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

[RetiredUSNChief]

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....

Not so, depending on the jurisdiction.

If the bad guy was leaving and the threat of imminent danger no longer existed at that moment because of this and if YOU are the one who then re-instigates a deadly force encounter by forcing a confrontation, then YOU can be held accountable for that.

In the end, if it goes to court a jury will make that call based on the jurisdictional laws and how they view the circumstances of that particular incident.

As a civilian, re-engaging a bad guy once the threat of imminent danger is gone is NOT necessarily legal, even if the guy is armed. There's more to it. If he's armed and threatening someone, then you may engage to protect another's life. If he's armed and making a run for it...maybe not.

 

[Sam1911]

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?

I guess my answer to that would be, do you really feel that's something you could, would, or should be killing someone over? Would you be able to kill someone because they discovered your home address? Should the law allow that?

 

[jmorris]

Not so, depending on the jurisdiction.

That we do know, DeSoto Texas.

About 16 miles South of where DPD blew up a guy that had previously commeted crimes.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you wait until they're really leaving then it's not justifiable self-defense.

"Leaving" is always interesting. There have been numerous incidents of robbers shooting people as they were "leaving." Leaving is problematic because you don't know if they are leaving or just moving to a different position.

Considering a person "leaving" to be a non threat is like considering a person who is down to be a non threat.

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

Can you protect a person who isn't present? The excuse almost sounds pre-emptive.

A customer armed with a pistol—worried because his wife was headed to the restaurant—followed Cooper outside and called out to the robber.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...r-armed-ak-47-shot-customer-article-1.2711668

 

[Warp]

Considering a person "leaving" to be a non threat is like considering a person who is down to be a non threat.

Interesting since, unless there is something significant going on indicating a person is still a threat, it is generally ill-advised and likely illegal to shoot a person after they are down.


*It's always possible a person on the ground can still shoot you, but typically and generally, if a person is shot or otherwise assailed and they go down, you probably shouldn't be shooting them. Watch them, keep your firearm on them, move to cover, escape further, etc, but shoot them where they lie...probably not.

 

[Kleanbore]

Can you protect a person who isn't present? The excuse almost sounds pre-emptive.

I doubt it.

So, the question seems to be whether the shooter had any lawful reason to grout after the man and engage him.

Sounds iffy at bet.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't think he has to have a lawful reason, just that there is no unlawful reason keeping him from going after the robber. I don't know of any Texas law that would preclude him from doing so.

However, the wife-thing just makes it all sound so hokey.

 

[Warp]

I don't think he has to have a lawful reason, just that there is no unlawful reason keeping him from going after the robber. I don't know of any Texas law that would preclude him from doing so.

However, the wife-thing just makes it all sound so hokey.

What do you mean by 'going after'. The only real question is about shooting the guy. You don't get to shoot people because you can't put your finger on a law that specifically says you can't in that scenario, it's kind of the other way around for this one

 

[Sam1911]

Well that's kind of a funny way to look at it. Firing a gun in a public place, firing a gun at a person, and killing someone are all in the list of things you must have a direct and immediate reason for and that reason must be one of the very few specifically spelled out in the law.

Crossing the road on a Tuesday while wearing green socks is an example of something you can do simply because there is no law against it.

Any threatening or violent or use of force thing you do has to be explicitly allowed for under the law.

 

[JohnKSa]

About 16 miles South of where DPD blew up a guy that had previously commeted crimes.

The decision was made (according to the police chief) because they reasonably believed that he posed an ongoing deadly threat, not as punishment for the crimes he had already committed.

It's also worth pointing out that a mass murderer (a person who is working on racking up as high a body count as possible) is engaged in an ongoing crime until he is actually neutralized or completely gives up. That's because as long as he has a weapon and hasn't given up, it's imminently reasonable to believe he's still engaged in his crime even if he just can't find a target right at that particular instant.

 

[Warp]

Yeah this is totally and completely different from the Dallas cop killer.

 

[jmorris]

Never said it was, it seemed location was in question, I gave the location.

It was however also a decision that has been questioned, despite an outcome that most folks I talk to here in Texas are fine with.

a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;  and

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section. - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-32.html#sthash.tYJ2xg8Y.dpuf

So maybe it depends on what he "called out"? A "yoo hoo" is less provoking than a "hey Mer Fer".

In any case, I am not a gambler but I have placed a bet or two over the years. I have $10 that says the Grand Jury doesn't charge him. Any takers?

 

[Kleanbore]

So maybe it depends on what he "called out"? A "yoo hoo" is less provoking than a "hey Mer Fer".

Maybe not. Did the citizen point his handgun first?

Keep in mind that the code section you cited could well have justified the lawful shooting of the man with the handgun.

In any case, I am not a gambler but I have placed a bet or two over the years. I have $10 that says the Grand Jury doesn't charge him. Any takers?

