Burglary Suspect Shot in Houston Office by Employee

[Aggie_engr]

This guy was allegedly found rummaging through a woman's office stealing things and her husband confronted him, a struggle ensued, despite the husband warning the perp that he had a concealed weapon, and husband opens fire hitting perp in the stomach. Wonder what type of business environment this Fleetwood Claim Service has regarding firearms? No mention of charges or being fired for carrying at work. http://www.khou.com/news/local/Man-shot ... 94593.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Investigators said Gary Jones warned the suspect he had a concealed weapon, but the suspect continued to struggle with him. Police said he then pulled out his handgun and shot the suspect in the stomach.

The suspect was taken to the hospital in unknown condition.

[Beiruty]

A CHLer, is he on this forum?
Nonetheless, the shooting is justified, the wound was described as "through and through", shooting FMJ? Why not HP?

[Pawpaw]

This guy was allegedly found rummaging through a woman's office stealing things and her husband confronted him, a struggle ensued, despite the husband warning the perp that he had a concealed weapon, and husband opens fire hitting perp in the stomach. Wonder what type of business environment this Fleetwood Claim Service has regarding firearms? No mention of charges or being fired for carrying at work. http://www.khou.com/news/local/Man-shot ... 94593.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Investigators said Gary Jones warned the suspect he had a concealed weapon, but the suspect continued to struggle with him. Police said he then pulled out his handgun and shot the suspect in the stomach.

The suspect was taken to the hospital in unknown condition.

I'm going to guess it's pretty good...

Police said the man was going office to office on the fourth floor, looking for things to steal, when business-owner Sherri Jones found him rummaging through her purse. Jones confronted him, but she said the suspect threatened her. That’s when her husband intervened.

[Aggie_engr]

After watching the video in the updated link I would have to agree with you Pawpaw. The initial story didn't have a video with it.

[baldeagle]

A CHLer, is he on this forum?
Nonetheless, the shooting is justified, the wound was described as "through and through", shooting FMJ? Why not HP?

A HP could be a through and through on an abdominal shot from close range. There's not really anything substantial in the way to slow the bullet's progress.

[Aggie_engr]

I have a handgun and I don't want to pull it on you...

So much for issuing warnings to deter a threat.

[PhillRoath]

KHOU had the story last night at 10 and it was pretty good. Very positice with the station lawyer (Triest?) saying he was justified on three counts, self defense, defense of a third person, and a crime was being committed. One of the employees on video said (with a big smile), "Thank God for CHL."

At the end of the story the reporter did state that persons can carry in a place of work with the owners permission, but that if the owner did not give permission then they can leave their gun locked in the car in the parking lot. That last part is not quite true, but perhaps will be by the end of this current legislative session.

Phill

[surprise_i'm_armed]

One of the employees on video said (with a big smile), "Thank God for CHL."

The way he said this so gleefully, and using the correct name for our license, indicates to me that
the witness also has a CHL. This is opinion on my part, obviously.

SIA

[b322da]

I have a handgun and I don't want to pull it on you...

So much for issuing warnings to deter a threat.

If this is a suggestion, and I trust it is not, to use deadly force as the first option, without attempting to stop the threat with less than deadly force (if it is appropriate to try, under the circumstances) I must disagree quite strongly, as would, I suspect, LEOs, DAs and judges knowledgeable on Texas law on the use of deadly force, and also as would a well-instructed jury.

Elmo

[b322da]

A CHLer, is he on this forum?
Nonetheless, the shooting is justified, the wound was described as "through and through", shooting FMJ? Why not HP?

Does it really matter, so far as this case is concerned? Is there a regret expressed here that the wound, as of last report, was not deadly? Was not the threat eliminated without killing a human being? Isn't that the objective here?

Elmo

[Beiruty]

A CHLer, is he on this forum?
Nonetheless, the shooting is justified, the wound was described as "through and through", shooting FMJ? Why not HP?

Does it really matter, so far as this case is concerned? Is there a regret expressed here that the wound, as of last report, was not deadly? Was not the threat eliminated without killing a human being? Isn't that the objective here?

Elmo

Not not that, the concern was the bullet would hit his wife or some one in another office.

[b322da]

A CHLer, is he on this forum?
Nonetheless, the shooting is justified, the wound was described as "through and through", shooting FMJ? Why not HP?

Does it really matter, so far as this case is concerned? Is there a regret expressed here that the wound, as of last report, was not deadly? Was not the threat eliminated without killing a human being? Isn't that the objective here?

Elmo

Not not that, the concern was the bullet would hit his wife or some one in another office.

A quite valid concern, Beiruty. MY BAD.

Elmo

[cbunt1]

At the end of the story the reporter did state that persons can carry in a place of work with the owners permission, but that if the owner did not give permission then they can leave their gun locked in the car in the parking lot. That last part is not quite true, but perhaps will be by the end of this current legislative session.

Phill

Actually it's 100% true today...persons can carry in a place of work UNLESS PROHIBITED, and they can leave their gun locked in the parking lot UNLESS PROHIBITED...

Splitting hairs, I know, but these reporters make their livings with words...of course I subscribe to the theory that anything's legal that isn't specifically illegal.