CHLer Arrested

[03Lightningrocks]

[Carzan]

I think the guy wrecklessly endangered other people by shooting at the guy when and where he did. He may have technically been legal in shooting the guy but the manner in which he did it was wreckless and shows poor judgment on his part. Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right.

[FL450]

It was a robbery and the robber was escaping with stolen property. He may have been justified. Maybe not, all we know is what the media told us.

This

[03Lightningrocks]

It was a robbery and the robber was escaping with stolen property. He may have been justified. Maybe not, all we know is what the media told us.

This

This is not a truly accurate statement. What we know is that Kwan fired his weapon without concern for any endangerment he created to innocent bystanders to save his cell phone. These innocents could be mine or your loved ones. My loved ones lives are worth far more than his cell phone.

Saying it is a "robbery" as if you are trying to make it sound like more than it is, falls into the category of deceptive as well.

[cb1000rider]

What do you mean by getting a pass? Did NYPD shoot at a person fleeing with property?

They shot at someone acting irrationally who reached into his pants and didn't follow orders.
The police missed the irrational guy, but hit two women who were uninvolved.
The DA charged the irrational guy with causing injury to the two women...

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

[Keith B]

What do you mean by getting a pass? Did NYPD shoot at a person fleeing with property?

They shot at someone acting irrationally who reached into his pants and didn't follow orders.
The police missed the irrational guy, but hit two women who were uninvolved.
The DA charged the irrational guy with causing injury to the two women...

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

I do see this incident and the NY one a little differently. In this case the guy was not in danger of his life, he was just trying to stop the guy from taking something he had been trying to get rid of anyway (sell it.) The shooter in this case was not in fear for his life or of serious bodily injury.

In the NY incident, the LEO's were shooting at a perceived threat and were in fear for their life or serious bodily injury. They fired, but missed and hit bystanders. The guy who was the threat was charged with their injury. Had the guy been running away and they just started flinging lead at him, then the tables may have turned on the officers.

[philip964]

He was charged with Deadly Conduct. He was just flinging lead toward the person recklessly and the bullet hit the house nearby. The charge will be a third degree felony, and yes, it will more than likely stick.

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Thanks, so he was within his rights to shoot at the person, but not within his rights to shoot at a person he was not going to hit. Thus in almost all circumstances shooting at a fleeing criminal is not a good idea.

[cb1000rider]

I do see this incident and the NY one a little differently. In this case the guy was not in danger of his life, he was just trying to stop the guy from taking something he had been trying to get rid of anyway (sell it.) The shooter in this case was not in fear for his life or of serious bodily injury.

In the NY incident, the LEO's were shooting at a perceived threat and were in fear for their life or serious bodily injury. They fired, but missed and hit bystanders. The guy who was the threat was charged with their injury. Had the guy been running away and they just started flinging lead at him, then the tables may have turned on the officers.

I agree they are different, but aren't both "causes" - fear of bodily injury and stopping robbery justified causes for the use of deadly force in Texas?

As I read the law, during the day, deadly force can be used to prevent robbery. I'm not sure if fleeing with the phone is preventing the robbery or post-robbery.

Just to be clear, I'm not OK with the choice to shoot at Walmart over a phone, but I'd like to discuss it anyway.

[Keith B]

Thanks, so he was within his rights to shoot at the person, but not within his rights to shoot at a person he was not going to hit. Thus in almost all circumstances shooting at a fleeing criminal is not a good idea.

We don't really know this guy's shooting ability, so can't say. Bottom line, shooting at someone who is NOT a threat to you or others well being is not a smart move period. First, the cost of replacing a cell phone that he was selling anyway would be WAY cheaper that legal costs, even if he was ruled justified in shooting. Second, shooting in a stress situation is tough and you are more than likely NOT going to hit your target unless it is point blank. Take into consideration the crowded area, distance to target, etc, your chances for hitting something OTHER than your intended target are substantially increased. So, better to loose the ~$300 cell phone, file a police report and chalk it up to lesson learned than to spend just the minimum of $30,000 this will end up costing him in court. Plus since this is a felony, he will more than likely spend time in jail, much less loose his CHL and be prohibited from owning firearms.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Thanks, so he was within his rights to shoot at the person, but not within his rights to shoot at a person he was not going to hit. Thus in almost all circumstances shooting at a fleeing criminal is not a good idea.

We don't really know this guy's shooting ability, so can't say. Bottom line, shooting at someone who is NOT a threat to you or others well being is not a smart move period. First, the cost of replacing a cell phone that he was selling anyway would be WAY cheaper that legal costs, even if he was ruled justified in shooting. Second, shooting in a stress situation is tough and you are more than likely NOT going to hit your target unless it is point blank. Take into consideration the crowded area, distance to target, etc, your chances for hitting something OTHER than your intended target are substantially increased. So, better to loose the ~$300 cell phone, file a police report and chalk it up to lesson learned than to spend just the minimum of $30,000 this will end up costing him in court. Plus since this is a felony, he will more than likely spend time in jail, much less loose his CHL and be prohibited from owning firearms.

