Posted on 07/14/2015 10:27:03 PM PDT by smokingfrog
A convenience store clerk fought back during a robbery, shooting two thieves Monday.
Store clerk Dien Tu says he was surprised but prepared when he saw a masked man pistol-whipping his co-worker. Tu had just returned from a quick break in the back of the Super K convenience store on Beechnut Street and Jorine Drive in southwest Houston.
"Maybe he scared, so they hit him," Tu said. "I think he put him down and he hit him."
Surveillance cameras show the moment four men drive into the parking lot. With their faces covered, three jump out with guns and rush the door. Customer Tom Vo was dragged by one of the would-be robbers in an apparent attempt to use him as a shield.
"Real fast, just pushed me and pull me aside," Vo said. "One of them, then two of them. Two of them come in with the gun and start making pop."
The pop was the store clerk firing at the suspects. On the video you see two run out quickly and then eventually a third. They make their way to the getaway car with the clerk running out to fire again.
(Excerpt) Read more at click2houston.com ...
The sidewalk is the limit for shoplifting.
Is that getaway car a orius ? ....:o)
Not in Texas my friend.
“I LOVE a happy ending!”....
Could have been even MORE HAPPY if the clerk had gotten all of them, including the driver.
Smoking saves lives!
That's almost universally true. As a general rule, deadly force is only legal in response to a real imminent threat. Someone running away probably wouldn't be considered such a threat.
There are some exceptions, and Texas does allow the use of force to recover stolen property from a fleeing robber. But California, uniquely, allows one to pursue a deadly threat if necessary.
Still, the clerk could find himself in trouble if there was a hostile prosecutor. It sounds like the robbers didn't have time to steal anything, and shooting at the car as it was driving away isn't usually considered self-defense. But more than likely the authorities will be sympathetic.
This wasn't shoplifting, and neither California nor Texas have a sidewalk limit on the ability to defend yourself from a deadly threat. Shooting at a fleeing car might be a problem anywhere though.
FYI, California's self-defense laws are not weak. If they had a self-defense immunity clause like Florida's then they would be the best in the country.
Maybe the clerk should quickly find a new job somewhere else.
-PJ
Only two of the original four are still above room temperature.
Seems like the clerk is better-prepared than the thugs...
-PJ
I can’t believe 4 guys ran out and and 2 died. I guess they just bled out.
” But California, uniquely, allows one to pursue a deadly threat if necessary.”
California has exemptions upon exemptions. One of the exemptions to NOT shooting at a fleeing attacker is if the attacker somehow can be reasonably assumed to still pose a threat even if currently fleeing. FReepers are smart enough to imagine that this is possible: keeps coming back, shows himself to be a mass-murdering madman on an ongoing rampage, etc.
In rural California counties, the jury might find for the defending shooter of a fleeing madman, but in populated liberal ones, probably not. Hinges on what is “reasonable.”
As I said, despite the image people have of California, its self-defense laws were written long ago and they are not weak. There are not lots of exceptions. They only thing they lack is self-defense immunity to keep someone from suing you after defending yourself.
I think we are on the same page. California self-defense laws are strong. No doubt. The only thing I would take exception to in what you are saying is that there are no exceptions in California gun laws. I have read innumerable books written by top litigators in the field. California has no RKBA in its Constitution. Guns are not allowed, except..., and except..., and except.... And so forth.
Example: Openly carrying guns is not allowed. EXCEPT in the home. And in your business if you are the principle or if the principle allows you to do it. You are not allow to carry your gun to work, EXCEPT when the gun is in a fully enclosed, locked container. People with a domestic violence conviction are NEVER allowed to carry a gun, EXCEPT if a gun is suddenly available to him (he didn’t bring it along himself) and ONLY IN CASES in which self defense or defense of others is required. You can’t walk around with a gun, EXCEPT when you are under immediate threat of grave bodily injury by someone.
One big EXCEPTION is concealed carry permits, which opens the door quite a bit. These are easier to obtain in some counties than others.
But more importantly, gun laws are not self-defense laws. Those are two different things. In regard to the story in this thread, we were talking about self-defense, or the use of a force in the situation of a robbery. It isn't really about the legality of having the gun.
These laws are interconnected. What’s different is the fact that California can peal back these exception layers without running afoul of its own Constitution. They don’t recognize the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment. The CA Dems and laws have made that clear. In other states it’s a right protected by state constitution. Anyway, constitutions and laws don’t mean anything anymore unless you’re a protected class, and then you have the right of subjugation over those evil, white, male, freedom-loving, patriotic, heterosexual, tradition-minded Christians who have dared to get ahead by education and hard work. How dare they make others feel bad about themselves by their own personal success! /s
No. The facts in a particular case might involve both sets of laws. Someone using a gun in self-defense might not have legally possessed the gun, for example. But self-defense laws aren't about guns, they are about the use of force generally. And gun laws aren't about self-defense. These are two distinct things.
"What’s different is the fact that California can peal back these exception layers without running afoul of its own Constitution. They don’t recognize the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment."
I don't know what you mean about peeling back layers. The law is whatever it is. But anyway, it doesn't matter whether the state has an equivalent of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment itself applies in California, just like in all other states.
"They don’t recognize the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment."
I don't know who "they" is, but they don't have a choice about that.
“They” refers to individual legislators in Sacramento, but if that is just politicians spouting off, then you also have the California Supreme Court:
“...the California State Supreme Court [in the referenced decision] has declared at least two things. They claim there is no Right to keep and bear arms and because they based this on such a Right not being explicitly written in the State Constitution. They have also declared that you have no Rights to anything if it is not explicitly written in the State Constitution. If the law makers claim you cannot have a wood burning stove, they now have the power to confiscate one from you. Maybe your washing machine doesn’t fit their elitist ideals—or even your house.”
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=305
If anyone thinks that the US Constitution’s 2A will always matter to Scotus to keep California in line, please refer to the Obergefell decision, and Engel, and Roe, and Kelo, and King and many others. Words mean what the black robes want them to mean. 2A has done well at Scotus recently, but there’s nothing stopping them from reversing previous decisions after, say, a 2-term Clinton regime.
Thanks!
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.