TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:[puts on asbestos underwear]
FWIW, I don't think this was a "self defense" shooting.

I agree that the situation was volatile, and I even agree that the guy did what he thought he had to do. I am not certain that I might not have done exactly the same thing in his shoes.

But it is also plain to me that:

1. the shooter had already retreated to a more or less safe distance where he was not personally directly or immediately threatened.
2. He was further away from the bad guy than pretty much anybody in the camera's view.
3. He found temporary concealment behind a rack of merchandise, so the bad guy wasn't focused on him.
4. The bad guy didn't shoot anybody, and his behavior looked to my like he just wanted the thing to be over so he could get the heck out of there.
5. The bad guy was already on his way out of the store, without having shot anybody, when the shooter engaged him.

It may not have seemed like it at the time, but I don't think that self defense entirely justifies this shooting. The bad guy was already hurrying away from the one person who had been most directly threatened by him—the cashier, who was unharmed—when the shooter engaged him. This was more of a "taking out the trash" kind of thing. Justifiable on that basis? Not for me to decide. But the shooter didn't stop a robbery from happening, he tried to stop the robber from getting away. Am I OK with what the shooter did? Yeah, I am. I just don't think I should be fooling myself about why I'm OK with it, or about what actually happened inside that store........because it looks to me like only way the outcome changed is that the thief got arrested later at a hospital. He still robbed the store. He still didn't harm anyone. And, he still got away with the money.......for a time. Take the shooter out of the picture, and the only difference in the outcome is that the robber gets to keep the money, and he doesn't show up later at the ER with a GSW.

Ergo, not a self defense shooting. "Batman" scenario? Could be, but not for me to decide. Might I have done the same thing? Possibly. But the shooter had to move forward, toward the threat to engage him. Perhaps he thought it was a "defense of others" situation, in which case it was justifiable. Perhaps he thought it was "defense of property", in which case things get blurrier. But "self defense"?

In my opinion, it was not.
[/leaves asbestos underwear on just in case]

Jim Beaux wrote:When I first saw how Nazir reacted during the robbery, I assumed he wasnt real bright, was disorganized & had a problem with impulse control. Kind of a goofus if I may - from my vantage, I would have never pulled my weapon.

After this interview I am surprised at how wrong I may be. Nazir seems intelligent, measured and thoughtful. I like him, especially him being a libertarian - and on his decision to pull his weapon, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's sad & ironic that the "co-robber" was back on the street before this upstanding citizen regained his weapon. BTW does anyone know the details on Nazir's home being raided?

As a fellow CC, I am proud that someone like him had the opportunity to represent our brotherhood. (I still doubt that I would have engaged the thug.)