On what basis under the law would they decide to not send it to trial?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

What do you mean by 'going after'. The only real question is about shooting the guy. You don't get to shoot people because you can't put your finger on a law that specifically says you can't in that scenario, it's kind of the other way around for this one

If you can't say what he did to break the law (the shooter), then you can't say he broke the law, can you? Find the law he broke, and then you have an argument, not beforehand.

There are a variety of reasons why the LTC may have followed the robber into the parking lot, even pursuing him, all of which are not disallowed by state law. Again, find the law that makes what he did wrong, or you really don't have an argument. Remember, also that there are numerous exceptions to prosecution to allow for certain activities under certain circumstances, such that even if he did break a law, he very well may be in the clear on it because of exceptions.

That does not mean the decision was tactically smart or even a good idea, but lots of things that aren't tactically smart or good ideas are perfectly legal to do.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you can't say what he did to break the law (the shooter), then you can't say he broke the law, can you? Find the law he broke, and then you have an argument, not beforehand.

That would be decided in a court of law, but--since the man was able to shoot the person with the rifle several times when the rifle was pointed at him, it seems very likely that the shooter had gun in hand as he pursued.

Unlawful.

 

[danez71]

If you can't say what he did to break the law (the shooter), then you can't say he broke the law, can you? Find the law he broke, and then you have an argument, not beforehand.

No. That's not really the case here.

He admitted he shot someone. He broke the law of shooting someone.

Its illegal to shoot someone unless you meet the exception clauses. Such as: For self defense.


So the question becomes, were the circumstances sufficient to satisfy the claim to self defense?

Nothing in the article suggests that he was stopping the BG 'in the act that' of harming another person, or himself, that would justify it.

So that leaves the question of:
Did he feel threatened enough to justify shooting bag guy?


The patron said the BG pointed his rifle at him so he shot the BG.

What were the set of circumstances that prompted the BG to point the rifle at the patron?

Did the patron instigate the BG by pointing his gun at the BG 1st and 'call out'?

Or did he merely 'call out', then the BG turned and pointed the rifle, and then the patron responded to the threat of the BG and draw his gun quickly to shoot the BG?

 

[Warp]

That would be decided in a court of law, but--since the man was able to shoot the person with the rifle several times when the rifle was pointed at him, it seems very likely that the shooter had gun in hand as he pursued.

Unlawful.

Is it unlawful to have a gun in your hand? What statute is that?

 

[Kleanbore]

Is it unlawful to have a gun in your hand? What statute is that?

Come now!

I said "as he pursued".

Probably disorderly conduct, perhaps assault.

Unless there is a basis for lawful justification, which varies among jurisdictions, that is a crime of some kind in every state and every US territory--usually, aggravated assault or something similar.

Read this.

Texas is one of the very few states in which it is lawfully permissible to display a firearm for purposes of impressing another with the danger in circumstances that would not justify the actual use of deadly force.

Hoever, the use of non-deadly physical force would have to be justified.

Of course, all of that became moot when the man pulled the trigger. Based on the report, his having pointed the gun without lawful justification most probably constituted a crime.

A jury may have to decide, but it that's the case, that crime would negate a claim of lawful self defense.

 

[Warp]

Come now!

I said "as he pursued".

Probably disorderly conduct, perhaps assault.

Unless there is a basis for lawful justification, which varies among jurisdictions, that is a crime of some kind in every state and every US territory--usually, aggravated assault or something similar.

Read this.

Texas is one of the very few states in which it is lawfully permissible to display a firearm for purposes of impressing another with the danger in circumstances that would not justify the actual use of deadly force.

Hoever, the use of non-deadly physical force would have to be justified.

Of course, all of that became moot when the man pulled the trigger. Based on the report, his having pointed the gun without lawful justification most probably constituted a crime.

A jury may have to decide, but it that's the case, that crime would negate a claim of lawful self defense.

How can it be assault if the robber did not see him with the gun in his hand? It seems he had to call out to the guy...let's say the carrier was aware enough to be behind cover/concealment that would block the robber's view of the carrier's handgun...I don't see how having a gun in your hand is unlawful without assuming something else is also going on

 

[Old Dog]

Perhaps this was just simply a situation where a citizen, wanting to be a good witness, attempted to follow discretely and thought, hey, if I get the guy to turn around, maybe I can get a better look at him so as to provide an accurate description ...

Who knows what the guy was thinking as he followed the criminal out and called to him? Does it really matter now?

I can't see, (strictly) based on the news reports anything the citizen did that was in violation of the law, if in fact the news accounts are accurate.

