Police: Store Worker Shoots, Kills Robber (TX)

NBC5i ^ | April 25, 2007 | Staff

[DaveLoneRanger]

Police said a store worker shot and killed a robber in Fort Worth, NBC 5 reported.

Police said the shooting happened at about 9:20 p.m. at the Fabulous Urban and Sportswear on Mansfield Highway.

The store owner told police his nephew was working in the store when he was confronted by two armed robbers.

Police said one robber was shot and killed after he put a gun to the clerk's head.

The other robber was arrested, police said.

[DaveLoneRanger]

More on this story from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

[DaveLoneRanger]

(((Armed Citizen ping)))



You are being pinged because of your interest in every-day citizens using firearms to save life and limb.
Add me! / Remove me

Visit the Armed Citizen Archives!

[GeorgiaDawg32]

**sniff**..I love a happy ending

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Police said one robber was shot and killed after he put a gun to the clerk's head.

Was he shot WHILE he had the gun to the clerk's head?

[Teacher317]

Katie Couric will be on this story just as soon as she can fit it in her newscast!

[Quick or Dead]

The Second Amendment saves the day.

[Red Badger]

...Fabulous Urban and Sportswear

A gay, black clothing store?.........

[Abathar]

Hmmm, good question. Nothing like those involuntary muscle reactions to kick in, that could have ruined his whole day.

[DaveLoneRanger]

Is that before or after her “Good News From Iraq” section?

[makoman]

The Second Amendment saves the day.

Roger That!

[CottShop]

Imagine the criminal sitting in Hell right after the shooting probably thinking ‘Whoops- that didn’t go so well.”

[basil]

I would love to read the rest of the story, but your link doesn’t load for me.

[DaveLoneRanger]

Just tried it, and it works for me...

Try going to the civilian gun defense blog and accessing it from there:

http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2007_04_01_archive.html#8451530908846950545

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Just fabulous...

[BearCub]

Police said one robber was shot and killed after he put a gun to the clerk's head. The other robber was arrested, police said.

...and because of a somewhat questionable interpretation of Texas law, the surviving robber can be charged with the death of the robber who was killed.

I don't really agree with it but I've seen it happen.

[nothingnew]

Police said one robber was shot and killed after he put a gun to the clerk's head.

Umph!...Cool, calm and deadly. Excellent.

FMCDH(BITS)

[Dumpster Baby]

A gay, black clothing store?.........

[Red Badger]

.....The girls go crazy for a sharp dressed man!..........ZZ Top.....

[dashing doofus]

Imagine that. The store owner’s did not call 911 and wait for help to arrive.

Rudy Giuliani must be outraged.

[arbooz]

Hate! Hate! Hate!.....

[rbosque]

I’m sure this will be at the top of the news this evening.

[arbooz]

ping.

[Dumpster Baby]

[AngelesCrestHighway]

What is that?...A beaver with a bow tie?

[basil]

Thanks Dave! It may be a Mac thing—I never know for sure when something won’t open for me. I am interested in the details because it in in Ft Worth—not too far where my son and his family live.

[stevie_d_64]

Ahahahahaahhahhaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaahhahaahaaaaaaaa!!!!

Hah!

Faaaaaabulous post!

[Lancey Howard]

[river rat]

Now, THAT’S the kind of Gun Control I can respect....

Could have been improved, if BOTH perps had been killed...

Semper Fi

[epow]

...and because of a somewhat questionable interpretation of Texas law, the surviving robber can be charged with the death of the robber who was killed

Several other states have that same kind of law, FL for one. If you're involved in the commission of a crime and anyone is killed during the commission of that crime you are charged with murder. Good law IMHO.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Now, THAT’S the kind of Gun Control I can respect....”

Amen, brother!

[ExSoldier]

Was he shot WHILE he had the gun to the clerk's head?

I opened the link and the story isn't too clear on this point. It almost appears as if the bad guy (BG) who was shot put his weapon to the clerk's head AFTER he was wounded. If this is the case, it only goes to show that one should continue to fire until the threat has been neutralized! According to the story, the BG shot was hit in the chest and the leg. Maybe this is a caliber issue. Hit in the chest with a 22 or a 25 doesn't translate to the effects of hit in the chest with a 357 Sig or 45 ACP.

[G S Patton]

Happy roasting, Mr. Perp!

Good riddance!

