Yes it is--but let me caution: those who have not had the pleasure of interacting with prosecutors (perhaps including Assistant US Attorneys) and plaintiffs' attorneys may not know this, but just as soon as those same people don different hats and become defense attorneys and corporate attorneys, their publicly stated viewpoints often change as much as 180 degrees. One wouldn't think one was listening to the same person.
Robber w/ AK47 shot by Waffle House customer....
- Thread starter MIL-DOT
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
What in the world are you talking about?
The reason we aren't advocating shooting him in the building is THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. We're discussing THIS case here, and what these people actually did.
And apparently shooting him while in the building wasn't an option that seemed wise or possible to CCW guy.
Hell, if you want everyone to throw out suggestions about what somebody should have done but didn't do, maybe in magical hindsight Mr. CCW guy should have taken his wife to IHOP instead, that night. Problem solved!
We aren't judging CCW guy for going to the wrong restaurant, and we aren't judging him for not shooting the guy with the gun when he was still in the building.
Which might be a very good reason NOT to shoot (at) him and trigger his panic/shooting response. As we can see from hindsight, taking such an enormous risk turned out to be completely unnecessary. He simply took the money and left the building. As the vast majority of armed robbers do.
Folks who study these sorts of things intensely tend to recognize that not every dangerous situation is BEST met with a gun. There are many paths through a potentially violent encounter. Some end in death. Some end peacefully. Some involve shooting someone. Many do not.
Some paths that involve using your gun to meet the bad guy's threat end in you and others dying.
I don't care how much of a crack shot you believe that you are. That's almost completely irrelevant. Shooting the guy is not the only option, and OFTEN it isn't the best option.
As one of our members has it in his .sig: Sometimes run. Sometimes fight. Sometimes, do nothing. There's a lot of wisdom in that.
You keep saying that, and I've no idea why. Criminals are not insane, generally speaking. They haven't made the same choices you have, and we and all of police society think they make VERY BAD choices. But they aren't even necessarily irrational choices, given that person's life and circumstances.
And even if the choices aren't coldly rational, there is absolutely no reason at all to believe the robber is mentally ill.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,762
Two thoughts after reading the latest several pages of discussion:
1. One idea no one has raised (unless I missed it) for those who feel it would be important to do something besides staying inside the WH until police arrive, but without the possibility of being considered the initiator of a second confrontation, would be to go outside as surreptitiously as possible and wait watchfully behind a parked car so as to be able to engage Mr AK-47 in the event he were to start coming back into the restaurant.
2. I get the impression that Texans, apparently more supported by Texas law than law in other states, feel a certain level of "keeping the streets clean" IS the responsibility of ordinary citizens.
1. One idea no one has raised (unless I missed it) for those who feel it would be important to do something besides staying inside the WH until police arrive, but without the possibility of being considered the initiator of a second confrontation, would be to go outside as surreptitiously as possible and wait watchfully behind a parked car so as to be able to engage Mr AK-47 in the event he were to start coming back into the restaurant.
2. I get the impression that Texans, apparently more supported by Texas law than law in other states, feel a certain level of "keeping the streets clean" IS the responsibility of ordinary citizens.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
We've discussed doing so to be watchful for the arrival of the CCW fellow's wife, and we've discussed various possible plans to be ready for the robber should he decide to return to the restaurant instead of departing with his stolen money.
There IS a tendency for many folks (including Texans) to believe that Texas somehow recognizes the "right" of a citizen to take somewhat more liberal measures to act against criminals than other states do.
With the possible exception of the (largely misunderstood) provision of shooting someone over property, this isn't true at all, but the perception persists.
The truth is that Texas law isn't really different (except in that one way) from MANY other states and that citizens who go perhaps a step farther than is legally prudent in trying to stop crimes or intervene in violent situations are either not charged or are acquitted in other places with about the same frequency as there.
Of course, we try not to count on "prosecutorial discretion" here in our discussions. It sure isn't a good thing to have to hope and pray for leniency, in any state.
About This "Texas" Idea
I haven't kept a log or made any kind of numerical analysis, but I have followed reported incidents involving the use of force over the past several years.
From time to time, incidents have come up that have seemed, based on news accounts, to have involved the improper use of deadly force.
In some cases, charges were not filed. In others, Grand Juries failed to indict. In others, trial juries failed to convict. And in others, unexpectedly reduced pleas resulted.
Where? Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York State. Virginia, and Washington State come to mind.
Some of these came about because facts revealed were at trial that were not known to the public. In others, the only plausible explanation is unexpected leniency--prosecutorial discretion, or sympathy on the part of a judge or jury.
The only really salient possible outliers that I can recall for Texas are (1) the oft mischaracterized Horn case, described as ordinary self defense by an officer who witnessed the shooting, which could have occurred anywhere; and (2) a case in which someone in a trailer was acquitted at trial after shooting a couple of persons who were lying on the floor in his trailer.
I'm sure there have been others, but on the other side of the coin, Texas has not seemed overly reluctant to charge, try, and convict persons who were convinced of the righteousness of their actions but did not understand the law.
Regarding the law itself, if we set aside Code Section 9.42, as Sam said, we find that in most regards Texas is really no more "supportive" of the use of force by civilians than are a number of other states, some of which would probably surprise many people here.
I haven't kept a log or made any kind of numerical analysis, but I have followed reported incidents involving the use of force over the past several years.
From time to time, incidents have come up that have seemed, based on news accounts, to have involved the improper use of deadly force.
In some cases, charges were not filed. In others, Grand Juries failed to indict. In others, trial juries failed to convict. And in others, unexpectedly reduced pleas resulted.
Where? Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York State. Virginia, and Washington State come to mind.
Some of these came about because facts revealed were at trial that were not known to the public. In others, the only plausible explanation is unexpected leniency--prosecutorial discretion, or sympathy on the part of a judge or jury.
The only really salient possible outliers that I can recall for Texas are (1) the oft mischaracterized Horn case, described as ordinary self defense by an officer who witnessed the shooting, which could have occurred anywhere; and (2) a case in which someone in a trailer was acquitted at trial after shooting a couple of persons who were lying on the floor in his trailer.
I'm sure there have been others, but on the other side of the coin, Texas has not seemed overly reluctant to charge, try, and convict persons who were convinced of the righteousness of their actions but did not understand the law.
Regarding the law itself, if we set aside Code Section 9.42, as Sam said, we find that in most regards Texas is really no more "supportive" of the use of force by civilians than are a number of other states, some of which would probably surprise many people here.
We are just going in circles and have been for the last 5 pages. Enough. Y'all are making me dizzy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
