TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

GlockBrandGlock wrote:

treadlightly wrote:From the ABC story, A civilian concealed handgun license-holder opened fire, shooting out of the tires.

I would not have attempted this from a moving vehicle. Being inside the tires would make me too dizzy to shoot accurately.

ayyyy

And I will say that if the guy really was inside the tires then shooting makes more sense. He could probably take out two tires with one shot from that position. Of course then the tires deflate and he gets crushed, so probably not a great situation regardless.

Bottom line - try to stay out of tires in the first place.

As my papaw used to say: "people inside rubber tires shouldn't shoot bullets"

LucasMcCain wrote:

puma guy wrote:Far too little info to comment on the incident itself. However, I counted a minimum of 9 police vehicles in the parking lot responding to this incident and at least as many officers. There could have been more not visible in the aerial shot. Does any one but me wonder why it would necessitate that many of the area's law enforcement being pulled out of action to handle this. Before anyone thinks I'm anti police - I'm not and am in fact a big supporter of LEO's. I just can't imagine why it would take this many to handle it.

Typically, if the words "shots fired" are included in the 911 call, there will be a pretty big police response. At least that has been my experience. One of our current or former LEO friends here on the forum may be able to shed a little more light on the reasons behind this.

ETA: Jusme beat me too it, but yeah.

I can understand initial response by all hands, but by appearances and the fact the helicopter has shown up it looks to be long after the initial response. I wonder who's looking for the other perps . The last comment is meant to be humorous BTW.

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

What if you shoot driver because you fear they may go on to run someone else over or hijack/shoot another victim???
Always wondered that.

locke_n_load wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

What if you shoot driver because you fear they may go on to run someone else over or hijack/shoot another victim???
Always wondered that.

This might work if your lawyer could convince the jury that you are a mind reader.

If you were in a dead end street or alley and there was no other way to get out other than to run over you ... maybe.

Sometimes the best strategy is "Run Forrest Run!"

locke_n_load wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

What if you shoot driver because you fear they may go on to run someone else over or hijack/shoot another victim???
Always wondered that.

You mean like the driver that was running from the police and ran a bunch of people over at SXSW in Austin in 2014?

I SHOULD just shut up, but at cursory first glance, this situation is so dumb, that I just have to vent....

There is an old saying about "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6". There is NO old saying about "I'd rather be tried by 12 then see 3 shoplifters stealing from a major chain store in broad daylight that is presumably covered by insurance, get away".

Or in more plain language;
Shooting out tires constitutes use of deadly force. Unless deadly force had already been first used by the thieves, the shooter wasn't justified. Unless there's something significant that has yet to be related, the shooter is probably in a bad situation.

Only time and more info will help sort this out.

On another part of the story did you read the comments by the "witnesses"? One worrying about her shoes and the other apparently thinks there are things a person "needs" to steal. Unbelievable!

WildBill wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

What if you shoot driver because you fear they may go on to run someone else over or hijack/shoot another victim???
Always wondered that.

This might work if your lawyer could convince the jury that you are a mind reader.

If you were in a dead end street or alley and there was no other way to get out other than to run over you ... maybe.

Sometimes the best strategy is "Run Forrest Run!"

My questions stems not so much from a shoplifter running out of a store. I'm talking about someone who has already hijacked someone at gunpoint, shooting at police officers, etc... I don't think it would be a stretch to say you were worried about all drivers/pedestrians/police officers - they had a real chance of immediate bodily injury, would you be protected by law to shoot if your life wasn't immediately in danger? Like he is already passing you in a parking lot and you have a clear shot, no one in background, etc.?

You just witnessed a guy with a knife rob a little old lady and when she tried to resist, he stabs her and starts to run down an alley... Could you shoot in the back because you were afraid for the life of the very next person down the street he might encounter?

Maybe it depends on the definition of "imminent"?

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

locke_n_load wrote:

WildBill wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

What if you shoot driver because you fear they may go on to run someone else over or hijack/shoot another victim???
Always wondered that.

This might work if your lawyer could convince the jury that you are a mind reader.

If you were in a dead end street or alley and there was no other way to get out other than to run over you ... maybe.

