Robber w/ AK47 shot by Waffle House customer....

[Kleanbore]

That's why the guy that shot him isn't being charged, and why any cop that shot him wouldn't be charged, despite the fact that the AK guy never once pulled the trigger.
It was all based on what "might" happen, which the AK guy brought on himself.

No. He presented an imminent threat. Then and there.

The customer called out to the robber, who turned and pointed the rifle at him, police said.

It was not about "the potential next victims of this netball" or the fact that,"The AK guy could've walked right up to a couple car loads of people stopped at the light and open fired,...."

....I doubt that the commission of an armed robbery in which no one was shot would meet any threshold for justification.

It seems the local cops and DA disagrees

The point I made was about shooting a fleeing felon. Didn't happen here.

But keep in mind that the local cops and DA don't make the final call, and it hasn't been made yet. The fellow killed a man, and he can be charged at any time up until such time as he has been pardoned or has died. Other than that, he will not be out of the woods until he has been charged, tried, and acquitted, or the case has been dismissed with prejudice.

 

[old lady new shooter]

There's also the aspect of TX code 9.42 that says:


Some TX attorneys have noted that the near universality of insurance simply guts that argument.

Can you recover your car by any other means? Sure! No question at all. Hell, if you drove it off a bridge and totaled it, your insurance company is there to make you whole again (at least as far as the car is concerned).

The origins of this law, in which someone might ride off into the sunset with your cattle which you depend on to stay alive, and you surely would never EVER see them again, reflect conditions that don't much exist anymore.

The cash drawer of the waffle house? Doubly so.

What if the thought was not that he would steal the car, but that having the citizen's wallet would give Mr AK-47 his home address?

 

[CapnMac]

There are a number of things I'd like to be true about this.

Things like Mr CHL chose to be outside with the actor, rather than contend with him inside the place with other customers and staff present.

Or that, in going outside, there was a bit of a bum rush at the door which surprised the CHL and he articulated surprise--which the print journalist has rendered as "calling out."

Or that the CHL only planned on being the backstop in cake the actor returned to the scene, and then saw the wife's car entering the lot.

These are things I'd like to be--unfortunately, there are no facts to support any of those. And, I know better than to rely upon the accuracy of journalistic reporting on this. So, until better info arises, what I would like has no more substance than yesterday's clouds.

 

[Warp]

What if the thought was not that he would steal the car, but that having the citizen's wallet would give Mr AK-47 his home address?

I actually don't see how that is such a big deal. Really now, what is Mr Rifle going to do with the home address of a random person he robbed at Waffle House that he wouldn't do to a random person that lives in a random home to begin with? What makes the guy who was at Waffle House have a special house?

Since we are talking lethal force I just don't see that being a reason/justification for killing somebody. Especially considering all the other reasons...a home address...so?

 

[old lady new shooter]

I actually don't see how that is such a big deal. Really now, what is Mr Rifle going to do with the home address of a random person he robbed at Waffle House that he wouldn't do to a random person that lives in a random home to begin with? What makes the guy who was at Waffle House have a special house?

Since we are talking lethal force I just don't see that being a reason/justification for killing somebody. Especially considering all the other reasons...a home address...so?

I guess you're right.

I personally always worry about my home address, maybe being an old lady living alone influences that.

 

[JohnKSa]

And yep, I'd, if I could, wait till they were leaving or turned their backs.

If you wait until they're really leaving then it's not justifiable self-defense. If you shoot someone and it's not justifiable self-defense then that only leaves one option...

Deadly force is justified to stop certain very serious crimes while they are actually happening or to prevent certain very serious crimes which are imminent--i.e. immediately about to happen or just starting.

It's not justified to punish someone who has just committed a crime and is leaving the scene. It's not justified to take dirtbags off the street. It's not justified to save the cost of a trial. It can't be legally justified by what someone at the scene thinks the criminal might do at some indefinite time in the future.

Pursuing a criminal and initiating a second confrontation could even potentially give the criminal justification for self-defense. Once he's genuinely trying to disengage, chasing him down and putting him in fear of his life can create a situation where he may be able to respond with deadly force and justify that response as self-defense. That's because committing a crime, even a serious one, doesn't generally give those who witnessed the crime the right to chase down and kill the criminal after the crime is over.

