Most people aren't concerned with that, at least I'm not. I'm questioning the wisdom behind the CHL's decision to aggravate the situation by eyeballing and then getting into a "heated argument" with the armed robber.
Uh... I'm not sure which article you are reading. Third Paragraph: [rquoter] The robber entered wearing a ski mask. He approached a clerk, showed his gun and demanded money, said Miami police spokesman Jeff Giordano. [/rquoter]
Yeah, you are right. So the guy was stopping a crime, that might be a defense, if he can prove he feared for his safety under the circumstances.
I can agree that he potentially could be convicted under a strict reading of the law. But if Joe Horn got off, I'm feeling that this guy will have no problem getting off. Miami isn't Texas, but it is close enough.
Yep. And we're still waiting to hear a reasonable argument as to why it was the wiser, safer, more responsible decision to make. Meanwhile, I fully support as little legal punishment for the CHL as possible since he was acting under duress and in a plausible mode of self defense, albeit an unwise choice and not in his best interest or the interest of those involved.
You cannot really know what exactly happened to start the heated exchange and none of us know what would have happened if the CCW holder didn't shoot. Robbers shoot clerks all the time for no reason. The best situation would be to have the robber just leave and get arrested with no one dead but who knows what really happens. Also there can be no punishment under the law, but he will have to get a lawyer and go to a grand jury. So it will be several thousand.
I don't know much of details about that Joe Horn case you are referring to, but seems like Texas law allows someone to protect one's property. I agree with you that Florida is another state that allows pretty liberal interpretation of self-defense. I stand on my position that depending on the circumstances and the type of justification theory Florida subscribes to, the would-be cop could get away with a conviction. But that argument could have been weaker had the robber just attempt the robbery, which of course I was mistaken about.
Is that Texas law or Florida law? Anyways I think the key language is "if he or she reasonably believes" This is a knowledge requirement of this law as to the circumstances. Ultimately, it might be a jury question to decide what the Defendant subjectively believes is reasonable given the circumstances. To answer your question, I think the reading of the law does allow exculpation the the Defendant can prove what is required in the law for exculpation. The knowledge requirement is a pretty high bar though, which means the Defendant has to know with practical certainty the danger is imminent.
Let's see - hero? Or reckless vigilante? A hero saves lives. This guy didn't save a life, he took one and put others at risk. A hero doesn't do something to save Burger King a 100 bucks. No, that's not heroic, that's self-indulgent. You carry a concealed weapon around and you see someone robbing a burger king, and just taking the money - you let them go. You don't stop them. People aren't the administrators of justice. It's one thing to get involved if someone is getting raped or attacked - but for a cash register???? It's down right stupid. The man should be at the very least fined and have his gun license revoked.
You have got to be kidding. Again, if somebody is pointing a gun at another person, you are reasonable to assume that he may pull the trigger. Oh sure, you can wait until he DOES pull the trigger. That way the coroner will give us a 2 for 1 discount. It appears to me that you know this but are being intentionally dense.
Reasonable to assume he may pull the trigger. Not will. And it's no less reasonable to assume he may pull the trigger on an innocent bystander after being confronted.
Let him go so he can rob another establishment? Or carjack someone else? Distribute more drugs to children? The guy was a habitual, wreckless, violent criminal, and he had no intent to stop. His behavior was intensifying. I can understand how one can make a case on how a CHL might have been wreckless, but in this specific case, the corpse has proven the CHL was a hero.
So the gun was pointed at the cashier (min wage employee, possibly a teenager) the CCW holder gets it pointed at him. +1 What does "let him go" mean? Was the gunman trying to escape? The way I read it, he was POINTING A LOADED GUN AT SOMEONE DEMANDING MONEY OR ELSE" If a cop had done the same exact thing he would be called a hero. A civilian steps up to the plate and is called a moron with people wanting him to go to jail.
He was attacked with deadly force first. I've been inside these Burger Kings, they have signs that do not allow people to enter with concealed weapons. He broke that rule. Telling someone to lower their weapon after they pointed it at peoples faces isn't wrong, unless you're some kind of egoist.
I still don't understand what the customer was thinking. He's obviously a very brave man, but I question his judgment. He could have very easily been killed, or what if the teen in his haste missed and the bullet hit an innocent bystander? Maybe he just watched Pulp Fiction or something.
Hardly any of them carry any legal weight. They have to follow specific guidlines to be legal in Texas. In Florida there is no such thing, no sign legally stops you from carrying.
