The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
philip964 wrote:It was also at night.
One could believe that the customer did actually provoke the man.speedsix wrote:DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:I read it as the Police are not charging him. That does not mean that the DA won't want to charge him with a crime.
I also understand that the thief had a hammer. From the OP the story sounded as if the customer could have been in the wrong as he provoked the thief outside. If that were the case then he was not legal in his use of force much less deadly force.
This is why I thanked longhorn86 for posting another story with more details in it.
The second story gave us better insight to what happened. It can easily be believed that the customer honestly thought that the thief had a gun while in the store and therefore did not draw inside since the gun was being pointed at both him and the clerk. If that is the case it makes more sense as to why the customer followed the thief outside (once the thief was leaving the customer could safely draw his weapon).
If this is what happened then the customer was legal in what he did according to TPC 9.31 as he thought that the thief had a gun and was threatening the use of force and deadly force to prevent a robbery.
...he didn't commit any crime...the law is clear on that...
...you don't "provoke" an armed robber, which he was, even if all he had in his hand was clearly a small hammer...he was not a thief...he was legally and practically an armed robber...and deadly force was authorized by law...even with only the details first provided...the second post makes it even more damning, since he threatened the CHLer and the clerk with what he wanted them to believe was a gun...but with either story...the CHLer was justified...and to be commended...
Stealing K2 is just the tip of the iceberg and will lead to further robberies and thefts of Twinkies, Cheeto's and frozen burritos from more Stop & Rob stores.Beiruty wrote:Legal aside issues, no one should be bothered to retrieve a box of K2. However, I think there is more to the story.
I believe you have missed the intent on the act of provocation. That means you started the event by FIRST provocating the individual like picking a fight with someone who did not provoke any action to begin with.DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:One could believe that the customer did actually provoke the man.
Yes, the original story did say that he was carrying a hammer. However, it never stated when the customer saw it or if he did at all. For all we know the police could have found it when they arrived.
It also said that the customer followed the guy outside and confronted him. We do not know what was said or how he confronted him. If the customer was aggressive this could be seen as provoking the man and in turn would make it illegal to use deadly force.
With the additional details we know that he was legal in what he did however the first story made it a very unclear.
So with the original story one could believe that the customer could face charges on what was reported.
DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:One could believe that the customer did actually provoke the man.speedsix wrote:DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:I read it as the Police are not charging him. That does not mean that the DA won't want to charge him with a crime.
I also understand that the thief had a hammer. From the OP the story sounded as if the customer could have been in the wrong as he provoked the thief outside. If that were the case then he was not legal in his use of force much less deadly force.
This is why I thanked longhorn86 for posting another story with more details in it.
The second story gave us better insight to what happened. It can easily be believed that the customer honestly thought that the thief had a gun while in the store and therefore did not draw inside since the gun was being pointed at both him and the clerk. If that is the case it makes more sense as to why the customer followed the thief outside (once the thief was leaving the customer could safely draw his weapon).
If this is what happened then the customer was legal in what he did according to TPC 9.31 as he thought that the thief had a gun and was threatening the use of force and deadly force to prevent a robbery.
...he didn't commit any crime...the law is clear on that...
...you don't "provoke" an armed robber, which he was, even if all he had in his hand was clearly a small hammer...he was not a thief...he was legally and practically an armed robber...and deadly force was authorized by law...even with only the details first provided...the second post makes it even more damning, since he threatened the CHLer and the clerk with what he wanted them to believe was a gun...but with either story...the CHLer was justified...and to be commended...
Yes, the original story did say that he was carrying a hammer. However, it never stated when the customer saw it or if he did at all. For all we know the police could have found it when they arrived.
It also said that the customer followed the guy outside and confronted him. We do not know what was said or how he confronted him. If the customer was aggressive this could be seen as provoking the man and in turn would make it illegal to use deadly force.
With the additional details we know that he was legal in what he did however the first story made it a very unclear.
So with the original story one could believe that the customer could face charges on what was reported.
Thank you Keith, I did miss the intent of provocationKeith B wrote:I believe you have missed the intent on the act of provocation. That means you started the event by FIRST provocating the individual like picking a fight with someone who did not provoke any action to begin with.DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:One could believe that the customer did actually provoke the man.
