jmra wrote:Maybe this guy is a convicted felon illegally in possession of a firearm which he illegally possessed in a 51% premises. Might be good enough reason to vacate the premises.
Legally, this is known as a "double whammy." 
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Bar Patron a hero in Houston, two robbers dead.”
- Mon Oct 06, 2014 5:29 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Bar Patron a hero in Houston, two robbers dead.
- Replies: 41
- Views: 8816
Re: Bar Patron a hero in Houston, two robbers dead.
Legally, this is known as a "double whammy." - Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:17 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Bar Patron a hero in Houston, two robbers dead.
- Replies: 41
- Views: 8816
Re: Bar Patron a hero in Houston, two robbers dead.
I believe that you are correct, and that the shooting would be justified. I also believe that the person could [and probably would] be charged for violating carrying in a 51% business. I don't know the why the person fled the bar, but if they find him his punishment will be worse than if he had stayed at the seen. I believe his identity will be discovered.goinincircles wrote:Disclaimer......I took my original class sometime in the late 90's and probably (certainly) don't remember exactly how we were taught the law worked in situation such as this and in all my renewal classes we dint get into a bunch of different scenarios but.....
I'm 99% (let's make it 51% sure) we covered something similar to this and they talked about "necessity" and or "defense to prosecution" applying here. Not to say that we were taught correctly but it was two officers teaching our class and they were pretty sharp.
I think the scenario was you were walking your kids into their school and had forgotten to disarm. A BG also comes in and starts randomly shooting people. Are you allowed to "break the law" and neutralize the threat? I think their (the instructors) thinking was that preservation of life in this situation trumped the law that was broken and there would be a defense to prosecution for taking action.
Even if this was untrue, I'd think (hope) that you'd have a rough time getting a jury to convict a person for doing the "right" thing and that may be what the instructors were thinking as well when they said to take action to save lives.