Unlucky Thugs Target Texas Man

[Ben Ghazi]

Police say the trouble started when a guy was trying to rent a movie from a Redbox around 9:30pm. They say two robbers got out of a green Honda and pulled a gun on the man. Detectives say the crooks took the man's cell phone and keys, got into the victim's car and started backing out.

That's when police say the car owner, who's a licensed concealed weapons carrier, pulled his own gun and started shooting the carjackers. The driver was killed. His accomplice was shot two to three times, and managed to speed from the scene with a getaway driver.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9243735

 

[joe]

link does not work.

 

[Clay]

Worked for me

 

[joe]

Weird first it would not but now it does. Maybe it was overloaded.

 

[flyandscuba]

Too bad he didn't kill both of the BGs... Then again, if the second one doesn't turn up at a medical facility seeking treatment - maybe he did!

 

[TraderDan]

What kind of thug problems do they have in alaska Bill?

 

[flyandscuba]

What kind of thug problems do they have in alaska Bill?

Oh, I'm sure a city the size of Anchorage has it's undesirable types, gangs, etc. So far, I've not seen anything concerning -- nor seen anything on the news -- but I still pack a CCW 24/7...

 

[hukdizzle]

What are the laws in Texas regarding this? When he engaged them with lethal force the two robbers were technically fleeing the situation at that exact moment. Does Texas allow individuals to protect their property with lethal force?

EDIT:

Apparently there is a very good chance he was well within his rights.

§ 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,
1994.

 

[Choppa6]

The libs are gonna chalk this up to gun crime and add the thugs name to the list!!

 

[Bay Ranger]

Huk, is that just Texas law? What would happen in FL under the same circumstances? May-be given the Travon climate in FL no matter what the law I can assume what the result would be.

 

[rockb]

Huk, is that just Texas law? What would happen in FL under the same circumstances? May-be given the Travon climate in FL no matter what the law I can assume what the result would be.

My uneducated guess is you would be in jail for a long time. If you or someone else is not in imminent danger best to just call the insurance company.

 

[flyandscuba]

To each his own I suppose... But deadly force is justified to prevent a forcible felony (armed robbery & car jacking qualify). Eliminating a thug' s ability to waste oxygen could very well prevent harm from befalling another law-abiding and productive citizen.

If I had been robbed at gunpoint - and I felt it safe to do so, I would have taken the shot.

 

[gunnerxxx]

The law is tricky on this one. My story would be I tried to stop them from fleeing with my car the driver pulled a gun and I began shooting. the driver died and the passenger took a few rounds I wasn't aiming just pulling the trigger. fearing that I might get shot the whole time, its why I emptied my gun.

 

[Snow Bird]

Texas is pretty lib on there laws using force so he might be ok.Most other places since they were no longer a threat he might be in for a long and expensive court battle. I THINK I could have shot a guy in Texas one time but did'nt.

 

[flyandscuba]

I think that some may need to evaluate their mindset...

Just because somone who has just committed armed robbery and car jacking is beginning to make a departure from the crime scene DOES NOT mean that he is no longer a threat! That person chose to being violence with a firearm and potential deadly force into the situation to commit a crime. It is quite common for a street thug to execute a defenseless victim as they are leaving the scene. The thugs in this case as in all cases where taking by force is involved CONTINUE to be a threat as long as you have sight of - or contact - with them. They can't just expect that when they decide to leave with the loot -- all is well and that they are no longer a threat...

If one brings a firearm or other weapon into an encounter for criminal use -- they should expect a consequence of that decision is to die by the use of deadly force...plain and simple. I'll take my chances with a grand jury any day than to simply to give a BG a pass because they have obtained their desired goal...of your property...and are attempting a getaway.

 

[Snow Bird]

Fly if that was toward me don't take what I said as to mean he was wrong in the use of force. I think in some states he might be in for a court battle. You know how it works in some places.Hell if they run you are in trouble if you shoot the assholes.

 

[rockb]

I was responding to bay ranger asking about what would happen in FL in this scenario. Not saying what would be in the best interest of the community at large. Just how the law would see it would be unclear. Relevant statutes below.


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

 

[flyandscuba]

To each his own I suppose... But deadly force is justified to prevent a forcible felony (armed robbery & car jacking qualify). Eliminating a thug' s ability to waste oxygen could very well prevent harm from befalling another law-abiding and productive citizen.

If I had been robbed at gunpoint - and I felt it safe to do so, I would have taken the shot.

Yep - just as I indicated initially...

 

[Viking1204]

I think that some may need to evaluate their mindset...

Just because somone who has just committed armed robbery and car jacking is beginning to make a departure from the crime scene DOES NOT mean that he is no longer a threat! That person chose to being violence with a firearm and potential deadly force into the situation to commit a crime. It is quite common for a street thug to execute a defenseless victim as they are leaving the scene. The thugs in this case as in all cases where taking by force is involved CONTINUE to be a threat as long as you have sight of - or contact - with them. They can't just expect that when they decide to leave with the loot -- all is well and that they are no longer a threat...

If one brings a firearm or other weapon into an encounter for criminal use -- they should expect a consequence of that decision is to die by the use of deadly force...plain and simple. I'll take my chances with a grand jury any day than to simply to give a BG a pass because they have obtained their desired goal...of your property...and are attempting a getaway.

Well put, there is no guarantee they wouldn't have shot the guy as they drove off to eliminate him as a witness who could identify them.