TexasCHLforum.com

Mxrdad wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Murphy was standing between her and one of the suspects. Jonathan tried to get in front of her.

"I think he was trying to stand in between to protect me, maybe protect the children. I don't know, I don't know what he was thinking. He didn't say anything and the guy just started shooting him," said Murphy.

There were children involved too. Doesn't sound like neither were the Samaritan nor the LTC holder were anything but prudent and heroic.

I only hope and pray that I will be as decisive and courageous as either one of these two men if I were ever to find myself in this position. Neither than man's wife nor the children were killed or hurt. Any wife worth having is certainly worth sacrificing oneself. We don't know how many lives the LTC holder saved, perhaps many, but that he only made the situation better is pretty certain.

Amen Brother. Well said. I couldn't imagine a man not stepping in front of his wife to protect her. Not sure where the kids were but since the wife mentioned kids, I'm sure those kids were on his mind as well. A true Hero. Maybe they will set up a fund for the now Widow. I hope so and will certainly contribute. And just think, they were just getting rings cleaned. Get up, dressed, to the mall and come back a Widow.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Well there you go....... THIS is why I choose to honor Kay Jewelers ridiculous sign postings, and give my money to someone who actually understands how the real world works.

rotor wrote:It is nice to be alive to raise your young men. To each his own. I am a 70 plus male not capable of putting up a marine type "fight". I am not LEO and I carry a .380 for personal protection for me and mine. I know that I have limited ability with such weapon and no additional rounds (6). Any self defense move with that limited capability has to be well planned. If I had to carry bigger or more rounds I run the risk of not carrying. Everything is a compromise. I don't carry to protect mall goers and people shopping in 30.06/30.07 zones. I carry to protect me and mine and even that is the bare minimum. Talk about resting in peace is cheap. I admit the reason I carry. Those that carry better or feel more secure go for it. I am glad the good samaritan shot one of the BG and didn't get hurt. Brave man. I am just saying why I carry and what I feel my obligation is. If one of the BG that was shot would have turned out to be LEO in pursuit or a mall goer had been accidentally shot by the good samaritan can you imagine how this story would have been reading. Do you think Kay's Jewelers cares that a customer was killed in their store? We all need to act with our training and my training is not adequate to handle a situation like this. Come at me or mine where I think our lives are in danger and than I will act. Probably not that good either but better than unarmed. Definitely better than hand to hand.

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

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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?

I did not read the story and assumed that this happened inside Kay's. If it happened outside of Kay's, then Kay's did not get robbed. Someone else did......or at least the BG(s) attempted to rob someone else......and Kay's has nothing to do with the story.

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

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.