Houston McDonald's CHL robbed but shoots well

[philip964]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/homic ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This was at a McDonald's I was at just six hours earlier. Armed CHL returning a movie at the redbox at night. Three men drive up in a car. Two get out and rob him at gun point. Waits till the men get in his car to steal it, and then draws and shoots killing the driver and wounding the passenger.

Very effective strategy, not drawing while he is covered by the BG's gun, waiting until the robbers are preoccupied with taking his car.

[texanjoker]

I think we need need a map APP to show where all these Houston incidents are as it seems we read about them a LOT.... I don't want to go to those areas.

[Seabear]

What pistol is that ? Looks like the LEO can't figure it out.

[gthaustex]

Another spectacular failure in the victim selection process.

[92f-fan]

Since they were driving away and no longer pointing guns at him .... Still legal to kill them ?

[Keith B]

Since they were driving away and no longer pointing guns at him .... Still legal to kill them ?

Still legal to use deadly force to stop them. We don't have the right to kill anyone.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

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

[MoJo]

Since they were driving away and no longer pointing guns at him .... Still legal to kill them ?

Not ever legal to "KILL" we use deadly force to stop. The use of force is justified to recover stolen property if it's during "hot pursuit." In other words,the bad guys are attempting to drive off with your car, and you shoot at them. Not if you see them driving your car two days later.

There are other caveats to this, but that's the gist of it.

[C-dub]

I think we need need a map APP to show where all these Houston incidents are as it seems we read about them a LOT.... I don't want to go to those areas.

Just avoid the entire Houston area.

[Robert*PPS]

It's the "cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" that concerns me about defending property with deadly force. Of course, if that use of force results in a homicide, then there will be a grand jury for sure.

[Dave2]

Since they were driving away and no longer pointing guns at him ....

I'd assume they were only driving "away" so they could line up for the strafing run. Seems like "leave no witnesses" is the motto these days.

[Tic Tac]

I'm sure they were good kids who just went out for a snack and would never hurt a fly, no matter whose son they look like.

[jerry_r60]

I watched the video and heard a comment from the police that was a little disturbing. They said the robber checked the guys left pocket for his cell phone but didn't check his right pocket, where he had his gun. Things may have gone differently if they have felt something in his other pocket and then started trying to get it out. This makes for a a scenario to think about a bit.

[Dave2]

I watched the video and heard a comment from the police that was a little disturbing. They said the robber checked the guys left pocket for his cell phone but didn't check his right pocket, where he had his gun. Things may have gone differently if they have felt something in his other pocket and then started trying to get it out. This makes for a a scenario to think about a bit.

Yeah, I caught that, too. I guess the lesson is place your wallet and cell phone such that they'll be found before your gun? I don't know, that's a tough one...

[CHLLady]

Score 3 for the good guys. Maybe this will put bad guys on notice or will this change their tactics and just cause them to eliminate all threats?

I feel bad, but I did laugh at some of the comments on the article. Someone said something about a lead mcmuffin.

[MasterOfNone]

It's the "cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" that concerns me about defending property with deadly force. Of course, if that use of force results in a homicide, then there will be a grand jury for sure.

I'm sure the recovery rates for stolen property would support the belief that the property will not be recovered if not stopped at the time. Also, note that the requirement is (A) OR "(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." I would say (B) fits in this case.

I also like this line:

Police said the man who was robbed told them he is a Concealed Handgun License carrier.

Do they take his word for it, or did they verify it?