We see that the moderators are taking over this thread in an attempt to display that those on this board are constantly pondering the responsibilities and tactics required of lawfully armed citizens ... We get that the moderators want this forum to present itself as composed of intelligent, cautious and duly law-abiding citizens ... We get that none of us (presumably) want to portray ourselves as possessed of a Rambo complex, wannabe cops or reckless vigilantes ...

Perhaps this was one case where a citizen reached the boiling point, fed up after years of witnessing rampant crime going unchecked and simply decided to try to make a difference. Maybe this citizen understands, as many of us do, that those who commit crimes with firearms continued to commit increasingly violent crimes with firearms until they are finally brought to justice. Bad judgment? Unsound tactics? Maybe. But at this point, attempting to show that our armed citizen might have himself violated a law is a bit premature, based on paucity of facts and eyewitness accounts.

 

[Kleanbore]

Who knows what the guy was thinking as he followed the criminal out and called to him? Does it really matter now?

It could make the difference between a conviction for manslaughter or something worse, or perhaps acquittal, should it go to trial., and should the man die.

I can't see, (strictly) based on the news reports anything the citizen did that was in violation of the law, if in fact the news accounts are accurate.

He shot someone. That is against the law unless he did not first threaten the other person, and unless it was absolutely necessary to do see to protect himself (there apparently were no other people there to protect).

But at this point, attempting to show that our armed citizen might have himself violated a law is a bit premature, based on paucity of facts and eyewitness accounts.

o say that he was guilty of a crime on the basis of a sketchy news report would be presumptuous.

But to say that he might have violated a law is by no means premature.

 

[Sam1911]

Once more I'll point out, Old Dog, that we do not discuss these cases here to either 1) try and convict someone of their misdeeds, or 2) to give three cheers for the good guy and "root, root, root for the home team" as the old baseball song has it.

Those aren't worthy enough goals for us to dwell on such matters of crime, violence, and death.

Our goal here is threefold:

1) to study the crime as it was perpetrated so that we may recognize and be prepared for such predations ourselves; and,
2) discuss and evaluate the choices the "good guys" made to see if they were the sort of thing we'd want to incorporate into our own tactics, or if they teach us something NOT to do; and,
3) identify, discuss, and explore the laws which apply to the good guy's actions, to see if those actions (which we may consider taking ourselves someday) most probably met the standards of legal justification in his state, or if he got into the weeds a bit and has to rely on "prosecutorial discretion" (i.e. the whims of his local D.A. as to whether to try to win a conviction on something that technically was against the law, or to overlook a mis-step because of an overall positive outcome ... or public opinion) to stay out of court.

So these calls of "Monday morning quarterbacking" and of judging these folks too harshly are really misplaced. This is why we gather here. It's what we DO. It is some of the most important work that we do at THR.

If we're all just slapping the guy on the back in absentia, and hoo-raying that there's one more baddy off the streets, we really aren't learning anything at all, so we might as well not bother.

 

[JohnKSa]

Perhaps this was one case where a citizen reached the boiling point, fed up after years of witnessing rampant crime going unchecked and simply decided to try to make a difference. Maybe this citizen understands, as many of us do, that those who commit crimes with firearms continued to commit increasingly violent crimes with firearms until they are finally brought to justice.

What you are describing is murder.

Deadly force is not justified to "bring someone to justice". It is not justified when someone "reaches the boiling point" and decides "to make a difference".

Killing someone intentionally when deadly force is not justified is murder.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That we do know, DeSoto Texas.

About 16 miles South of where DPD blew up a guy that had previously commeted crimes.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

DPD blew up someone who WAS an active shooter. That wasn't a private citizen in a self-defense scenario, like the one this thread is about.

Even so, you cannot directly equate what law enforcement is allowed to do with what civilians are allowed to do.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

So maybe it depends on what he "called out"? A "yoo hoo" is less provoking than a "hey Mer Fer".

In any case, I am not a gambler but I have placed a bet or two over the years. I have $10 that says the Grand Jury doesn't charge him. Any takers?

Provoking is circumstantial...the bad guy was evidently leaving. This means the immediate threat to life and limb left with him. Going after the bad guy in any way can be considered both provoking AND deliberately & needlessly placing oneself back in harms way. Both those factors carry heavy weight against an otherwise good guy in court.

The right to use deadly force is typically not considered legitimate if one instigates an encounter in which deadly force will likely be required, or after either leaving the scene of imminent danger and then deliberately returning, or if the source of imminent danger leaves and you choose to follow and re-engage.

The specifics of each incident will determine whether the AG decides to prosecute, and if it does go to court, a jury will decide whether the use of deadly force at that time was lawful or not.

What the state does or does not do in this case remains to be seen.

However, anybody who basis their own actions in a similar scenario on what happened here is very ill advised for a number of reasons.

Any time the immediate threat to life and limb goes away, people need to think very clearly and carefully about any choice which has them essentially chasing after the bad guy to engage them with deadly force.