Attempted robbers held at gunpoint by good Samaritan

[Steve5115]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/attem ... -samaritan

HOUSTON - Would-be robbers were held at gunpoint by a good Samaritan, according to deputies.

[philip964]

Wow. Three armed robbers hold store employees at gunpoint vs an armed LTC outside who drives up and sees what's going on.

How many times does this end up like this vs going bad real fast?

LTC must have really gotten the drop on them and been very convincing.

Well done.

I think I would have called 911 and waited unless someone started shooting.

[ELB]

I googled for more information, and while there didn't seem to be any new information on this attempted robbery, I got all kinds of hits on previous robberies of Autozone stores, including a string of them in Houston a few months ago. Apparently it is quite popular with robbers. Makes me wonder if the LTC guy getting out of his car was just a customer or had some connection to the store or knowledge of this, and decided "Nope, not gonna happen this time."

[Ruark]

I always wondered about the feasibility of this "holding at gunpoint." So you have a bad guy lying on the ground, and you're holding him at gunpoint. You're saying "stay on the ground!" Or what? If he just says (given that he is now unarmed) "up yours" and starts to stand up, are you going to blow his head off? If he stands up and starts to walk away?

[casp625]

I always wondered about the feasibility of this "holding at gunpoint." So you have a bad guy lying on the ground, and you're holding him at gunpoint. You're saying "stay on the ground!" Or what? If he just says (given that he is now unarmed) "up yours" and starts to stand up, are you going to blow his head off? If he stands up and starts to walk away?

Legally, you may be justified in shooting if they attempt to walk off with the property but I think this may be more of a moral dilemma.

Sec. 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.

[ELB]

... If he just says (given that he is now unarmed) ...?

You may know that he dropped the weapon that you could see, but without searching him, you don't know that he is unarmed.

Seems to me the moral and legal case for shooting him would not be that he is walking away, it is that he had proven himself to be armed and dangerous already and he now is making a threatening move. The police are faced with this on occasion, and more than one miscreant who turned out to be unarmed got shot for not obeying instructions (i.e. show hands, not making (threatening) moves). Of course you would not have the police union lawyer and the department on your side in the aftermath. But for the specific case here, the whole reason you are holding them at gun point is that they have shown themselves to be deadly threats.