Kvetch said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Fear of imprisonment should be a sufficient deterrent for property crimes. It's inexcusable that big cities are not enforcing laws.

However, you're ignoring the legal, monetary and emotional consequences for the shooter should they choose to use deadly force against someone who took something from them.

To clarify, this was absolutely a good shoot. There is clearly a threat to the persons in the restaurant. Keep the justification there.

---

Hate to break it to you, but prison is not an adequate deterrent. I'm so sick of the bleeding hearts saying "think of the situation of the criminal!" How about you think about the victims. I care about the people who wake up in the morning and don't decide to stick a pistol in the face of others to obtain their worldly belongings.

You can mourn the loss of life while also recognizing that they were hoist upon their own petard. They chose their fate. An armed society is a polite society, and every conceivable study proves that. Let's not act like the police catch every single one of these guy.

It's quite obvious you've never been robbed.

---

Separate issues. Prison not being an adequate deterrent is a failure of law enforcement and the justice system. Separate issue.

I'm not mourning a damn thing here. Look at the second post on this thread.

This scumbag decided his own fate and I won't shed a tear about him not stealing money or even oxygen from this world ever again.

This was a clear threat to life and completely justified. I was responding to a particular post and stating that risk of loss of property alone while legal is a poor choice of use of deadly force.

And yes. I have been robbed. It sucks.

This is going to be a hell of a legal battle for the Samaritan. It's a clean shoot I believe. I don't believe the robber was leaving or on the way out or at least I cannot ascertain that from the video. For me, as a daily carrier who'd feel ok about shooting someone for kicking my dog, I'd have to be in the situation to feel this out. The legal ramifications for the CHL guy are going to be considerable and, if I'm being honest, I'm not shooting if I am reasonably sure he is leaving or I have an escape route that allows me and my family to get out safely. If anyone else wants protection, I advise they carry their own weapon.

The guy was walking around pointing the gun at everybody so yes I think it is a justified shooting. Only an idiot would pull his gun while the criminal is pointing a gun at him from a few feet away. At that time you take whatever opportunity you have to defend yourself and others and if the guy turns from you and points the gun at somebody else then that is his problem not yours. If I am on the jury and see that video I am shaking the hand of the shooter and thanking him for his service.

I also want to comment on the look on the guys face sitting across from the CHL guy… "**** me, I'm gonna have to give a police statement in 3,2,…"

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

The guy was walking around pointing the gun at everybody so yes I think it is a justified shooting. Only an idiot would pull his gun while the criminal is pointing a gun at him from a few feet away. At that time you take whatever opportunity you have to defend yourself and others and if the guy turns from you and points the gun at somebody else then that is his problem not yours. If I am on the jury and see that video I am shaking the hand of the shooter and thanking him for his service.

---

You're not going to be in the jury and neither am I. We'll get weeded out early.

Did the shooter's wallet have BMF on it?

1872walker said:

---

Caliber said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Of he had just stolen from the victim, it was a good shoot btw. Reasonable belief property is being taken with no chance of recovery...

---

Regardless of legality, it's a horrible idea to shoot someone who is not a threat because of theft of property. It's just stuff. Not worth it.

---

Its not just theft of property when they have a gun...

Doesn't matter that it ended up being a fake gun. You have to presume anyone that is using a gun to forcibly take your stuff is prepare to use it.

Good Shoot.

---

Again, yes that may be legally justified but that alone would be a poor reason to shoot someone due to the ****storm you are putting yourself in after the fact.

---

Agreed. You are gambling with your life if you shoot someone over mere possessions (i.e. someone fumbling through your car at night). You are staking your life on having judge/jury that rules in your favor. Then there's the legal fees. Just not worth it.

1872walker said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Fear of imprisonment should be a sufficient deterrent for property crimes. It's inexcusable that big cities are not enforcing laws.

However, you're ignoring the legal, monetary and emotional consequences for the shooter should they choose to use deadly force against someone who took something from them.

To clarify, this was absolutely a good shoot. There is clearly a threat to the persons in the restaurant. Keep the justification there.

---

Hate to break it to you, but prison is not an adequate deterrent. I'm so sick of the bleeding hearts saying "think of the situation of the criminal!" How about you think about the victims. I care about the people who wake up in the morning and don't decide to stick a pistol in the face of others to obtain their worldly belongings.

You can mourn the loss of life while also recognizing that they were hoist upon their own petard. They chose their fate. An armed society is a polite society, and every conceivable study proves that. Let's not act like the police catch every single one of these guy.

It's quite obvious you've never been robbed.

---

Separate issues. Prison not being an adequate deterrent is a failure of law enforcement and the justice system. Separate issue.

I'm not mourning a damn thing here. Look at the second post on this thread.

This scumbag decided his own fate and I won't shed a tear about him not stealing money or even oxygen from this world ever again.

This was a clear threat to life and completely justified. I was responding to a particular post and stating that risk of loss of property alone while legal is a poor choice of use of deadly force.

And yes. I have been robbed. It sucks.

---

You're avoiding the fact that any meaningful attempt to steal property is an intrinsic threat to the life of another. Even if the property is currently vacated, what if the owner comes back in the process of the theft? Every robbery has an intrinsic threat of violence unless you're going to assume that the robber will just lay down and surrender if he's caught in the act, which you cannot do. Just like you cannot assume the guy with the gun won't pull the trigger. I shouldn't have the burden of waiting to see what the criminal will try to do when they've already proven themselves to be a criminal.

