So are you suggesting that no action against the criminal be taken until he kills or hurts someone? I have a CWP in many states, including NY, NJ and MD. These are not given out without extensive class time, interviews, letters (including from a psychologist), and in NY appearing before a judge, with attorney to prove why the need is there (unconstitutional, but that can be for another thread). If this thief was pointing a weapon at any citizen, I would be justified in using deadly force. It would haunt me for the rest of my life, but it is something that would be justified. The argument that the shooter did not have the right to be judge is a sophomoric argument. The shooter acted to preserve innocent life. He was not shot for theft.

This was in no way vigilante justice. It was an "active" threat. The hero acted to preserve the lives of other innocent people.

Did the person who shot the armed thief flee prior to the police arriving? That would not change the justification (or not) for the shooting, but does present interesting possibilities. Was he a felon in possession of a firearm?

For an excellent discussion of this issue by a Texas attorney (and not the TOTV experts), see the video. The comments are quite interesting - not much sympathy for the criminal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o20wyw04r64

You don't have a clue if any of what you posted is true...

He still had the gun in his hand (fake doesn't matter), pointing it at people. He was still a threat. Someone could have moved suddenly, causing him to react (and shoot if the gun was real). The fact that the gun was fake is irrelevant.

The only issue that may be a problem (from the grainy video I saw) was that the man who shot him walked up to the perp (while he was laying on the floor) and shot him several more times.

The question for the courts will be was that excessive , or is there evidence that "a reasonable person" still considered there to be a threat...

Time will tell...

Prezactly!

Yes, he left the scene. That is more than a bit disconcerting...

All of my training has taught me to remain in place until the police arrive (unless there is an additional threat to your safety...)

Now that I've seen a clearer video, it's quite apparent that the robber was still pointing his gun at the customer in the upper left of the frame when he was shot...

Hence, still an active threat...

I would point out that what you said about the robber being finished with the robbery is factually inaccurate. When the first shot was fired, the robber was pointing the gun at the customer in the booth immediately to the left of the door. That customer had his hands raised, and the robber's gun was pointed directly at the customer. I would suggest that you watch the video link posted in Post No. 19.

Vigilantism is American as Ma, Apple Pie and The Flag. Americans have historically taken the law into their own hands if the authorities prove unable, or unwilling, to uphold it.

If there is one thing that recent history has taught us, it is that criminals will see the system bend over backwards to protect THEIR "rights" in years-long processes at the cost to Joe Taxpayer of an inordinate amount of money. The system cannot stop crimes in progress for the most part, and penalize them afterwards in ways that appear to be more a slap on the wrist than anything--felonies plea-bargained away so that the perp either walks free immediately or after a VERY short time as a guest of the government. This obviously is NOT a deterrent; in fact it may be a CAUSE of such crimes, with the criminal knowing that even if he is caught, he's going to pay very little, if anything at all, in penalty.

The reason you will see so many Average Joes standing up and applauding this guy is because the Average Joes have had enough.

If the thug had not been shot and killed on his way to the front door he had plenty of time to turn around and shoot people in the restaurant on his way out. It was a justifiable homicide. I thank the shooting patron for his service insuring a violent thug with a rap sheet will no longer hurt, rob and possibly kill innocent people as well as saving taxpayers the cost of locking him up.

I glad the robber was shot. Very justified in my mind.

That may well be the fly in this particular ointment. Thanks for pointing that out.

In just about all states (maybe all of them, I don't know) you must stop shooting as soon as the threat is neutralized. If the shot perp on the floor is still alive and still presenting an active threat, then yes. You are justified. Otherwise, not.

This is Texas though. That fact may not play as big a part as it probably could play.

Seems to me all criminal activity is a "risk vrs. perceived reward" situation. When one decides to break the law, even speeding through a red light, a calculated decision of risk vrs. (perceived) reward has been made. A death penalty, I would venture, would not normally be the penalty for armed robbery (when a gun turns out to be a fake, it is still armed robbery since the victim is not given the change to examine the weapon; and it should be pointed out that "toy" and "fake" weapons are quite different. "Fake" hand guns and long guns, often used in stage presentations, easily purchased on line, are very difficult to recognize as "fakes"... especially in a very emotionally frightening situation. Could have robber have been stopped and the money recovered by several shots in the legs, probably so, but then it still leads back to NOT KNOWING the assailant had a fake weapon. Most retired police officers can tell you, stopping an armed assailant by shooting them in the leg, can end tragically with the downed assailant opening fire on the officer. All these situations are tragic, a 6 year old recently who brought a real hand gun to school and deliberately tried to assassinate his first grade teacher ! Surely, most school personnel, when walking into such a situation, would have calculated that the weapon was "a toy". I just don't know how we (as armchair quarterbacks) can sit back and analyze what each of us would do when a gun it thrust into our face suddenly, in a restaurant ! Life presents us with many tough calls, many many tough calls. We can only hope we make the right one as there is less than a fraction of a minute to make it. Recently there was a home break-in in the village of tall trees. The criminal made a calculated risk/reward plan. Probably knew the residents were gone for the holidays but....there was no guarantee the esident had not returned early, or changed their minds due to illness or a hundred other reasons. The criminal "could have been shot fatally" had the resident been at home. Once the decision is made to commit a criminal act, that person accepts the risk, including the possibility of death ! Same would apply with a criminal entering a filling station/convenience store with a "toy or fake" gun. They nerver know for sure, if the clerk has a loaded hand gun just out of eye level under the counter... calculated risk ? And, any of us might be in line RIGHT behind him to pay for an item ! A LOT to think about in these situations.

Yes, I agree that would/will/could be the "hinge" on this one, emptying the weapon as "excessive" use of a stopping measure ? Can a reaction to fear from having just faced the threat of death, result in an emotional response like that ? You hear of situations like that in combat, when and individual, faced with instant death, reacts with "over kill". Frankly I don't know how any of us knows for sure how we would react. Again, I go back to an individual making a decision to threaten others at gun point, is taking a huge risk.