Super Save Owner Won't Be Charged In Fatal Shooting

NBC 5 ^ | October 26, 2003

[yonif]

DALLAS -- Dallas police said they don't plan to file charges against the owner of a Dallas convenience store who shot and killed a suspected robber.

Police said the victim was the alleged robber, 24-year-old France Lawson. The shooter was the owner of the Super Save food store on Barnes Bridge Road in Dallas.

Although he refused to talk on camera or use his name for fear of retaliation, the owner offered a full account of his frightening ordeal. He said Lawson walked into the store asking for a cigar. The owner said he told Lawson the store was closed, but just before Lawson left, the suspect turned around and pulled out a gun.

The owner said he quickly grabbed a gun his family keeps at the store for protection and fired at the suspect. Police said Lawson was dead at the scene.

Neighboring business owners said the storeowner did the right thing.

The owner of the Super Save said he'd been robbed twice before. He said he feels really bad about what happened and wishes it had turned out differently.

[StatesEnemy]

He said he feels really bad about what happened

Why? He did his community a great favor... unless of course he believes this was the only time this POS committed armed robbery.

[UCSC Republican]

The Super Save man acted out of self defense, so his wishes that things could have turned out differently are the sign of a moral person. However, what he did was not wrong. He was being attacked, and defended himself.

This is why the Second Amendment is so vital to a free society. The criminal could have been alive still, while the storeowner would be dead.

[ikka]

Police said the victim was the alleged robber, 24-year-old France Lawson.

Screw the French!

[GeorgeWBiscuit]

How is this guy the victim? Recipient I can understand, bad-guy, loser, whatever. Anything but victim. This adds to the anti-gun bias when the media distorts events to the extent that those injured or killed by a gun are victims irregardless of their contribution to the outcome.

[basil]

I'm with you! And I also object the him being labled as the "alleged" robber. He apparently had a gun in his hand, for goodness sakes.

[Guillermo]

What normal person feels good about killing someone else?

Would you rather shoot and kill an intruder, or rather that the intruder didn't try in the first place?

[paul51]

Would you rather shoot and kill an intruder, or rather that the intruder didn't try in the first place?

What does that have to do witht the story. Do you think the store owner should have hugged the perp who pulled the gun on him instead of drilling him?

[Paleo Conservative]

Ping!

[UCSC Republican]

The alleged part is that innocent until proven guilty bit. So, we know he dunit, but the press has to go along with the innocent til the dead man confesses stuff.

[Z-28]

"Dallas police said they don't plan to file charges against the owner of a Dallas convenience store."

I am amazed they even have considered it.

[Lion Den Dan]

The VICTIM was the store owner. The dead guy was the PERPETRATOR.

[Matthew James]

"He said he feels really bad about what happened..."

You have to say that to keep from getting prosecuted these days, even if you were the one being robbed.

I'll bet if he would have said: "The bast*** got what he deserved; and I'd do it again if he walked in tomorrow and pulled out a gun!" he would have been brought up on charges -- probably a weapons violation, or violation of the robber's civil rights.

[Neanderthal]

"The alleged part is that innocent until proven guilty bit. So, we know he dunit, but the press has to go along with the innocent til the dead man confesses stuff."

The press doesn't have to go along with this. The courts have to go along with this, not the press. The press does it because they're liberal idiots.

[justlurking]

I am amazed they even have considered it.

They probably didn't. But, all the district attorney has done is refer the case to the grand jury without recommending any charges.

The store owner's case still has to go before the grand jury, who will likely follow the district attorney's lead and "no-bill" the store owner (i.e. refuse to indict him for any crime).

When someone is killed as the direct result of another's action, that's how it works in Texas -- even for the most obvious case of self-defense.

[Paleo Conservative]

The store owner's case still has to go before the grand jury, who will likely follow the district attorney's lead and "no-bill" the store owner (i.e. refuse to indict him for any crime).

When someone is killed as the direct result of another's action, that's how it works in Texas -- even for the most obvious case of self-defense.

If someone is "no billed" future indictments could only be filed if new evidence indicating the guilt of the suspect is discovered. "No billing" is a way to protect people against future politically motivated prosecutions. The constitution protects people against double jeopardy, but if one is never tried, it is possible to file charges in the future. For potential murder trials, this is especially problematic, because there is no statute of limitations on murder.

[bert]

He was also alledged to be an attempted murder.

He drew a gun. Robbery was no longer the issue in a life or death matter.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

With all the bad new out there, it is so pleasant to start the day with an uplifting news story.

[David Hunter]

Thanks for the ping. It sounds like France Lawson messed with the wrong store owner. This outcome makes a refreshing change from the usual outcome in Britain, which would be the armed robber stealing what they want, scaring or injuring the store employee(s) and then getting clean away.
Maybe we should send some of our scumbags over to Texas and let you fellows deal with them!

[Paleo Conservative]

Maybe we should send some of our scumbags over to Texas and let you fellows deal with them!

Only if you promise to release them from 35,000 feet without a parachute.