Yes, the original story did say that he was carrying a hammer. However, it never stated when the customer saw it or if he did at all. For all we know the police could have found it when they arrived.
It also said that the customer followed the guy outside and confronted him. We do not know what was said or how he confronted him. If the customer was aggressive this could be seen as provoking the man and in turn would make it illegal to use deadly force.
With the additional details we know that he was legal in what he did however the first story made it a very unclear.
So with the original story one could believe that the customer could face charges on what was reported.
Once this bozo committed the armed robbery, then all bets are off and there is no way he will be hit with provoking a fight as confronting him about a felony is not provocation.
speedsix wrote:...he didn't commit any crime...the law is clear on that...DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:I read it as the Police are not charging him. That does not mean that the DA won't want to charge him with a crime.
I also understand that the thief had a hammer. From the OP the story sounded as if the customer could have been in the wrong as he provoked the thief outside. If that were the case then he was not legal in his use of force much less deadly force.
This is why I thanked longhorn86 for posting another story with more details in it.
The second story gave us better insight to what happened. It can easily be believed that the customer honestly thought that the thief had a gun while in the store and therefore did not draw inside since the gun was being pointed at both him and the clerk. If that is the case it makes more sense as to why the customer followed the thief outside (once the thief was leaving the customer could safely draw his weapon).
If this is what happened then the customer was legal in what he did according to TPC 9.31 as he thought that the thief had a gun and was threatening the use of force and deadly force to prevent a robbery.
...you don't "provoke" an armed robber, which he was, even if all he had in his hand was clearly a small hammer...he was not a thief...he was legally and practically an armed robber...and deadly force was authorized by law...even with only the details first provided...the second post makes it even more damning, since he threatened the CHLer and the clerk with what he wanted them to believe was a gun...but with either story...the CHLer was justified...and to be commended...
Especially the part about, Provoking an armed robber or even a thief? These individuals need to be scared off. That individual, whether armed robber or thief, stole another individual's property. Not saying I would have went outside and shot him, but I agree that he should receive a commendation for reacting the way he did. The more a thief's ability to prey on the law-abiding is retarded the better, I believe, society becomes.
You may be referring to the perp running and the Customer shooting when there was no longer a threat............SD shooting=NOT GOOD.Oldgringo wrote:Somebody help me, aren't one's buttocks near one's back?
speedsix wrote:...not always...sometimes they're at the top of the neck...
Stealing K2 is just the tip of the iceberg and will lead to further robberies and thefts of Twinkies, Cheeto's and frozen burritos from more Stop & Rob stores.
I love this forum, too...but not for the same reason, I'd guess. On this forum, unlike pretty much any other forum I've been a member of, or regularly visited, people can have ACTUAL discussions about a range of serious subjects and interests. Not only that, they will often quote THE LAW, or provide other information to back their position. And even when it is not that sort of discussion, they will often try to have a logical basis, or explanation, for what they are saying. And all that applies to whether its CHL-related, firearms-related, or even politics. Mr. Cotton and his moderator team run a great forum and a majority of its members are excellent to learn something from, converse with, or even argue with in an appropriate manner...schufflerbot wrote:speedsix wrote:...not always...sometimes they're at the top of the neck...Stealing K2 is just the tip of the iceberg and will lead to further robberies and thefts of Twinkies, Cheeto's and frozen burritos from more Stop & Rob stores.
LOL
i love this forum.
Well, if you are implying he shouldn't have shot him in the back, this ain't the Queen of Marksbury rules when someone is going after a weapon. I have seen BG's drop knives and they will turn their back while trying to hide the fact they are picking it up so they can bend over and tuck it under them, then turn around and make a full lunge.Oldgringo wrote:Somebody help me, aren't one's buttocks near one's back?
speedsix wrote:...not always...sometimes they're at the top of the neck...
Keith B wrote:Well, if you are implying he shouldn't have shot him in the back, this ain't the Queen of Marksbury rules when someone is going after a weapon. I have seen BG's drop knives and they will turn their back while trying to hide the fact they are picking it up so they can bend over and tuck it under them, then turn around and make a full lunge.Oldgringo wrote:Somebody help me, aren't one's buttocks near one's back?
If I think someone is bending over and picking up a gun that he just dropped, I may shoot him in the butt too. However, it may not be just one shot.