TexasCHLforum.com

It was at the height of lunch time, about 1 p.m., when a would-be robber walked into a Burger King, flashed his gun at one of the family diners, and demanded the diner fork over money and valuables, police said in a CBS report. The robber was exiting when the father, who feared for his and his family’s life, CBS said, took out his own gun and shot the suspect in the leg.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2PtY1iFVu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
---

Problems I see with this are,

- suspect was exiting, not attacking when chl holder shot him
- chl only shot to wound, or so it seems

Glad the robber was caught because of this, but it could have turned out much worse.

Did the bad guy take the fathers wallet. What about his identity information?

Still need a few details...

Could be the way the medias is reporting because that doesn't sound great. Probably was aiming for center mass and hit the leg. That is real life and happens.

tobasco wrote:It was at the height of lunch time, about 1 p.m., when a would-be robber walked into a Burger King, flashed his gun at one of the family diners, and demanded the diner fork over money and valuables, police said in a CBS report. The robber was exiting when the father, who feared for his and his family’s life, CBS said, took out his own gun and shot the suspect in the leg.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2PtY1iFVu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
---

Problems I see with this are,

- suspect was exiting, not attacking when chl holder shot him
- chl only shot to wound, or so it seems

Glad the robber was caught because of this, but it could have turned out much worse.

He might not have been aiming for the leg.

I would not put a lot of faith on what the media puts out either.

Anygunanywhere

If this happened in Texas...

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury

Armed Robbery (even if it is against only one individual) is a Felony.

Shooting to stop a Felony in progress is a good shoot, as long as no innocent bystanders are hit (if/then it gets a bit messy).

I guess I was thinking you couldn't shoot the thief if he was fleeing, but apparently if he's got the loot on him then you can. The chl may have been aiming COM, I don't know.

This was in Florida but as chl holders we are all impacted when anyone with plastic unholsters anywhere.

RoyGBiv wrote:If this happened in Texas...

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury

Funny when the leo's do that everybody whines about it...

What's not to like? BG committed aggravated robbery. GG shot him, wounding him. Police apprehended and charged both him and his accomplice. Score one for the GGs.

baldeagle wrote:What's not to like? BG committed aggravated robbery. GG shot him, wounding him. Police apprehended and charged both him and his accomplice. Score one for the GGs.

My first instructor showed a video of a bad guy entering a store and pulling a gun on the clerk. As he was pulling the gun the instructor stop the video and asked can you shoot him legally. We all said yes.
He started the video again. As the BG is pulling out the gun it slips from his hands and lands on the counter. The video is stopped again. "Can you shoot him?"
The video is started again. The GG picks up the gun and the BG heads for the door. The video is stopped again. "Can you shoot?"
Video starts again. BG is running down the street. "Can you shoot?"

In every case the instructor (former DPS) stated that you could legally shoot. His argument was the BG was in the process of committing a felony at every stage and continued to be a potential threat as the loss of one firearm did not mean that the BG was no longer armed.
Not sure I agree with all of the argument. I believe once the BG is out the door and headed down the street he is no longer my problem.

texanjoker wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:If this happened in Texas...

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury

Funny when the leo's do that everybody whines about it...

Only the liberal pacifists. You won't hear anyone on here whining.

I don't see any problems.

Remember the older guy that chased a robber out the door while actively shooting him with his .380? Well within their rights. Would have done us a favor and saved us all some money if he hadn't just 'wounded' him.

This BK incident ended somewhat better than another Florida BK incident from some years ago.

In that one a BG teenager with a Bryco .380 was robbing the counter.

A Florida CHL, GG, with a Glock 9mm, drew on him and told him to put down the gun.

The BG immediately put about 3 shots of .380 into the GG, who returned fire and killed the perp.

The GG was quite perforated with the .380's and had to spend a lot of hospital time before getting home.

Lesson learned from that one: Don't issue commands to an armed BG. Just rock your Glock.

SIA

From what I recall from Criminal law, if a person commits a violent felony (armed robbery / murder / kidnapping / etc) and is fleeing you can shoot them to prevent them from escaping based on the theory that that person is a danger to the public and others and stopping them is justified based on the necessity to prevent them from committing more violent felonies that could injure / kill other people.