TexasCHLforum.com

Paladin wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Paladin wrote:Legal shoot on 2 counts:

1. armed robbers (still a threat while exiting)

Someone being a "threat' is not a justification for deadly force.

2. robbery isn't complete till the robber gets away with what they stole, therefore an aggravated robbery was still in progress.

Where is THAT legal precedent? I disagree with your assessment of this issue.

You'll have to figure this stuff out on your own TXI. I know you can do it if you try.

That's what I thought. You HAVE no precedent or other proof that your assessment is correct. I understand that is your opinion, but is NOT fact.

Your facetious attempt to dodge is noted.

Seburiel wrote:And, typically, the Police say that they would rather someone call them instead of protecting themselves and their loved-ones...
Why?

Seriously? You sincerely ask why?

Because the police would be foolish to suggest that people start running into stores to confront armed robbers. The guy was outside in his car. He knowingly went inside to confront robbers. While I don't necessarily disagree with what what he did (don't necessarily agree either) the police are much better trained and equipped to deal with such situations.

If the police started suggesting people do this, the first time a citizen gets himself and/or other shot, guess who is blamed? It is a liability for them.

So that they can get some sort of 'glory' out of it?
Do police departments' budgets suffer if they aren't the ones protecting the populace?
I'm not a police hater by any means, but it's getting ridiculous, in my opinion, whenever a justified shooting takes place, it seems that the police say they'd rather everyone just 'roll over and take it' instead of providing for their own defense.

No, they say that when people seem to GO TO the criminal.

Paladin wrote:Legal shoot on 2 counts:

1. armed robbers (still a threat while exiting)

Someone being a "threat' is not a justification for deadly force.

2. robbery isn't complete till the robber gets away with what they stole, therefore an aggravated robbery was still in progress.

Where is THAT legal precedent? I disagree with your assessment of this issue.

While I certainly have no opinion of the legality of the shoot based on that lousy article, we need to keep our points clear.

However, since the police are not charging him it appears to have been a justified shoot. I would really like to know ALL of the details.