed by insurance. It refers to the actual property.
An typical scenario a Texan told me once is similar to this: if a person is robbed (aggravated or not) day or night, deadly force is justified including for a fleeing criminal. He may get arrested but not convicted based on facts per the legal justification. Concerning the article, notice Texas Law say the same justification for for a third party person stopping a fleeing robber in (2)(B) below and notice danger to people is not required...see conjunction between (3) (A) and (B) is “or”:
Texas CHL-16 2013-14 Section concerning third party justification (protecting someone other person’s stuff):
(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 night¬time 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.
Note, the same goes for burglary. I was told this means if any part of the criminal comes inside the the house or anything touching the criminal like a pry bar or stick comes inside the house the law justifies deadly force at that time. No retreat by victim and no warning required.
And if an innocent bystander seems at risk; however is not harmed, then the third party shooter has not broken the law.
I am not saying it is the best decision to shoot to stop a fleeing robber. I am saying that, unlike other states, Texas state law justifies that decision to shoot a fleeing robber.
Like I wrote, I think this is part of why they say don’t mess with Texas.
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.