Heh, it doesn't surprise me that you'd see it that way. It's like you go out of your way to consider only one side of any story without consideration for at least half of that story.
The "civilian" (police are also civilians but whatever) killed one dangerous man and is directly responsible for the other being caught. Everyone is safer.
Not at the time. At the time, the men were leaving the store and the CHL holder pulled, pointed, then shot his weapon in public. I'm not defending the "hoods" in any way, I am saying that the CHL holder put innocent bystanders at risk, which is undeniable.
1) As stated earlier, when stopping armed robbers, anyone (cop/civilian/fbi/on-duty/off-duty/undercover) will pose an inherent risk to the public at that moment because you have to draw your gun. 2) Fortunately, this CHL guy had combat training, more than the typical civilian. 3) Without the facts known, it's hard to tell if the armed robbers would have peacefully given up to anyone, save for multiple cop cars coming in at once, and even then, it's still arguable that they wouldn't have bc public shootouts with cops happen, and also bc these guys were potentially already murderers. 4) Most here again are only looking at the immediate risk, and not the long-term risk of having armed robbers on the loose (who might have already killed) who are willing to put people in a deadly situation over an xbox. What they can and will do in the future is a risk to the public. The way they acted, it would be probable that they would be in a shootout sooner or later. 5) There is the potential that they're p*****s with guns, and that the Marine just went open fire w/o warning on them. While I'm morally ok with this, there is a legit moral and probably a legal argument against it....like a Place Beyond the Pines situation (thanks Rocketman). But then again, Gosling was robbing banks all the time. Maybe this was a "one-last score" situation, but for an xbox? I doubt that. Considering all that, even if it was the worst case (one last score + p*****s with guns would give up to any confrontation + free firing Marine who gave no warning), then I'm still ok with it bc, hello, they were committing armed robbery. But I understand the argument for not being okay with that. Most likely though (and again, we don't have the facts), it wasn't the worst case, and any immediate risk caused by Marine is superseded by long-term risk and the necessary inherent risk in stopping anyone committing an armed robbery. Thank goodness only the robbers got killed.
Chapter 9 of the TX penal code applies to everyone, including cops. Deadly force can be used to prevent a robbery, among other felonious crimes. The liberalism around here is astounding, but consider the source. A dead criminal is a good criminal. Dead pieces of pond scum don't commit anymore robberies.
Hahahahahahaa soo effn true... This is a real hero. Many people here would take flight versus the fight....
Often, flight vs fight involve very little cognitive thinking. It's a reactive response when facing with perceived immediate danger - something built into our body and reptilian brain a long time ago. A more evolved response is one that see the urge of both and don't let it take over you and thus allow you to response more appropriately to the situation. It is usually a wiser choice (instead of a non-choice). This is why, Jesus, being so evolved (or non-human ) is at a level not typical of human. You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Who would do that today? Not many, in fact, some wouldn't even chance the 1st slap.
So many people here who don't know the laws in TX. Self defense is *not* the only situation where you are entitled to use lethal force in TX. If you believe that someone else's life may be in danger then you are justified in using lethal force in this state. Yes, there is a "hero" protection. Just going by the story description, it isn't clear to me that anyone's life was actually threatened, and I personally probably wouldn't have done what the shooter did (mine also would have been on me, not in the vehicle). My thought process would have been that they were stealing Xboxes, not directly threatening the clerks or shoppers. But I can certainly see why the shooter would have thought otherwise; the robbers clearly put everyone in the store in harm's way. Yes, he will need a lawyer - you need a lawyer any time lethal force is involved, justified or not. But he should have a fairly easy argument to make if it gets to court, which it probably won't.
Forgive me for not wading through the thread, but are there statistics surrounding innocent bystanders being shot in similar instances? I'm a liberal who is not anti-CHL, but pro-reponsible gun use and it seems like this guy fits the bill.
Search TEX PE. CODE ANN. ยง 9.32 : Texas Statutes - Section 9.32: DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON (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 (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (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. (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32 So yes, very much within the law.
Two guys that think it is ok to point loaded weapons at innocent people were stopped by a guy that didn't think that was ok. It is perfectly legal in the US for him to do so. The danger present at the time because of the actions of criminals was sufficient to legally warrant the actions of a former Marine and CHL carrying citizen. These are criminals that by all accounts had done violent things in the past and would presumably do violent things in the future. That cycle of violence has been stopped. There was a risk to every law abiding citizen in the general vicinity because of these criminals but the Marine in the situation put himself in harms way by drawing their attention to himself. The criminals COULD have dropped their weapons and run away but they did not. One of them is dead now because of his own actions. We can change our laws to take the weapon out of the hands of the law abiding citizen and embolden the criminal but I think they are just fine the way they are. Guns didn't cause this crime and guns didn't stop this crime, a US Marine did.
My neighborhood. Girlfriend works in the same shopping center. There are numerous robberies and car-jackings in that center and in the Wal-Mart across the street. One of our friends had her car broken into and another co-worker of my girlfriends' was robbed at knife point in front of their employer's store front. Anything that will make these morons think twice about doing this **** in this area is fine by me. I don't care if it's your first time or 30th. You shouldn't exist if that's how you live your life. Wasted space.
I was driving down Wesleyan near University Blvd today and saw a kid on a bike. He was about 10 and there was a plastic game stop bag hanging from his handlebar. These guys were complete dirtbags.
I'm not going to lie, I don't find anything morally wrong with killing criminals that intentionally put innocent people in harms way.
what he did was wrong. he put others people's life in danger. However, if they had robbed me then its ok. He gets a pass since post traumatic war stress
How was it wrong? And how do you know it had anything at all to do with PTSD? Do you just automatically assume anyone who served is PTSD, or something? Peoples' lives were in danger the second the robbers walked through the door with their firearms.
