Houston McDonald's CHL robbed but shoots well

[cb1000rider]

It is not pleasant to go through a shooting investigation and lawsuit. Much better to avoid if possible.

I didn't want to be the first person to say it.. I say enough not-in-line stuff here.
I wouldn't have shot - not because I feel bad for the bad guys but because what was taken out of my pocket isn't going to equal my *very likely* legal fees.
Glad to see that the LEOs didn't arrest him and followed the law here.

[jmra]

If I am robbed of wallet and truck:

1. Insurance will likely only pay current value rather than replacement. Not the same as getting a new one.
2. I have other stuff in my truck that I would prefer not to lose.
3. I would need to replace my DL and CHL and credit cards and ATM card.
4. I would also need to cancel my credit cards and prepare to be a victim of identity theft.

I am sure there are more. Just pointing out there is a heck of a lot more to dealing with theft than just calling your insurance agent.

but not nearly the aggregation this guy will end up going through.

[longhorn86]

Just avoid the entire Houston area.

+1

[jmra]

Just avoid the entire Houston area.

+1

+2

[Purplehood]

The law allowing you to use Deadly Force does not REQUIRE you to use it.

Only the individual standing there in the guys own shoes, experiencing what he experienced can truly know if it was appropriate for HIM to go ahead and shoot.

In this case I feel that the shoot was justified...but I also believe that I would have supported him if he had decided not to shoot.

[jmra]

The law allowing you to use Deadly Force does not REQUIRE you to use it.

Only the individual standing there in the guys own shoes, experiencing what he experienced can truly know if it was appropriate for HIM to go ahead and shoot.

In this case I feel that the shoot was justified...but I also believe that I would have supported him if he had decided not to shoot.

[baldeagle]

This was an ARMED robbery. So long as the robbers were within shooting distance, the victim's life was in mortal danger. That's more than enough justification for shooting.

[Robert*PPS]

I believe the shoot is justified under the law, and I don't question whether the decision to shoot was right or wrong. With that being said, I completely agree with jmra in that I believe that I would not have taken the shot if they were fleeing. It's not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of what the individual deems the use of deadly force to be worth the ensuing legal difficulties.

As for good men doing nothing....I would argue that, in this case, calling the authorities and helping put these criminals behind bars is "something".

[cb1000rider]

This was an ARMED robbery. So long as the robbers were within shooting distance, the victim's life was in mortal danger. That's more than enough justification for shooting.

OK, lets say for a second that they attempted the robbery, but he didn't have his wallet or any other property. You're saying that as they are walking away, his life is still in danger and it justifies the use of deadly force.

I'm not sure that I agree... And I'm more sure that you're not going to get consistent agreement out of the LEO, prosecutor, and a jury...

In this case it was justified (legally) because the bad guys had property. If they didn't have property and were walking away - what's the legal justification?

[rotor]

Maybe we ought to look here viewtopic.php?f=108&t=68648" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to see what the result in a Houston Denny's can be versus a Houston McDonalds. Maybe there was a CHL in Denny's that just didn't want to get involved.

[G26ster]

There are two issues here and they are being lumped together, when IMHO they should not be. First is, "is it legal to shoot." Obviously the law is clear that you can, but you still risk $$$$ and time if a prosecutor decides to go after you. The second is, "should you shoot." That is a moral decision on the part of the individual. Two camps on that. Those that would and those that would not. I'm in the latter camp unless I feel I am at grave risk of death or serious injury, and only firing my handgun will save me. Only the individual in this case knows why he decided to shoot.

[bdickens]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

I think it is really sad that so many "good men" don't want to be inconvenienced by the ramifications of standing up for what is right.

[baldeagle]

If you're confronted by a BG with a gun, how can you possibly know if he's going to use that gun on you until he's out of sight. You can't. By not drawing and firing, you are assuming that he's going to be a GG and not shoot you. Isn't that a pretty faulty assumption given that he's already proven he's a BG? If someone confronts me with a gun and I have the opportunity, I'm shooting. I'm not going to give him the leeway to decide to turn around and shoot me as he walks away.

I think the thing people are missing here is the level of danger. Because you are a GG you assume everyone thinks that way. They don't. Assuming they do can get you shot, even killed. Is it worth risking your life to assume the BG is actually leaving and won't turn around and shoot you? I'd rather be in court defending myself for having shot a BG than in the hospital or the morgue because I thought he was leaving and wouldn't use the gun I already know he has to shoot me.

[n5wd]

Here's one other thing to consider, for those of us who think that the hassles of shooting would outweigh the decision not to shoot:

The BG's had the guy's wallet (and his ID, drivers license, which shows his address), and his car keys (which almost certainly had his house/apartment keys attached), and the GG was now a pedestrian so he could not secure his residence against folks who not only had the means, but probably the ability to burglar his house after robbing him at gunpoint.

That much is a fact - here comes the What If's:

Who's back at the house? Wife, child, multiple children? What kinds of things would a guy have in a house that the BG's could get quickly (remember, they now know where he lives and have his keys)?

In this case, it's not just immediate effects that should be considered. Did this enter into his mind when he made the completely legal decision to shoot? Who knows, but I do know that it's one of the things I would be thinking about were I in his position.

Final point: jmra, if I remember correctly, you're not really a fan of the CHL insurance schemes... well, the reason I pay the [Pre-paid legal service] insurance is to help take care of some of the 'hassles' in case I ever have to use a firearm to defend myself or others. Nuff said.

[jmra]

Final point: jmra, (IIRC)... the reason I pay the [Pre-paid legal service] insurance is to help take care of some of the 'hassles' in case I ever have to use a firearm to defend myself or others. Nuff said.

I hope you never have to use it. I for one am not putting my future in the hands of these people.