TX CHL holder thwarts Denny's robbery in Houston

[Kleanbore]

...if someone attacks me and then runs for an exit, how do I know he is disengaging from the fight, or seeking cover to reload or clear a malfunction?

If he exits the area, it is incumbent upon the actor to have reason to believe that he is not disengaging from the fight and that he still presents an imminent danger.

While it would be prudent to use cover and concealment and to remain watchful in case the perp returns, the actor may not lawfully pursue and employ deadly force simply because he does not know that the perp is not outside somewhere clearing a malfunction.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I think what happens in these situations is that in the moment the thought of "If I don't stop this guy he might hurt someone else" overrides the rational thought of "is that legal".

It appears to be the case here. It's possible, but unlikely, that our guy here thought the fight was ongoing. More than likely he had the noble, though misguided, thought that he could help society by stopping those guys from escaping. I can't fault him for thinking that, but acting on it is dangerous and probably not legal.

Unfortunately he doesn't have the legal cover to do that. On the other hand, in this case at least, he has the sympathy and understanding of the authorities. That's a dangerous place to be, depending on the kindness of a prosecutor and the police, but it probably happens more often than we know.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by TexasRifleman: More than likely he had the noble, though misguided, thought that he could help society by stopping those guys from escaping.

My thoughts exactly.

I often wonder whether that kind of thinking may be engendered by the way use of force incidents are portrayed on television and in the movies.

Unfortunately he doesn't have the legal cover to do that. On the other hand, in this case at least, he has the sympathy and understanding of the authorities. That's a dangerous place to be, depending on the kindness of a prosecutor and the police, but it probably happens more often than we know.

Yes, and it would be a whole lot more dangerous had his bullets struck an innocent person.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Anyone here who ever gets a chance to talk to Skip Gochenour should ask him about the number of 'good guys' he has interviewed who were doing serious prison time for being "noble though misguided." http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

 

[JustinJ]

Unfortunately he doesn't have the legal cover to do that. On the other hand, in this case at least, he has the sympathy and understanding of the authorities. That's a dangerous place to be, depending on the kindness of a prosecutor and the police, but it probably happens more often than we know.

A popular local conservative morning talk show host in my area who is also an ex Austin PD Sargeant claimed the CHL holder was legally justified in pursuit as he had witnessed them commit a felony and had the right to attempt apprehension to perfom a citizen's arrest. Wether or not that arguement would hold water in a court of law is hard to say.

 

[Kleanbore]

...an ex Austin PD Sargeant claimed the CHL holder was legally justified in pursuit as he had witnessed them commit a felony and had the right to attempt apprehension to perfom a citizen's arrest.

It is most probably true that the CHL holder, having witnessed the perps in the commission of an attempted armed robbery, would have been legally justified in pursuing the armed robbers for the purpose of properly effecting a citizen's arrest. Most people believe that such an action would have been exceptionally imprudent, however, considering that the citizen would be personally liable for his defense and for civil judgements that could bankrupt almost anyone.

However, that's not what the CHL holder apparently did. He pursued the escaping perps and fired upon them as they drove away.

Had a sworn officer done that, he or she would now be on administrative leave awaiting a hearing, most probably awaiting dismissal, and perhaps even awaiting criminal charges (more likely if the perps had been shot).

However, he or she would have been indemnified by the county. The civilian is not.

Everyone involved (along with everyone who was "down range", and along with all of their family members) is extremely fortunate that none of the bullets fired by the "noble though misguided" shooter happened to hit anyone.

The CHL holder put a lot of people at risk, including himself. At the very least, he could have lost his CHL, and that may still happen; he stood to lose everything he owned; and he could have lost his clean record and perhaps his personal freedom.

For the rest of us, he has provided a clear example of what not to do.

 

[JustinJ]

Had a sworn officer done that, he or she would now be on administrative leave awaiting a hearing, most probably awaiting dismissal, and perhaps even awaiting criminal charges (more likely if the perps had been shot).

Even if the perps had just been firing at the officer? I suppose if the cop was firing at the escape vehicle a city block away it would be highly frowned upon but if he were firing as the van were pulling away in the immediate aftermath of a shootout i find that hard to believe. For example, had the hollywood bank robbers made it into a vehicle and began driving off the cops would be obligated to stop shooting?

 

[Sam1911]

Even if the perps had just been firing at the officer?

Yes, I believe so. Most police training doctrine these days pretty strenuously discourages firing a weapon at a fleeing suspect (or certainly at a fleeing vehicle) for many of the reasons described above.

