TexasCHLforum.com

So this happened outside Academy while I was there during my lunch break

http://abc13.com/news/shots-fired-at-sp ... s/1304645/

When I was walking out people were saying something about shop lifting and the LEOs had a guy handcuffed against the wall that doesn't meet the description of the shop lifters. After reading this brief I assume it might be the LTC holder they had.

I hate when I stereo type but I can't say I would have thought the guy in cuffs had an LTC.

Far too little info to comment on the incident itself. However, I counted a minimum of 9 police vehicles in the parking lot responding to this incident and at least as many officers. There could have been more not visible in the aerial shot. Does any one but me wonder why it would necessitate that many of the area's law enforcement being pulled out of action to handle this. Before anyone thinks I'm anti police - I'm not and am in fact a big supporter of LEO's. I just can't imagine why it would take this many to handle it.

I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

From the ABC story, A civilian concealed handgun license-holder opened fire, shooting out of the tires.

I would not have attempted this from a moving vehicle. Being inside the tires would make me too dizzy to shoot accurately.

puma guy wrote:Far too little info to comment on the incident itself. However, I counted a minimum of 9 police vehicles in the parking lot responding to this incident and at least as many officers. There could have been more not visible in the aerial shot. Does any one but me wonder why it would necessitate that many of the area's law enforcement being pulled out of action to handle this. Before anyone thinks I'm anti police - I'm not and am in fact a big supporter of LEO's. I just can't imagine why it would take this many to handle it.

With all of the notoriety surrounding an active shooter situations, all hands respond. No one really knows what is going on until it all sorted out, so its better to have a lot of LEOs and not need them than to have too few and need more.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

puma guy wrote:Far too little info to comment on the incident itself. However, I counted a minimum of 9 police vehicles in the parking lot responding to this incident and at least as many officers. There could have been more not visible in the aerial shot. Does any one but me wonder why it would necessitate that many of the area's law enforcement being pulled out of action to handle this. Before anyone thinks I'm anti police - I'm not and am in fact a big supporter of LEO's. I just can't imagine why it would take this many to handle it.

Typically, if the words "shots fired" are included in the 911 call, there will be a pretty big police response. At least that has been my experience. One of our current or former LEO friends here on the forum may be able to shed a little more light on the reasons behind this.

ETA: Jusme beat me too it, but yeah.

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

LucasMcCain wrote:

puma guy wrote:Far too little info to comment on the incident itself. However, I counted a minimum of 9 police vehicles in the parking lot responding to this incident and at least as many officers. There could have been more not visible in the aerial shot. Does any one but me wonder why it would necessitate that many of the area's law enforcement being pulled out of action to handle this. Before anyone thinks I'm anti police - I'm not and am in fact a big supporter of LEO's. I just can't imagine why it would take this many to handle it.

Typically, if the words "shots fired" are included in the 911 call, there will be a pretty big police response. At least that has been my experience. One of our current or former LEO friends here on the forum may be able to shed a little more light on the reasons behind this.

ETA: Jusme beat me too it, but yeah.

LEOs are just crazy, who else would drive as fast as possible to get to where there is live gunfire?

No it is just a common practice that shots fired calls get highest priority. Everything else gets put on hold. and the radio channels are usually locked for all calls not pertaining to that call. Usually all available agencies will respond, Local PD, County Sheriff, State Troopers, and I have even seen Game Wardens.

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

I highly doubt the vehicle was coming at the shooter when he managed to shoot out the tires. Let's see, a vehicle is driving at me (attempting to run me over) and I decide to lie down and shoot at the tires (only position he could have gotten a shot on target), instead of jumping out of the way? And this causes the vehicle to stop before it runs me over anyway? Let me just say that I find your hypothetical to be extremely unlikely.

If the shooter was just a bystander, then he made a decision I would never make. Let's let the facts come out. Maybe the BG's had carjacked the shooters vehicle with his baby inside or something...

treadlightly wrote:From the ABC story, A civilian concealed handgun license-holder opened fire, shooting out of the tires.

I would not have attempted this from a moving vehicle. Being inside the tires would make me too dizzy to shoot accurately.

ayyyy

GlockBrandGlock wrote:

treadlightly wrote:From the ABC story, A civilian concealed handgun license-holder opened fire, shooting out of the tires.

I would not have attempted this from a moving vehicle. Being inside the tires would make me too dizzy to shoot accurately.

ayyyy

And I will say that if the guy really was inside the tires then shooting makes more sense. He could probably take out two tires with one shot from that position. Of course then the tires deflate and he gets crushed, so probably not a great situation regardless.

Bottom line - try to stay out of tires in the first place.

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

casp625 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm reminded of an old saying. "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

Employees chasing shoplifters while they are in a moving vehicle = dumb, and likely against company policy. Civilian deciding to get involved by using deadly force =

This reminds me of the recent story about the Mc Donalds manager who decided to block a car in because a kid stole a small cup of soda. Common sense ain't all that common, I guess.

Why? Story states shoplifters were ramming vehicles as they were driving off. It's possible they tried to run him over while he was in the parking lot and he shot out the tires instead of shooting at the driver and hitting bystanders. Too little information reported at this time to draw conclusions.

To shoot out the tires, you almost have to be to the side of the vehicle. That means you're not in danger of being run over.

Or you jumped off to the side before allowing yourself to be hit. They should clarify the story, but I'm sure surveillance will show he was probably just a bystander himself.

If you jumped off to the side, you are no longer under threat and no longer have justification for using deadly force.

Are we assuming that he wasn't specifically targeted? The story doesn't say one way or the other so we are led to believe it was a simple case of shoplifting, but based on what was reported, we can make up unlimited scenarios. However, if one was attempting to intentionally run another over and that person opened fire, it would appear they were protecting oneself against the attempted use of unlawful deadly force. If only that was legal...

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;