Sometimes the best strategy is "Run Forrest Run!"

My questions stems not so much from a shoplifter running out of a store. I'm talking about someone who has already hijacked someone at gunpoint, shooting at police officers, etc... I don't think it would be a stretch to say you were worried about all drivers/pedestrians/police officers - they had a real chance of immediate bodily injury, would you be protected by law to shoot if your life wasn't immediately in danger? Like he is already passing you in a parking lot and you have a clear shot, no one in background, etc.?

You just witnessed a guy with a knife rob a little old lady and when she tried to resist, he stabs her and starts to run down an alley... Could you shoot in the back because you were afraid for the life of the very next person down the street he might encounter?

Maybe it depends on the definition of "imminent"?

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

I think that is correct. I don't believe that in the example of the little old lady there would be imminent danger.

Why are CHL holders continuing use deadly force again persons committing property crimes? In this case three fleeting criminals that present no threat to anyone.

We are not LEOs, this is NOT our jobs. Our job is protecting our loved ones, and ourselves period! Personally, I will never use deadly force again anyone commits property crime again me let alone against someone else's property.

WildBill wrote: Maybe it depends on the definition of "imminent"?

I agree. The common sense definition of "imminent" is "will or is extremely likely to happen", not "might or could happen". If you have to add "what if" to your justification, you're probably doing something wrong. I think an attorney would be hard pressed to make this incident qualify.

Aside from that, since when is the use of deadly force justified against an inanimate object? The policy in the agencies I worked for was that if necessary, deadly force could only be used against the driver (or another person in the vehicle if that person was a threat). Shooting at vehicles or tires would earn you some unpaid days on the beach (if you didn't get fired).

BCGlocker wrote:Why are CHL holders continuing use deadly force again persons committing property crimes? In this case three fleeting criminals that present no threat to anyone.

We are not LEOs, this is NOT our jobs. Our job is protecting our loved ones, and ourselves period! Personally, I will never use deadly force again anyone commits property crime again me let alone against someone else's property.

I think some of it comes from not having a plan for certain situations.
I also think that without a plan a person's anger and emotions may, in the heat of the moment, cause them to react in a certain way that they will regret.
That is one reason I think that discussing these types of scenarios on the forum can be useful.
If one decides well beforehand that he/she will not use deadly force for a property crime, then the incidents will go down.

I remember in one of my CHL classes the instructor told the students that this was the time to make their decision if they were prepared to use deadly force.
If you wait until you are in the streets and under stress, then it is too late.

puma guy wrote:Far too little info to comment on the incident itself. However, I counted a minimum of 9 police vehicles in the parking lot responding to this incident and at least as many officers. There could have been more not visible in the aerial shot. Does any one but me wonder why it would necessitate that many of the area's law enforcement being pulled out of action to handle this. Before anyone thinks I'm anti police - I'm not and am in fact a big supporter of LEO's. I just can't imagine why it would take this many to handle it.

It may have something to do with how the call was presented to dispatch by persons who most likely did not know exactly what was going on. Actual calls very likely were something along the lines of "There's been a shooting at the Academy in the Woodlands. Multiple shots fired, people running. Please get here quick!" is much more likely than "Some idiot just fired a few shots at fleeing shoplifters' vehicle." In situations like this, police almost always have only partial information which may or may not be accurate. When the call involves weapons, they're going to err on the side of too much response rather than too little because wanting to go home at the end of the shift is not an unreasonable objective, and winding down an overresponse has few negatives. Underresponding to a shooting situation is something to be avoided at all costs.

Excaliber wrote: ...
It may have something to do with how the call was presented to dispatch by persons who most likely did not know exactly what was going on. ...

I suspect calls for police are similar in this respect to calls for fire/medical service. I have arrived at what was supposed to be a small grass fire to find a big one, or even a structure fire, or someone not feeling well was actually a heart attack...or vice versa. It's much safer to call for more resources and send them home when you find you don't need them than the other way around. Anything with "shots fire" in it deserves a serious response.

Winder what happened to the shooter? I saw on the new that he was detained but no report says "arrested" depending on the new site the story is spun different ways of course, one says it is simply "under investigation " and that only ONE shot fired..... Got to love the media!