TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:

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.

Here's a link to an interview with the widow of the man murdered by the robbers inside Kay's. She paints a much different picture than what we have been told in other accounts.
http://www.ksat.com/news/rolling-oak-ma ... ooting-him

Yep, quite a bit different from earlier media reports that made it sound like the shooting didn't start until the LTC drew and engaged. Have I mentioned lately how much I despise the all-to-frequent false reports from the media?

Chas.

I've already responded to the legal issues, but I want to add this as well. I give my "mall example" in all of my LTC classes. We talk about the natural instinct of many people to help those in danger and the risk this entails when you 1) don't know the people involved; and 2) didn't see the events from the beginning. I also point out that some circumstances are not the least bit vague where coming to the aid of another would create little if any potential legal problems. The physical threat presented will depend upon many factors, not the least of which is your skill at arms and the gun you are carrying.

Getting involved in the troubles of others is a personal decision. There are two things that would keep me awake at night and deprive me of many hours of sleep.

• 1. Taking a life unnecessarily; and
  2. Watching an innocent victim die because I didn't want to get involved.

Chas.

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.