The risks are great, the chance of securing the suspect that way are low.

 

[saltydog452]

If ever called upon to serve in an after-the-fact judgement (juror), maybe we can recall sone of the previous comments.

I still smoke occasionally and do so outside. It isn't uncommon to hear 'poppin caps off towared Harry Hines Blvd, or the next street over in the neighborhood. Those sounds are usually multiple reports, a brief pause, followed by additional reports.

Just 'cause the actor is faced with an 'OOps, wait a mnt situtation', and starts clicking heels outta there, don't mean the adrenelin effect is over or someone's macho image in front of 'buds hasn't been lessened by running away.

Unless you live a sheltered life, most of the folks who pen and ratify, or not, the rules don't live in the same world as you.

It isn't logical or reasonable to expect the legislators, or jurors to behave with detached logical and reasonable reflection.

What we can do is 'Do the right thing'. Vote and answer the Juror Summons. Thanks Spike Lee.

salty

 

[Sport45]

In the movie, The Untouchables, didn't Sean Connery's character get himself killed because he pursued the knife guy outside? Of course he wasn't a civilian CHL holder, but if he had allowed the attacker to exit stage right he would have made it to the end of the show.

Once the attack is stopped and the attacker flees, let him.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So what is your favorite automobile stopping hand gun round? I cannot believe that you are advocating shooting at a moving automobile with a handgun to stop people who stole shingles?

LOL! Automobile stopping handgun round? You and I went through this already, Jeff. Maybe you forgot? See posts 32 and 33 of this thread to refresh your memory.

Advocating using a handgun to stop people who stole shingles? Why so limited in your perspective? I fully advocate doing what you think is best for your situation that is legal. I have no problems with shooting in defense of property when the shooting meets the legal criteria for justification. We have this option here in Texas and I fully support it.

 

[Sport45]

My dad had shingles once.

I say let them have 'em.

 

[Kleanbore]

If ever called upon to serve in an after-the-fact judgement (juror), maybe we can recall sone of the previous comments.

Anyone with a CHL can be expected to be among the first to be eliminated in the jury selection process, along with anyone who has been a victim of or a witness to an armed robbery.

It is not unlikely that the jury, if not the charging authority, would prove sympathetic when it comes to potential criminal charges here. However, had the shooter killed or maimed an innocent bystander, he would stand to lose everything, and it is most likely that a jury would be a lot more sympathetic to the victim than to the imprudent shooter. If one carries a gun, it is incumbent upon him or her to be able to control emotions, the direction in which the gun is pointed, and the trigger.

 

[Neverwinter]

Advocating using a handgun to stop people who stole shingles? Why so limited in your perspective? I fully advocate doing what you think is best for your situation that is legal. I have no problems with shooting in defense of property when the shooting meets the legal criteria for justification. We have this option here in Texas and I fully support it.

As gun enthusiasts often constrained by "common sense laws", we are all too familiar with the idea that there is a difference between what is legal and what is ethical. The benefit of having a legal definition with a lot of legroom is leaving a margin of error for a person acting in good conscience for the defense of themselves or others.

It doesn't surprise me that there are those who believe that the legal limitations on shooting thieves are sufficiently restrictive to advocate going up the very limit of what is legal because it still fits within their ethical framework.

 

[Kleanbore]

This thread is not about using deadly force to prevent the taking of property. Let's keep it on topic.

 

[TexasRifleman]

A popular local conservative morning talk show host in my area who is also an ex Austin PD Sargeant claimed the CHL holder was legally justified in pursuit as he had witnessed them commit a felony and had the right to attempt apprehension to perfom a citizen's arrest. Wether or not that arguement would hold water in a court of law is hard to say.

He was legally justified in pursuit, but not justified in using deadly force. "Citizens Arrest" is allowed in the Criminal Procedures code:

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A
peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an
offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his
view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense
against the public peace.

However, and here's the problem, it is NOT legal to use deadly force to effect the arrest without an LEO directing you to do so:

PC 9.51 A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (b)

So, shooting at fleeing suspects while attempting a citizens arrest is STILL not legal. There just doesn't seem to be ANY legal justification for this guy shooting at a fleeing car.

 

[mongo4567]

The discussion is good. The problem is that we don't know all the facts. There was a situation many years ago here in Austin. A CHL holder pursued an unarmed person on the street several blocks and shot them. They were not charged. It sounded very bad at first in the news, once more facts came out the shooting made sense.