TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I have seen no factual reliable information that indicates the guy with the LTC did anything wrong, illegal or questionable.

The only person I've read saying the guy with the LTC was wrong is the mall's manager.

The mall's general manager, Dustin Christensen, said in a statement that the mall prohibits guns on the property.

"Although we respect the laws of the state and individual rights, we do, however, maintain a separate code of conduct that we visibly post at our entrances that includes the prohibition of any weapons on the property. Our top priority continues to be the safety of our shoppers as we strive to provide the best possible shopping experience for all,” said Christensen.

http://www.kens5.com/news/mall-policy-s ... /391647963

jmra wrote:

Jusme wrote:I am not familiar with the Kay's in the SA mall, but the one in Hulen Mall in Ft. Worth, as two large open areas, that are secured at night by roll up security doors. one could stand outside it and still reach inside to the counter. It's possible the GG was still just outside the store, but could have been only a few feet away from where the BG were. Mall jewelry stores are not very large, so the difference between being inside, or outside may have only been a very short distance, with an unobstructed view. I hope that Kay's and other store owners get the message, that signs don't prevent robbery, or even prevent their employees, or customers from becoming victims. They just conveniently disarm them for the criminal element.

This is the way I pictured everything from what I've read.
1. BGs robbed/robbing Kay's
2. BGs turn to leave
3. BGs shoot first guy
4. LTC standing outside the imaginary 30.06 line shoots BG
Nothing I've read indicates LTC was ever within the perimeter of the 30.06's legal coverage area. Of course we are missing many pieces of the puzzle which could prove otherwise.

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

SIGFan43 wrote:Yesterday’s shooting in the Rolling Oaks Mall in San Antonio got me thinking. In that situation, two armed bad guys entered Kay’s Jewelry store to rob it. The store was posted with 30.06/30.07 signs, which forbids legally licensed customers to enter with a concealed or open carry handgun. After witnessing an unarmed Good Samaritan who intervened and was shot dead, a licensed civilian intervened, shooting one of the bad guys, according to news reports.

Here's the problem...... what is the city of San Antonio going to do to the LTC who unlawfully carried his handgun past the Kay's 30.06/30.07 signs? Yeah, so he saved the day. Now he faces the possibility of charges for it. THIS is why I would not spend 10¢ inside a Kay's Jewelers. It has nothing to do with the quality of their products, and has everything to do with the fact that they wish to disarm people who have passed a background check that many of their customers cannot pass, all while admitting people many of whom may have an extensive criminal history. What results is exactly what happened in this story. Those idiotic signs did not prevent the armed robbers from entering the store now, did they?

Kay Jewelers can go hang.

Did he actually carry past the 30.06 sign? I assume the signs only apply once you actually enter Kay's since the mall itself is not posted. In the interviews the sheriff stated that the samaritans intervened when the BGs were leaving the store. I guess I assumed the LTC encounter was in the commons area of the mall outside of Kay's store perimeter. Is this incorrect?

jmra wrote:In response to the "I carry to protect mine not yours" point of view, in general I agree especially when it comes to property. However, I simply could not look my wife or teenaged sons in the face if I stood by and let someone extinguish an innocent life when my intervention could have prevented it, especially if the innocent life where that of a defenseless person.
I am raising two young men to be men of honor and valor. That requires that I serve as an example. I hope and pray that I am laid to rest as a very old man by my aged children, but if I were to lose my life tomorrow in defense of a helpless child I could Rest In Peace knowing that my boys are in excellent hands with a strong mother and knowledge that some things are worth dying for.

apostate wrote:How do you know he was a Samaritan? Maybe he was a Christian.

rotor wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

rotor wrote:Apparently Kay's Jewelers doesn't care if you are able to protect yourself as they are 30.06/07. There were two good samaritans, one is no longer with us. One took down a BG. I suspect that the first good samaritan was not armed and although brave was stupid. The second guy was armed and at least had a way to help end this robbery-murder. Being at home safe and sound with my family sounds better than being a dead good samaritan. I would sleep just fine.

Was this guy "stupid"? http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/05/r ... y-7-eleven

or this one? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43249972/ns/u ... IY65BsrLDc

or these? https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/good-g ... date-data/

I would call them heros.

I did not check all of your references but I am sure those men are heroes. The issue is whether protection of Kay Jewelry property is reason to be a dead hero. Kay Jewelers does not allow you to protect yourself in their stores so why should I die protecting their jewelry from being stolen? Would a person that can't swim dive into a lake and try to save a drowning victim? Perhaps, but would it be smart? The guy died trying to protect someone's property. Not his property. He is a hero and two weeks from now when his family don't have their husband/father nobody will care and Kay Jewelers wont care either.

rotor wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

rotor wrote:I suspect that the first good samaritan was not armed and although brave was stupid.

There's no reason to suspect he was not armed, he was a law abiding citizen who was not carrying a handgun inside a 30.06/30.07 posted location.
There's also no reason to demean a former U.S. Marine because he chose to be something other than a sheep when facing armed criminals.

By all reports I saw he was not armed. Having served 8 years in the military I am not demeaning anyone on the basis of their military experience. To die protecting Kay Jewelry property is not my idea of smart and now his wife and children don't have a husband/father. I would rather be alive than a dead hero. He was not protecting lives, he was protecting property from a store that posts "we will not let you protect yourself". I do not consider myself a coward for that stance. Dying to protect Kay Jewelry property is not warranted.

rotor wrote:Apparently Kay's Jewelers doesn't care if you are able to protect yourself as they are 30.06/07. There were two good samaritans, one is no longer with us. One took down a BG. I suspect that the first good samaritan was not armed and although brave was stupid. The second guy was armed and at least had a way to help end this robbery-murder. Being at home safe and sound with my family sounds better than being a dead good samaritan. I would sleep just fine.

bblhd672 wrote:

puma guy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mr1337 wrote:In my opinion, no jury in Texas is going to convict you for walking past a 30.06 sign to save someone's life who is under active attack. You should be covered under a defense of necessity.

Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer, but I just don't see it happening.

This attorney agrees with both of your points. I'll also add that I cannot imagine any LEO filing trespass charges under the OP's hypothetical, nor can I imagine a DA accepting charges.

Chas.

I agree with you regarding the LEO's not filing a charge, but when it comes to DA's I think of people like Ronnie Earl and I wouldn't be so sure.

Not to make light of a anti-Constitutional DA filing charges, but in the scope of the scenario described, being charged with a Class C misdemeanor and fined maximum $200 is not a huge concern if I am forced to pass a 30.06/30.07 sign in a legally correct defense of another person.