It's coming right for us!!!
Posted on 05/09/2009 5:36:40 AM PDT by marktwain
I would have shot a hole in the radiator and not the tires.
To much risk of a ricochet.
Police have a justified, lawful responsibility to use deadly force in certain situations. If a criminal makes an attempt to use a weapon or an item as a weapon (including the hands, head, feet, etc.) to kill the officer and/or an innocent civilian, then deadly force is, by law, justified. In that event, an innocent bystander may be injured or killed. It can NOT be argued, in the case of police officers, that deadly force should not be used because of that risk. It is simply part of life, though sad, that someone who was not targeted may get hurt.
Anyone making the argument that law enforcement should not use deadly force because someone unintended may get hurt complete eviscerates the concept of justice. When people do wrong things, they affect many people around them. A drunk may drive and have a wreck. In doing so, (s)he can injure or kill innocents. The shoplifters could have hit someone with the objects they were throwing out of the car, injuring or killing someone. So, when people are doing wrong things and affecting or potentially affecting people around them they must be stopped and in that process someone may also be injured or killed. This, by law, would include action taken by a CHL permit holder. That is the nature of life.
For someone to argue that action should not be taken, they are then responsible (in my mind) for the potential harm or death of innocent civilians because the perpetrator was not caught or killed and will continue that activity and through lack of punishment encourage others to do the same. In that light, I would not only prosecute the lawbreaker, but anyone who advocated the lawbreaker should not have been apprehended or killed. If you're arguing that point, that means YOU or any lawyer who would dare take such a position (without apology).
Read my long post above. Same applies to you.
Not in Texas. The citizen was facing assault with a deadly weapon (the vehicle). Under that scenario, he had a legal right to shoot (at least) the driver (wielder of the deadly weapon) in order to eliminate the threat to his life.
Can't say I agree with his taking a shot at the tire(s); no telling where a ricochet off the pavement could have wound up. The driver's carcass would have stood a better chance of stopping the bullet's flight...
I’ve been carrying concealed for about 15 years and no way I would shoot out someone’s tire like that. Not a smart move at all in my opinion. I wouldn’t shoot a shoplifter anyway, that is a bit absurd. If someone robbed a store and I came upon the scene and had a weapon pointed at me then you can bet you are going down, but just stumbling across a simple robbery is not a reason to take a life. As a general rule a concealed permit allows for use of a firearm if your life is in danger. I don’t see witnessing shoplifters as grave danger and there is no mention of the robbers having a gun. Then the guy follows them? For what reason? He escaped the supposed dangerous situation then chases them down? Doesn’t sound too mentally stable to me. If some d-bag shoots and kills your dog- then by all means chase them down and do what ya gotta do...but shoplifters?
If your life is in danger by a vehicle would you even have time to draw and fire as well as jump out of the way all at the same time? It would be far more important to get out of the way (get off the X) than it would be to fire a shot.
A concealed permit is for your own safety, not a permit to play junior cop.
I’m amazed he didn’t get in trouble.
A clarification: in Texas, theft is unlawful appropriation with intent to deprive the owner of property. Burglary is unlawful entry into real property, either committing a theft or intending to do so.
Robbery is committing a theft either with threat of, or actual bodily injury. It's upgraded to aggravated robbery if deadly force is used (or threatened).
In Texas, deadly force is force that is known or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury. Case law has established that blows about the head, neck, and spine meet this criteria.
This shoplifting case was simple theft, until the perpetrators allegedly tried to run over the CHL holder with a vehicle. That's what escalated it to (probably aggravated) robbery, which is a first degree felony.
Having said all this, I agree with you: I wouldn't have pursued the perpetrators over shoplifting. And I wouldn't get involved in a simple robbery, either. If the perpetrator got what he wanted and departed quickly, I'd watch carefully from behind cover and be a good witness, but do nothing else.
However, If the perpetrator started shooting or doing something that I thought would escalate into shooting, all bets would be off.
And you are stating that this armed citizen is a law enforcement officer? Where exactly do you make that leap?
I read the story a little differently. While it's true that the vehicle was fleeing the scene of the robbery, in doing so, it was coming directly at the shooter. That's how he took out a front tire rather than a rear one.
No. But presented with an opportunity to stop the crime, the law in Texas says a CHL permit holder can do so. You are entitled to believe what you wish as am I. I’m just not in to negotiating or compromising with folks any more. And, I don’t want to get into it here. You have the right to ignore my post. Have a nice day.
Every once in awhile, Texas lives up to it’s reputation.
There’s an Old West saying. We don’t hang horse thieves for stealing horses. We hang horse thieves so others won’t steal horses.
Good shooting, Tex.
Agree...Opening up in a supermarket parking lot at moving vehicle, over petty theft is pretty dumb. At least the shooter said, "Hey they tried to run me over" in an attempt to justify his stupid actions.
It's coming right for us!!!
Of course not, who would ? The point is, we do not get to choose, do we ? The risks are there whether we acknowledge them or not, whether we try to eliminate them by over-controlling other people's behavior, or whatever; we accept risks of all types simply by living.
Very stringent concealed carry laws, enforced with rigidity, would reduce some risks; but increase others. Some would be known, some unknown.
I’m starting to learn that if I need to know something about firearms, the last person I would contact is someone who lives in California.
That’s because the only people that have ever used a gun in California are crooks, cops, and the military.
I hear this argument a lot in discussions about an armed citizenry.
Are there any studies that you could point me to that have documented actual instances where the actions of a CCW holder who uses his/her weapon in such instances cause his/her injury or death?
I mean, I read a number of articles about the benefits of CCW holders in terms of stopping crime, but I have yet to see anything in writing actually detailing any harm they cause.
You might want to read the story again - the person who called 911 reported that the driver had tried to run the guy down. That wasn't just something that he made up.
This kind of thing happens 5,000 times a day, with people calling in, parroting what they "heard."
For all you know, the 911 caller could have been the shooters brother.
Ya see what I mean Bob?
Why would anyone think the guy opening up in a supermarket parking lot was an undercover cop?
I'll tell ya why Bob, it's because many times when people call 911, they are just parroting what they heard occurred, and are just passing on bad information.
You should first learn to read more carefully.
I wasn't commenting on the firearm, but the reported incident. To prove my point, see #58 and #59.
Oh and by the way, there are probably 5 times the amount of small arms in Cal, than in Texas, regardless of how stupid some of your gun owners are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.