 

[FROGO207]

Well some of us carry a spare key in our wallet in case we get locked out of our house or car. Much safer than hiding a key to possibly be found by someone with ill intent. That and your address *might* be a motivating factor. That and a CHL could send the thief looking for more.

 

[Kleanbore]

Pursuing a criminal and initiating a second confrontation could even potentially give the criminal justification for self-defense. Once he's genuinely trying to disengage, chasing him down and putting him in fear of his life can create a situation where he may be able to respond with deadly force and justify that response as self-defense. That's because committing a crime, even a serious one, doesn't generally give those who witnessed the crime the right to chase down and kill the criminal after the crime is over.

That's what makes things a little dicy for the man in this case.

The man apparently did point the rifle at the shooter. But the question of justification could hinge upon whether the shooter, by following and calling out the the robber, in fact provoke him.

 

[Warp]

Well some of us carry a spare key in our wallet in case we get locked out of our house or car. Much safer than hiding a key to possibly be found by someone with ill intent. That and your address *might* be a motivating factor. That and a CHL could send the thief looking for more.

That's a good reason not to have a house key in your wallet.

Possibly losing your wallet to be found by who-only-knows would be another good reason.

But that itself still doesn't justify shooting somebody.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I always have my keys in my hand, not in my purse.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Since several other people have posted their imaginary scenarios, I'll also post one:

The citizen didn't want to shoot BG in the back. He figured the last thing BG would be expecting would be for someone to call to him, rather he was probably thinking they would all just be sitting there in a daze, recovering from his "visit".... so citizen first aimed, then called out, and when Mr AK47 turned around to see what was going on citizen was able to get off the first shot and since BG was pointing his weapon at him at the time, get it counted as self-defense.

All of which would have required incredibly quick thinking, huge self-confidence, and nerves of steel.

 

[Kleanbore]

...so citizen first aimed, then called out, and when Mr AK47 turned around to see what was going on citizen was able to get off the first shot and since BG was pointing his weapon at him at the time, get it counted as self-defense.

And just what would make that self defense if the citizen "first aimed"?.

 

[danez71]

I actually don't see how that is such a big deal. Really now, what is Mr Rifle going to do with the home address of a random person he robbed at Waffle House that he wouldn't do to a random person that lives in a random home to begin with? What makes the guy who was at Waffle House have a special house?

I'm not going to say you're wrong as there is no right answer in this.

But to answer that set of questions, a wallet could very well indicate a more valuable target in which Mr Rifle may want to choose over a random house or an address from another wallet.

A wallet/purse may contain more cash or pictures of a single mom and daughter wearing jewelry vs another wallet containing $5 and a his military I.D. that looks to be a big buff guy.

If you were Mr Rifle Badguy, would you pick random house, single mom and daughter wearing jewelry house, or big buff uniformed militray guys house as your next target?

Much to my wife's dismay, I don't carry pics in my wallet

 

[Warp]

I'm not going to say you're wrong as there is no right answer in this.

But to answer that set of questions, a wallet could very well indicate a more valuable target in which Mr Rifle may want to choose over a random house or an address from another wallet.

A wallet/purse may contain more cash or pictures of a single mom and daughter wearing jewelry vs another wallet containing $5 and a his military I.D. that looks to be a big buff guy.

If you were Mr Rifle Badguy, would you pick random house, single mom and daughter wearing jewelry house, or big buff uniformed militray guys house as your next target?

Much to my wife's dismay, I don't carry pics in my wallet

Since it was a male that followed and shot Mr Rifle I highly doubt Mr Rifle had a wallet from the shooter that showed he was a single mom with a daughter and jewelry. In this example.

I would pick a "random" house, that is, one I picked for a reason based on various observations, that the general public perceives as being "random". I would expect the home of somebody who was just literally robbed a gun point to be a little more vigilant than somebody who had not been recently (if ever) victimized.

 

[old lady new shooter]

And just what would make that self defense if the citizen "first aimed"?.

BG was pointing the rifle at him.

