Thinking About Defense of Others

[mojo84]

He was there with his wife. No one knows his true motivation. Regardless, he is not the bad guy.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/20 ... an-antonio

[SewTexas]

in today's press conf. McManuss said the 1st guy was at the mall with his wife to get his wedding ring cleaned. It could be they were at Kay's or heading into there and walked into it. Either way he may have felt he was protecting his wife. McManuss said there was really no way of knowing what he was thinking but he did what he felt he needed to do.

[rotor]

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.

Then perhaps you should choose your words more carefully when referring to someone who acted differently than you would?

Without the full release of exactly what transpired why cast judgement on the dead man's actions? Maybe the robber pointed his gun at the man's wife and threatened to shoot her?

As I said, if he was protecting his family God bless him for doing everything he could. He was in a 30.06/07 posted store and probably was not armed because he as a marine probably follows the law. You and I probably would not have gone into that store. To die protecting family yes. To die protecting Kay Jewelry stuff, NO! We will probably never know exactly what happened. I jumped on the reports of good samaritan. A man trying to save his family is not typically called a good samaritan. I have always said I carry for protection of me and mine only. Me and mine, not yours.

[Alf]

My quandry is this: If I’m walking near the building in question, and I hear gunfire within, I’m likely to stay outside and observe through a window, because I might not risk my life to protect the manager if she is being attacked. My logic is that I might be charged with trespassing if I intervene while carrying concealed, regardless of what is happening indoors. Is my thinking flawed?

I don't think you would be charged with trespassing in that situation, much less convicted, except maybe in Austin. The clear defense is 9.22. NECESSITY

I personally would not get involved. Not because I'm worried about prosecution but because I believe in karma.

[jmra]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

I agree.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[jmra]

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?

[mojo84]

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?

Another question that we do not know. IF he did enter into Kay's, did he do it after he realized a robbery was in progress? If Kay's is like many mall jewelry stores, they do not have a regular walk through door and have one or two large openings to the mall common areas. I haven't seen anything indicating the LTC holder is going to be charged. If he is, I doubt anything will come of it.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[Jusme]

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.

[jmra]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

I agree with both posts. Seems like many are jumping to the conclusion the good Samaritans did something wrong based on assumptions. How about we give the good guys the benefit of the doubt until and unless we learn factual info to the contrary?

I have seen no factual reliable information that indicates the guy with the LTC did anything wrong, illegal or questionable. The republicans are the kings of turning on their own. Let's not follow suit.

[bblhd672]

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

[rotor]

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.

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.