TexasCHLforum.com

I don't think that I would have done this...

http://abc13.com/news/man-opens-fire-ac ... s/1328964/

Poor choices were definitely made in this situation. Unless other circumstances come out showing he needed to use his weapon, I think this guy should be charged. At the very least his LTC should be revoked.

won't be charged because he has a license


I hope there will be charges, that's nuts.
Sends a bad message to other LTC's about their near-LEO rights.

Maybe there would be no charges for carrying a handgun in public, but I fail to see how he was justified in using deadly force, since he was laying in wait for the suspects. I am sure ya'll know he is still responsible for all the damages caused by his poor shooting.

P.S. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID that is about as nice as I can be, what I really want to say would get me banned.

I'm surprised he wasn't at least charged with disorderly conduct for shooting across a public road.

The fact that he wasn't charged makes me think there's more to this story than is being reported. There may have been four lanes of traffic (2 in each direction), but were there any cars going by at the time of the shooting? Something doesn't smell right.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The fact that he wasn't charged makes me think there's more to this story than is being reported. There may have been four lanes of traffic (2 in each direction), but were there any cars going by at the time of the shooting? Something doesn't smell right.

Chas.

Agreed. Rather poor reporting to state that he won't be charged because he has a LTC. Last time I checked it didn't have anything on it saying I'm immune from punishment.

There is pretty obviously terrible reporting here. As written, it makes no sense.

LTC holder (LTC) was going through the drive through of his friend's restaurant when he noticed that it was being robbed. Apparently the restaurant employee was not too distracted by the robbery to finish LTC's transaction and give him his food.

LTC then needs to drive across the street to get his gun. Does LTC live across the street? That's the only thing that makes sense for this part.

LTC decides to open fire as the BG's are leaving the restaurant, but does not even bother to get a description of their vehicle. Based on the poor shooting and lack of a description, maybe LTC is nearsighted and left his glasses 4 blocks down the road with his other gun? I'm still struggling with the whole "gun across the street" thing.

That said, it was night time and if the friend had asked LTC to keep an eye on his restaurant, then he might have been justified using deadly force to recover the stolen property (if he could in fact see for sure that the BG's had the stolen property with them). However IMHO, a better course of action would have been to call 911, and get a good description of the BG's and their vehicle. If he felt like being a hero he could have stayed close enough to get a decent cell phone video of the men and their license plate.

A gun is a tool, like a hammer. But just because I have a hammer does not mean that I always need to use it. Sometimes other tools are better suited to the task at hand. Here, LTC had many other tools that would have been much better for this particular job, IMHO. Like his eyes, memory, and a cell phone (I'm making an assumption on that last one).

Soccerdad1995 wrote:There is pretty obviously terrible reporting here. As written, it makes no sense.

LTC holder (LTC) was going through the drive through of his friend's restaurant when he noticed that it was being robbed. Apparently the restaurant employee was not too distracted by the robbery to finish LTC's transaction and give him his food.

LTC then needs to drive across the street to get his gun. Does LTC live across the street? That's the only thing that makes sense for this part.

LTC decides to open fire as the BG's are leaving the restaurant, but does not even bother to get a description of their vehicle. Based on the poor shooting and lack of a description, maybe LTC is nearsighted and left his glasses 4 blocks down the road with his other gun? I'm still struggling with the whole "gun across the street" thing.

That said, it was night time and if the friend had asked LTC to keep an eye on his restaurant, then he might have been justified using deadly force to recover the stolen property (if he could in fact see for sure that the BG's had the stolen property with them). However IMHO, a better course of action would have been to call 911, and get a good description of the BG's and their vehicle. If he felt like being a hero he could have stayed close enough to get a decent cell phone video of the men and their license plate.

A gun is a tool, like a hammer. But just because I have a hammer does not mean that I always need to use it. Sometimes other tools are better suited to the task at hand. Here, LTC had many other tools that would have been much better for this particular job, IMHO. Like his eyes, memory, and a cell phone (I'm making an assumption on that last one).

If he had time to drive across the street retrieve is weapon. He had time to call the leo observe what type of car they were driving and a description of the robbers. At least that is what I would have done.

Pawpaw wrote:I'm surprised he wasn't at least charged with disorderly conduct for shooting across a public road.

Sounds about right

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:I'm surprised he wasn't at least charged with disorderly conduct for shooting across a public road.

Sounds about right

I was serious. That is the correct charge for shooting across a road.

PC §42.01 wrote:PC §42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
<snip>
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

Pawpaw wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:I'm surprised he wasn't at least charged with disorderly conduct for shooting across a public road.

Sounds about right

I was serious. That is the correct charge for shooting across a road.

PC §42.01 wrote:PC §42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
<snip>
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

I was also. That statement coincided with my memory of the Texas Penal Code as studied in the Pasadena Police Academy those many years ago.(1978)

Oh!! The little devil icon made me thing you were being sarcastic. My apologies.

Pawpaw wrote:Oh!! The little devil icon made me thing you were being sarcastic. My apologies.

No offense taken so None needed.

I speak sarcasm as my second language. Even when I am serious.