TX CHL holder thwarts Denny's robbery in Houston

Status
Not open for further replies.

JustinJ

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
4,045
Location
Austin, TX
http://www.khou.com/video/featured-...out-inside-east-Houston-Dennys-134535878.html

The articles lacks detail but according to a radio talk show the man was the only customer at the time which is obviously a factor one must consider before taking similar action. Unfortunately though, the man followed the would be robbers into the street to continue the gun fight which is not legal or intelligent. Up until he followed them into the street i concur with his actions, aside from missing, based on the limited amount of information. I suppose the concern though would be that he did in fact miss since by doing so he placed himself in extreme danger since there were two people engaging him. That's not to say that could not occur even if his first shots hit center mass but the concern is taking such a shot without a reasonably high chance of success. The type of cover available is obviously also a consideration. I would venture that the vast majority of armed robbers of low score targets would look to flee immediately once shot at but the danger is of course from the shots they fire in the process. I would also argue that choosing not to give warning to the robbers before firing was without question the best tactical choice and not a legal issue since the robber's weapons were drawn already. It will certainly be interesting to see if the CHL holder is charged given he continued to apply deadly force even after the threat had evaporated.
 
Glad it turned out the way it did, could have been much worse had he not been there. I imagine he could state that he still felt that they might return had he not engaged them outside the store.
 
Trying to rob Denny's? Man, at least have some self-respect! At least hold up a Cracker Barrel.

If you did that here in rural Ohio, you most assuredly would be shot by an armed citizen trying to enjoy their meal.
 
My first question is "Why was he in a Denny's anyway?" Didn't he know they support gun control? Look at the list of ole smokey Sarah's supporters. Go to IHOP next time.
 
That's not funny. I was in Cracker Barrel with my wife. All of a sudden, the law arrives. They go to manager and say - they are looking for some guy they are chasing. I tell the wife - we are out of here (she is looking at doodads). She says - Why? I say THE LAW is arriving in force. We flee. In our car, we see loads of cops. Then they drag out the dude, struggling and screaming!

Had my gear but who wants to shoot it out in the Maple Syrup and Stuff animals? FLEE!

Started an interesting conversation way back on a tactics list on what to do, if a BG grabs the wife in a crowded place like CB and wants car keys. Related to practicing the hostage rescue shot close up. Easy to say - well, I'll take him down with a head shot. Easy on the Internet!
 
Here in AZ we have "Stand Your Ground" laws, with "No duty to retreat". I'm not sure what the laws are in Tx, but here he would have been perfectly within the law to chase them into the street, engaging them.
 
I'm not sure what the laws are in Tx, but here he would have been perfectly within the law to chase them into the street, engaging them.

Er. Really? "Stand your ground" = "Chase them down and shoot them?"

There is a lot of information already posted here at THR about what "castle doctrine," "stand your ground" type laws do, and how they really work. I'd really encourage you to search here and educate yourself quite a bit better about the matter, because the understanding you have right now is dangerously incorrect.

These laws do not make one single thing legal that wouldn't otherwise be legal.

Continuing to attack someone who has broken off hostilities and is fleeing courts assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, or even murder -- without the protection of a sustainable affirmative defense.
 
Continuing to attack someone who has broken off hostilities and is fleeing courts assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, or even murder -- without the protection of a sustainable affirmative defense

That's pretty much it anywhere.

Now, the thing is, can one articulate to a jury why they believed these people were still a threat after they ran out the door and got in the car. Can they articulate why it was reasonable to believe the bad guys had NOT broken off hostilities but were merely retreating outside, while still fighting?

It's possible, it's actually fairly plausible in some cases, but the legalities aside it's still a really bad idea from the strategy viewpoint.
 
Here in AZ we have "Stand Your Ground" laws, with "No duty to retreat". I'm not sure what the laws are in Tx, but here he would have been perfectly within the law to chase them into the street, engaging them.

The only way one could theoretically be justified in pursuing the said individuals would be to perform a citizen's arrest. However, to use lethal force to do so is probably a gray area with very little, if any legal, precedence. Arguably whatever a cop can do to perform an arrest against a felon a citizen can as well. However, before anybody starts, I AM NOT RECOMENDING THIS.
 
It's very easy for us to read the article and judge that he should have recognized the bad guys were retreating when they moved.

From the CCW holder's limited point of view at the time, it's just as easy that it could have appeared to him that they were just maneuvering to get a better shot at him, so he decided to do the same.