[BearCub]

Several other states have that same kind of law, FL for one. If you're involved in the commission of a crime and anyone is killed during the commission of that crime you are charged with murder. Good law IMHO.

Lousy law - insofar as it includes a co-criminal. I agree if victims, police or innocent people are killed, but not if a criminal partner is killed. The criminal partner's death was a justifiable homicide - justified by his own actions. Nobody should be criminally responsible for his death, including the surviving robber.

[El Gato]

Was he shot WHILE he had the gun to the clerk's head?

Both stories certainly read that way. Maybe the robber's POS TEC-9 jammed, while the clerk's gun did not.

[El Gato]

...and because of a somewhat questionable interpretation of Texas law, the surviving robber can be charged with the death of the robber who was killed. I don't really agree with it but I've seen it happen.

It's not just in Texas. Almost everywhere an accessory to a crime in which someone is killed, victim or another perp, can be charged with murder or a lessor crime such as voluntary manslaughter. Happens all the time.

I don't have a problem with it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I don't really agree with it but I've seen it happen.

Anyone who chooses to conspire with others to commit a violent crime is an equal partner with those others in the results and consequences of that crime.

What's to disagree with?

[jdontom]

I think might be a video of the shooting...........

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c0_1177675041

[US_MilitaryRules]

cool! I love gun control!

[BearCub]

What's to disagree with?

See my #33.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The criminal partner's death was a justifiable homicide - justified by his own actions. Nobody should be criminally responsible for his death, including the surviving robber.

Justifiable on the part of the intended victim only.

The death would not have occurred without the criminal conspiracy.

Participants in criminal conspiracies should be held responsible for the results and consequences of their criminal conspiracy.

If one of those results is the death of a conspirator, are you saying that's an accidental death for which no one should be held responsible?

That's the only interpretation that let's any co-conspirators off the hook.

[BearCub]

If one of those results is the death of a conspirator, are you saying that's an accidental death for which no one should be held responsible? That's the only interpretation that let's any co-conspirators off the hook.

I'm saying that the death of a conspirator is the fault and responsibility of the conspirator that died.

results and consequences of their criminal conspiracy

The result of the criminal conspiracy is that the intended victim justifiably killed his attacker. A criminal that deserved it is dead. There is no crime here that's worth punishing.

The other co-conspirators aren't off the hook at all - they go down for aggravated robbery.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I'm saying that the death of a conspirator is the fault and responsibility of the conspirator that died.

Let me get this straight:

1. When a victim of a criminal conspiracy is killed during the planned criminal activity, all conspirators are equally responsible for that death.

2. When a participant in a criminal conspiracy is killed during the planned criminal activity, nobody is responsible for that death because it was just an accident.

Does that about sum it up?

[BearCub]

Does that about sum it up?

Not exactly. I agree with #1. On #2, I don't think the participant's death is an accident, it's just not a crime.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Not exactly. I agree with #1. On #2, I don't think the participant's death is an accident, it's just not a crime.

It's either an accident or a crime. There is no other option.

You can't have it both ways. Either criminal conspirators are responsible for deaths that occur during the commission of their crime, or they aren't.

[BearCub]

It's either an accident or a crime. There is no other option.

Of course there is another option: A non-accident that isn't a crime.

You can't have it both ways. Either criminal conspirators are responsible for deaths that occur during the commission of their crime, or they aren't.

I'm saying that criminals should be jointly responsible for the deaths of victims or other non-involved innocents, but not criminally responsible for casualties among their number. It's just my opinion on the matter - I realize it runs contrary to what most states do.

If two guys rob a convenience store and one pulls a gun and the other presents no threat, the clerk is only justified in shooting the one that pulled the gun. He can't just blow them both away and say they both presented a deadly threat because one of them had a gun.

So... The one that got killed was killed because of his own actions, not those of his partner.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If two guys rob a convenience store and one pulls a gun and the other presents no threat, the clerk is only justified in shooting the one that pulled the gun. He can't just blow them both away and say they both presented a deadly threat because one of them had a gun.

I never heard of that law. I'll bet you can't come up with a documented case like that either.

If two guys walk into a liquor store and one of them pulls a gun on the clerk, how is the clerk supposed to know that the other guy doesn't have a gun? Is he supposed to wait until the second perp shoots him?

Once the shooting starts, all the perps are in the same shooting gallery. They made their choice when they decided to participate in an armed robbery.