True in all points. Whats a used cell phone worth? Now rack up just the costs associated with bail alone. Seems pretty lopsided no?
Now if this were a gallon of ice cream it might be different of course, because thats important.

[Superman]

Disclaimer: I would not have done what he did...I would have pulled after I was hit, but I would not have pursued. I would have shot if the robber would have made any movement in my direction again after punching me (if I would have had that much time to decide that...I probably would have had to stop pulling the trigger mid-pull).

Police said the two were inside the store when the potential buyer snatched the phone and punched Kwan in the face.

I guess I'm going to be the lone dissenter here. Based solely on the info in the article, I don't think he should be charged. What if he shot inside Walmart instead of outside? He surely would have more people around and would have struck the building. What if he hit the robber with a shot inside the store and someone standing behind the robber was also hit (or if he missed inside and someone was hit)? Should he be charged for that? (Answer: no, we are protected against that). The argument could be made that deciding to shoot outside was less risky than shooting inside since there were way more people inside than out.

The robbery in progress was obvious and I think he was within his rights to do what he did to protect himself and his property. The cost of the phone should be irrelevant because the cost of anything is relative to each individual. I'm a little disappointed with the responses in this thread.

[Keith B]

Disclaimer: I would not have done what he did...I would have pulled after I was hit, but I would not have pursued. I would have shot if the robber would have made any movement in my direction again after punching me (if I would have had that much time to decide that...I probably would have had to stop pulling the trigger mid-pull).

Police said the two were inside the store when the potential buyer snatched the phone and punched Kwan in the face.

I guess I'm going to be the lone dissenter here. Based solely on the info in the article, I don't think he should be charged. What if he shot inside Walmart instead of outside? He surely would have more people around and would have struck the building. What if he hit the robber with a shot inside the store and someone standing behind the robber was also hit (or if he missed inside and someone was hit)? Should he be charged for that? (Answer: no, we are protected against that). The argument could be made that deciding to shoot outside was less risky than shooting inside since there were way more people inside than out.

The robbery in progress was obvious and I think he was within his rights to do what he did to protect himself and his property. The cost of the phone should be irrelevant because the cost of anything is relative to each individual. I'm a little disappointed with the responses in this thread.

I'm not. To prevent the commission of the robbery, yes, I would have done it because of the physical bodily injury. After the robbery was over and he was high-tailing it away, no. Doesn't matter what physical item he stole and the value.

[03Lightningrocks]

Disclaimer: I would not have done what he did...I would have pulled after I was hit, but I would not have pursued. I would have shot if the robber would have made any movement in my direction again after punching me (if I would have had that much time to decide that...I probably would have had to stop pulling the trigger mid-pull).

Police said the two were inside the store when the potential buyer snatched the phone and punched Kwan in the face.

I guess I'm going to be the lone dissenter here. Based solely on the info in the article, I don't think he should be charged. What if he shot inside Walmart instead of outside? He surely would have more people around and would have struck the building. What if he hit the robber with a shot inside the store and someone standing behind the robber was also hit (or if he missed inside and someone was hit)? Should he be charged for that? (Answer: no, we are protected against that). The argument could be made that deciding to shoot outside was less risky than shooting inside since there were way more people inside than out.

The robbery in progress was obvious and I think he was within his rights to do what he did to protect himself and his property. The cost of the phone should be irrelevant because the cost of anything is relative to each individual. I'm a little disappointed with the responses in this thread.

If a guy punches you and runs, he is no longer a threat. At this point you are no longer shooting in self defense.

Your disappointment is a bit displaced in this situation. It is the wreck less endangerment part of this situation everyone has the problem with. Recovering a cell phone is not a good reason to risk the lives of innocent bystanders.

[Superman]

I'm not. To prevent the commission of the robbery, yes, I would have done it because of the physical bodily injury. After the robbery was over and he was high-tailing it away, no. Doesn't matter what physical item he stole and the value.

I'm disappointed because, like most people in this thread, I'm more conservative in what actions I would take vs what the law allows...but I recognize and respect the rights of others to decide what to do when they are acting within what that law allows. I definitely don't want to be in the same position of acting within the law, only to be charged because the majority of people would not have acted that way as Monday quarterbacks.

And the robbery was not over, even if the robber was running away.

[Superman]

If a guy punches you and runs, he is no longer a threat..

You are assuming a lot when you state "he is no longer a threat." How does one come to that conclusion? Is it how far away he runs after hitting me or the time elapsed since he hit me? Is it if he runs around a corner...or three corners? Or is it if he says "uncle"? If I'm a victim of the "knockout game," are you suggesting I can't do anything because it's just one punch and then they run?