We're not talking about executing people who took a stick of gum from you. But if someone is willing to break into your home or your car with the intent of taking your property, you have every right to see that as a threat to your personal safety and use requisite force to protect yourself.

1872walker said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Of he had just stolen from the victim, it was a good shoot btw. Reasonable belief property is being taken with no chance of recovery...

---

Regardless of legality, it's a horrible idea to shoot someone who is not a threat because of theft of property. It's just stuff. Not worth it.

---

Nah. If more people got shot trying to steal property there'd be a lot less property theft.

Remember. I didn't decide your life was worth the cost of [insert property value], the thief made that decision for himself.

I didn't watch the video, but did the shooter or other victims retrieve their stolen goods from the deceased?

If not and they all ran out, that's your answer on whether it's a property crime(theft) or a violent terrorizing incident, that clearly justifies the shoot.

ShotOver said:

---

Not only is it ok, it's expected

---

It is never OK to harm anyone... It may be necessary to defend yourself or your family.

Go back and reread what you initially responded to.

1872walker said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Of he had just stolen from the victim, it was a good shoot btw. Reasonable belief property is being taken with no chance of recovery...

---

Regardless of legality, it's a horrible idea to shoot someone who is not a threat because of theft of property. It's just stuff. Not worth it.

---

My point is that while legal, shooting someone solely based upon the loss of property is a poor choice of use of deadly force. It may be justified, but the legal fees, time spent, and emotional toll you will pay for defending property are very likely not worth it.

You're reading far more into my statement than what is there. You're extrapolating to numerous scenarios that I did not address.

I was responding to a specific comment about the use of deadly force in defense of property. Once the threat of life becomes evident, the equation changes substantially.

Looks like another white hispanic perpetuating systemic racism in our country. Completely unacceptable.

CorpsTerd04 said:

---

He was pointing the gun at the guy in the corner he was not even close to leaving. That reporter should be fired.

---

That was my first thought. How the hell do you make that definitive statement based on that video? Looks like a legal shooting to me.

Yes, Wild Wild West, Baby!
And they didn't stick around to talk to no po po.

1872walker said:

---

Go back and reread what you initially responded to.

1872walker said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Of he had just stolen from the victim, it was a good shoot btw. Reasonable belief property is being taken with no chance of recovery...

---

Regardless of legality, it's a horrible idea to shoot someone who is not a threat because of theft of property. It's just stuff. Not worth it.

---

My point is that while legal, shooting someone solely based upon the loss of property is a poor choice of use of deadly force. It may be justified, but the legal fees, time spent, and emotional toll you will pay for defending property are very likely not worth it.

You're reading far more into my statement than what is there. You're extrapolating to numerous scenarios that I did not address.

I was responding to a specific comment about the use of deadly force in defense of property. Once the threat of life becomes evident, the equation changes substantially.

---

So I guess you take the chance of being shot dead instead? Nope, I've been the victim of a bank robbery, I'm not willing to take that chance again. I wish I had been armed that day.

rgag12 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If the robber was shot in the back (I don't know if that was the case but hypothetically) while trying to leave the store, exiting not threatening anyone…I would expect criminal charges to be filed against the shooter. We don't need folks walking around playing Judge Dredd.

If in that same hypothetical it was a cop doing the shooting, there would be repercussions for that officer.

If the shooter was legitimately in a situation where a reasonable person would conclude his or someone else's life was in danger, then okay.

---

Criminal has what appears to be a firearm out and threatening people. I don't know in what world that isn't a viable pretext to shoot.

---

In that still, Guy in the booth with shooter looks not even care what's going on. Not looking at the guy robbing the restaurant and not even looking at his friend about to blow the robber away.

MuchosPollos said:

---

Why didn't he just shoot the plastic gun out of his hands?

---

Dumbest thing anyone could ever do is commit a crime with a fake gun (especially in Texas).

Classic case of FAFO.

I would take that shot EVERY time.

As others have said, that was NOT a property crime. That was a very violent crime, and I would no bill the shooter based on the video alone.

MuchosPollos said:

---

Why didn't he just shoot the plastic gun out of his hands?

---

Exactly... this is what I was thinking.

Or at least try to aim for his ankle.

LOL they aren't going to try to peruse this or find that guy this is Houston crime doesn't get solved here ....Glad the robber was killed.

Definitely justified under the law. He was actively aiming his weapon at customers.

As to it being a "fake gun" - well, play stupid games win stupid prizes and all of that.

Looks like robber found out.

Decay said:

---

Armed robbers should die, or at a minimum get a hand cut off.

---

Head
Stick
Wap Wap

Was he shot for ending a sentence with a preposition?

1872walker said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Of he had just stolen from the victim, it was a good shoot btw. Reasonable belief property is being taken with no chance of recovery...

---

Regardless of legality, it's a horrible idea to shoot someone who is not a threat because of theft of property. It's just stuff. Not worth it.

---

The person valuing my property worth more than their life is the robber. Especially if he is waving a weapon in my face to take it.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If the robber was shot in the back (I don't know if that was the case but hypothetically) while trying to leave the store, exiting not threatening anyone…I would expect criminal charges to be filed against the shooter. We don't need folks walking around playing Judge Dredd.

If in that same hypothetical it was a cop doing the shooting, there would be repercussions for that officer.

If the shooter was legitimately in a situation where a reasonable person would conclude his or someone else's life was in danger, then okay.

---

This here is how I know we are doomed as a society.

MuchosPollos said:

---

Why didn't he just shoot the plastic gun out of his hands?

---