TexasCHLforum.com

DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:

speedsix wrote:

DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:I read it as the Police are not charging him. That does not mean that the DA won't want to charge him with a crime.

I also understand that the thief had a hammer. From the OP the story sounded as if the customer could have been in the wrong as he provoked the thief outside. If that were the case then he was not legal in his use of force much less deadly force.

This is why I thanked longhorn86 for posting another story with more details in it.

The second story gave us better insight to what happened. It can easily be believed that the customer honestly thought that the thief had a gun while in the store and therefore did not draw inside since the gun was being pointed at both him and the clerk. If that is the case it makes more sense as to why the customer followed the thief outside (once the thief was leaving the customer could safely draw his weapon).

If this is what happened then the customer was legal in what he did according to TPC 9.31 as he thought that the thief had a gun and was threatening the use of force and deadly force to prevent a robbery.

...he didn't commit any crime...the law is clear on that...
...you don't "provoke" an armed robber, which he was, even if all he had in his hand was clearly a small hammer...he was not a thief...he was legally and practically an armed robber...and deadly force was authorized by law...even with only the details first provided...the second post makes it even more damning, since he threatened the CHLer and the clerk with what he wanted them to believe was a gun...but with either story...the CHLer was justified...and to be commended...

One could believe that the customer did actually provoke the man.

Yes, the original story did say that he was carrying a hammer. However, it never stated when the customer saw it or if he did at all. For all we know the police could have found it when they arrived.

It also said that the customer followed the guy outside and confronted him. We do not know what was said or how he confronted him. If the customer was aggressive this could be seen as provoking the man and in turn would make it illegal to use deadly force.

With the additional details we know that he was legal in what he did however the first story made it a very unclear.

So with the original story one could believe that the customer could face charges on what was reported.

philip964 wrote:It was also at night.

Beiruty wrote:Legal aside issues, no one should be bothered to retrieve a box of K2. However, I think there is more to the story.

DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:I read it as the Police are not charging him. That does not mean that the DA won't want to charge him with a crime.

I also understand that the thief had a hammer. From the OP the story sounded as if the customer could have been in the wrong as he provoked the thief outside. If that were the case then he was not legal in his use of force much less deadly force.

This is why I thanked longhorn86 for posting another story with more details in it.

The second story gave us better insight to what happened. It can easily be believed that the customer honestly thought that the thief had a gun while in the store and therefore did not draw inside since the gun was being pointed at both him and the clerk. If that is the case it makes more sense as to why the customer followed the thief outside (once the thief was leaving the customer could safely draw his weapon).

If this is what happened then the customer was legal in what he did according to TPC 9.31 as he thought that the thief had a gun and was threatening the use of force and deadly force to prevent a robbery.