TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/30485263 ... nk-robbery

I applaud the customer who stepped up,,, but it would have been better if he had hit what he was shooting at.

I'm not sure. He was shooting at the robber that was running past him? Was the robber threatening anyone at that point? Chased him into the parking lot...still shooting at him...shot at his car as he fled? It was at that point he became the aggressor. Definitely no issue of self-defense there. How many other people did this well-meaning but careless citizen endanger? He was under no obligation or requirement to stop the robber from fleeing. Even though his intentions may have been good, I'm afraid the customer may have stepped over the line of the law.

I always have to read the comments on stories like this. They are frequently more entertaining than the story.

Countryside wrote:I'm not sure. He was shooting at the robber that was running past him? Was the robber threatening anyone at that point? Chased him into the parking lot...still shooting at him...shot at his car as he fled? It was at that point he became the aggressor. Definitely no issue of self-defense there. How many other people did this well-meaning but careless citizen endanger? He was under no obligation or requirement to stop the robber from fleeing. Even though his intentions may have been good, I'm afraid the customer may have stepped over the line of the law.

Technically stopping a felony is a defense for lethal force. However I do agree he put too many people in harms way.

jb2012 wrote: However I do agree he put too many people in harms way.

I did think the same at first but then noticed there is NO information that leads one to that opinion. One might assume so, but nothing printed points that each and every bullet he fired did not strike an intended target or a safe backstop....
I'm not saying that's true, just that with information thus far, I can't say it's not true.

E.Marquez wrote:

jb2012 wrote: However I do agree he put too many people in harms way.

I did think the same at first but then noticed there is NO information that leads one to that opinion. One might assume so, but nothing printed points that each and every bullet he fired did not strike an intended target or a safe backstop....
I'm not saying that's true, just that with information thus far, I can't say it's not true.

You know actually you're right. Anyhow as long as the "perp" appears to be leaving my gun is being holstered anyway!

jb2012 wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

jb2012 wrote: However I do agree he put too many people in harms way.

I did think the same at first but then noticed there is NO information that leads one to that opinion. One might assume so, but nothing printed points that each and every bullet he fired did not strike an intended target or a safe backstop....
I'm not saying that's true, just that with information thus far, I can't say it's not true.

You know actually you're right. Anyhow as long as the "perp" appears to be leaving my gun is being holstered anyway!

Im with ya in that, it's incorrectly called "stand your ground" not really what the lay states, but in this case, stand and defend is what I think is a better plan, not chase and shoot, if that is in fact what it turns out this victim did.

jb2012 wrote:

Countryside wrote:I'm not sure. He was shooting at the robber that was running past him? Was the robber threatening anyone at that point? Chased him into the parking lot...still shooting at him...shot at his car as he fled? It was at that point he became the aggressor. Definitely no issue of self-defense there. How many other people did this well-meaning but careless citizen endanger? He was under no obligation or requirement to stop the robber from fleeing. Even though his intentions may have been good, I'm afraid the customer may have stepped over the line of the law.

Technically stopping a felony is a defense for lethal force. However I do agree he put too many people in harms way.

In some states you could get yourself into trouble since you're not obligated

healthinsp wrote:I always have to read the comments on stories like this. They are frequently more entertaining than the story.

I noted that part of the discussion was about carrying in a bank....sigh...

Some think that because they are federally insured you can't carry there. I have several people at my work who are under that impression.

I did note that someone responded appropriately and stated that unless it was 30.06 posted there was no issue.

E.Marquez wrote:http://www.12newsnow.com/story/30485263 ... nk-robbery

I applaud the customer who stepped up,,, but it would have been better if he had hit what he was shooting at.

Moving target, adrenaline pumping. Difficult to shoot well under those circumstances without a plethora of training. I probably could have 37 years ago when I practiced that type of thing. I wouldn't bet I could do it now.

Long long ago and far far away, I would have stood a very good chance of hitting the target with about every round!

healthinsp wrote:I always have to read the comments on stories like this. They are frequently more entertaining than the story.

^^^ true!!!

Also, how dumb does someone have to be to really think they can get away with a bank robbery.... With a bb gun....an orange jumpsuit/outfit......sunglasses ..... And a bandana. Seriously, a bb gun, this guy should have known that there would people with REAL guns there to hinder his actions. If not a civilian like in this case, a whole bunch of leo's.

This guy will be well into his 60's before he can be on the streets again.... Why not get a JOB, instead of robbing.