Maybe not 100% kosher self-defense but all things considered possibly enough to get him off the hook.

 

[Art Eatman]

Texas law allows shooting a leaving-the-scene bad guy in the back if a reasonable and prudent person believes that the bad guy presents an ongoing danger to the public. It's in the CHL handbook that is issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

 

[danez71]

Since it was a male that followed and shot Mr Rifle I highly doubt Mr Rifle had a wallet from the shooter that showed he was a single mom with a daughter and jewelry. In this example.

I would pick a "random" house, that is, one I picked for a reason based on various observations, that the general public perceives as being "random". I would expect the home of somebody who was just literally robbed a gun point to be a little more vigilant than somebody who had not been recently (if ever) victimized.

True.. but I was referring to if he had several wallets from the wafflehouse as Mr Rifle more than likely wouldn't have taken just one wallet.

If I was a logical bad guy, I too, like you, would pick a random house based on the same reasons.

But if I was a logical bad guy, the random house pick based on those reasons would have been a more logical choice in the 1st place than a waffle house with more people and more chances of things going badly for me and me being shot.... which is what happed in this case.

 

[Kleanbore]

BG was pointing the rifle at him.

Not in self defense? Who pointed first?

Maybe not 100% kosher self-defense...

You got to. More likely murder.

Thus duck may or may not be prosecuted , but his defense seems to be the immediate danger to his wife.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

This looked like a situation that called for a good witness instead of intervention.

Would you call your wife to find out where she was and tell her not to come, hoping not to call too late?

Difficult to tell, not having been there.

But if my wife were "on her way" as opposed to "pulling into the parking lot", I'd have to weight some reasonable expectations before I'd consider following a danger which has otherwise left me behind.

If my wife were not expected for half an hour, that would be different than expecting her imminent arrival, for example.

As for calling...that, too, is a judgment call to be made based on the circumstances. I can make a case for taking up an observation position behind suitable cover while I call her at the push of a button. This way I'm prepared either way.

But then, that's all we're doing when we discuss this either way...making a case to suit a point of view.

The real decision will lie with the Attorney General's decision, based on whatever the investigation finds. And if it goes to trial...a jury will make the call.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Not in self defense? Who pointed first?

You got to. More likely murder.

Thus duck may or may not be prosecuted , but his defense seems to be the immediate danger to his wife.

What about that law Art cited?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I just want to know if the customer's wife actually showed up or not. That, alone, would add or take away a lot of credibility to his story.

 

[Kleanbore]

Can't find it, but in the case law in most states and in Garner v. Tennessee. the citizen would have to see the felon actually commit a particularly heinous crime right then to have a reasonable basis to believe that the felon would present a serious danger, and the "ongoing" danger would have to be an imminent one requiring the immediate shooting of the fleeing felon.

A robber leaving a store? The remedy is to call the police. A man who has just gunned down several people and still has his gun? The circumstance would open the door in most states.

But not in all.

In some, one would have to be instructed by a a police officer--and be able to prove it.

Shooting at bank robbers as they ride away makes for good TV entertainment--but that's about it.

Keep in mind that using deadly force on a felon to prevent him from disappearing was effectively the only way to do it in Chaucer's time, and maybe in the days of Clyde Barrow, but not today. Radio, fingerprints, cameras, DNA, aircraft....

 

[jmorris]

If you wait until they're really leaving then it's not justifiable self-defense. If you shoot someone and it's not justifiable self-defense then that only leaves one option...

Unless you call out to them and they make the mistake of turning back....

 

[danez71]

Unless you call out to them and they make the mistake of turning back....

I'm leaning this way myself but with a couple of caveats/qualifiers.


For example:

If patron follows him out, draws his weapon and points it the BG's direction, and then yells out, that more indicative that he was trying to engage him and was the one initiating the 2nd confrontation.


If patron yells out, possibly warning everyone in the parking lot, and the bad guy turns around, points the gun at the patron 1st,,, I think the patron is justified especially in the context of the situation in its totality.

 

[jmorris]

Good examples, sort of a chicken and egg way of looking at it.

Who was illegally pointing a gun at whom?

I suppose if Mr. Cooper makes it off life support alive we might hear his side of the story.