At that point, once he leaves the Denny's and finds them in their vehicle, they ARE a legitimate threat to him once again.
 
It's very easy for us to read the article and judge that he should have recognized the bad guys were retreating when they moved.

From the CCW holder's limited point of view at the time, it's just as easy that it could have appeared to him that they were just maneuvering to get a better shot at him, so he decided to do the same.

The van was recovered full of bullet holes. If somebody runs out of a building, jumps into a vehicle and drives away it's a safe bet that they are retreating.
 
I do think about this from time to time. The last time I was in ihop, I quizzed my new wife to tell me, without looking, how many other people were in the room, which ones were not likely threats at all, were they between us and the exit, and if the exit was blocked, what is the easiest way out? (In restaurants it's almost always through the kitchen. Let the cook complain.)

I agree that the defender should probably have a finger shaken at him for following and shooting. I can, within the recesses of my imagination, see a possibility where say, they left, and he went to the door to observe them, and saw them doing something like carjacking someone else to get away. THEN perhaps he could articulate why using deadly force was the only way to prevent harm from coming to that person. But even then, he would be out on the 'defending a third party' thin ice, which I would try really hard to avoid as well.
 
I agree that the defender should probably have a finger shaken at him for following and shooting.

What if one of his bullets hit an innocent bystander after he continued the gun fight outdoors. If a person shoots a bystander when in a gunfight that he had no choice but to enter it's one thing but once he continued the fight without necessity its a whole other situation. I don't know what was behind the would be robbers but it's hard to believe it would be a safe place to shoot if near a Denny's. A wagging finger seems awfully light.
 
Authorities said the customer, who had a concealed handgun, took cover and began shooting at the suspects. ...

No one was injured.

Took cover? Good. Began shooting and didn't hit the bad guys? BAD. If you get to take cover and have a chance to get off the first shot, my guess is that he should have had the chance to line up his shot. Bummer.

The suspects returned fire before fleeing the scene in a white minivan. The customer ran outside and fired at the suspects’ van, but they got away.
Firing at the suspects in the van can be argued as being an attempt to safeguard the public from bad guys who had already demonstrated use of lethal force in the commission of a crime that endangered the public and as such his shooting will be considered justified. It was a stupid thing to do, but not necessarily illegal.
 
While not recommended it is legal in TX to chase an assailant who threatened deadly force. I wouldn't recommend it - that is a job for the police. After the BG leaves it would be good to remain on guard as BG may be going for reinforcements or a more powerful weapon!
 
the fact is, no innocent bystanders WERE hurt

Which was apparently as much a matter of chance as anything else involved in determining the billets of various bullets in this event.

Anyone here really seriously want to roll those dice themselves in that kind of circumstance, given the stakes?
 
which is not legal or intelligent
Factually accurate opinion.

here he would have been perfectly within the law to chase them into the street, engaging them.
Dangerously erroneous opinion.

Having no duty to retreat means, wait for it, that you wouldn't have to retreat. Running after them to continue the fight is NOT not retreating (unless you're related to Wrong Way Corrigan) within the law wrt so called stand your ground laws. Once the BG withdraws you're no longer protected by the law as long as you're not threatened. It isn't even logical upon examination to contend that pursuing someone is the same as standing your ground.
 
Firing at the suspects in the van can be argued as being an attempt to safeguard the public from bad guys who had already demonstrated use of lethal force in the commission of a crime that endangered the public and as such his shooting will be considered justified. It was a stupid thing to do, but not necessarily illegal.

Shooting at the van was about the most stupid thing he did. The van could have been occupied by the gunmen's unknowing (and uninvolved) wives, girlfriends, or even children. Hit one of them and you have a good chance of losing your gun rights for life. And that’d probably be the least of your worries…
 
But this is pass or fail, and he passed.

The unfortunate truth of this sort of argument is that it's not possible to know precisely what hand chance will deal you in an uncertain situation like this one. And doing something as remarkably pointless for an armed citizen to undertake as running outside and firing down a public street at fleeing criminals is not something that can be airily dismissed as an appropriate thing to do just because no innocent a block away happened to get murdered this time.

Life is always a roll of the dice anyway, there is no avoiding that. But missing a shot when the situation absolutely demands that you take it is a far, far cry from missing a shot or shots there was no real reason for you to have fired in the first place. Simply saying that "well, no one got hurt this time" does less than nothing to excuse this kind of reckless and senseless behavior. And we will neither excuse nor encourage such behavior here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top