[Whitley]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The robber didn't actually ever physically harm anyone. The shooter killed someone. If the robber had been disarmed, alive, he would not have been executed for the crime of robbery. The crime of robbery doesn't come with a death sentence. The shooter took the law into his own hands, and executed someone who deserved jail time - not death.

Vigilante justice only encourages people to be violent, it doesn't solve crime. It IS a crime. You don't fight fire with an atom bomb, you don't fight robbery with death.

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.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The robber didn't actually ever physically harm anyone. The shooter killed someone. If the robber had been disarmed, alive, he would not have been executed for the crime of robbery. The crime of robbery doesn't come with a death sentence. The shooter took the law into his own hands, and executed someone who deserved jail time - not death.

Vigilante justice only encourages people to be violent, it doesn't solve crime. It IS a crime. You don't fight fire with an atom bomb, you don't fight robbery with death.

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

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by LAFwUs

Not sure about TX law regarding fleeing felon, but they do have specific statutes that allow use of deadly force to protect livestock, property, etc for example.

That is going to be measure that the the D/A & court system will judge the actions he took. Right or wrong, hero or not.

Fleeing the scene, post shoot is also a major no-no and again, court system is going to apply a certain level of presumed guilt to the shooter, based on that action alone...a clean, justifiable shoot from a legally armed citizen, one would have no need to flee.

I can understand why the shooter did it, I have zero feelings for the robber, he picked the wrong day & place to apply his trade. At best, its very grey.
I fear when they locate him, he's in for a ruff ride legally, unless there are other factors involved that we are unaware of, from the 20,000 foot view.

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?

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

He was on his way out of the diner. He was finished robbing people. He had succeeded in that part of his task - to threaten with a (fake) gun and rob them.

He wasn't shot until he had turned to leave the premises. He was shot multiple times in the back. On his way out. What the shooter did, was take the law into his own hands, and shot a man who had already committed his crime and had stopped committing it in order to leave.

In other words - he had ceased threatening anyone at the time he was shot. He was no longer threatening to kill anyone, shoot anyone, rob anyone, steal from anyone, hurt anyone. He had already done what he came to do, at that point, successfully, without anyone being physically harmed.

He should be alive, in prison, and charged with the crimes. He should not be dead by the hands of a civilian who had no authority to shoot someone who was no longer committing the crime for which "protecting" and "defending" would have been appropriate.

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

He was on his way out of the diner. He was finished robbing people. He had succeeded in that part of his task - to threaten with a (fake) gun and rob them.

He wasn't shot until he had turned to leave the premises. He was shot multiple times in the back. On his way out. What the shooter did, was take the law into his own hands, and shot a man who had already committed his crime and had stopped committing it in order to leave.

In other words - he had ceased threatening anyone at the time he was shot. He was no longer threatening to kill anyone, shoot anyone, rob anyone, steal from anyone, hurt anyone. He had already done what he came to do, at that point, successfully, without anyone being physically harmed.

He should be alive, in prison, and charged with the crimes. He should not be dead by the hands of a civilian who had no authority to shoot someone who was no longer committing the crime for which "protecting" and "defending" would have been appropriate.

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...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Whitley

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.

Prezactly!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Whitley

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?

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...)

[JMintzer]

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...

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

He was on his way out of the diner. He was finished robbing people. He had succeeded in that part of his task - to threaten with a (fake) gun and rob them.

He wasn't shot until he had turned to leave the premises. He was shot multiple times in the back. On his way out. What the shooter did, was take the law into his own hands, and shot a man who had already committed his crime and had stopped committing it in order to leave.

In other words - he had ceased threatening anyone at the time he was shot. He was no longer threatening to kill anyone, shoot anyone, rob anyone, steal from anyone, hurt anyone. He had already done what he came to do, at that point, successfully, without anyone being physically harmed.

He should be alive, in prison, and charged with the crimes. He should not be dead by the hands of a civilian who had no authority to shoot someone who was no longer committing the crime for which "protecting" and "defending" would have been appropriate.

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.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The robber didn't actually ever physically harm anyone. The shooter killed someone. If the robber had been disarmed, alive, he would not have been executed for the crime of robbery. The crime of robbery doesn't come with a death sentence. The shooter took the law into his own hands, and executed someone who deserved jail time - not death.

Vigilante justice only encourages people to be violent, it doesn't solve crime. It IS a crime. You don't fight fire with an atom bomb, you don't fight robbery with death.

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.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

He was on his way out of the diner. He was finished robbing people. He had succeeded in that part of his task - to threaten with a (fake) gun and rob them.

He wasn't shot until he had turned to leave the premises. He was shot multiple times in the back. On his way out. What the shooter did, was take the law into his own hands, and shot a man who had already committed his crime and had stopped committing it in order to leave.

In other words - he had ceased threatening anyone at the time he was shot. He was no longer threatening to kill anyone, shoot anyone, rob anyone, steal from anyone, hurt anyone. He had already done what he came to do, at that point, successfully, without anyone being physically harmed.

He should be alive, in prison, and charged with the crimes. He should not be dead by the hands of a civilian who had no authority to shoot someone who was no longer committing the crime for which "protecting" and "defending" would have been appropriate.

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.

[New Englander]

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

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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...

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.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Trial's in Texas, right? Then it is pretty much a slam-dunk. I heard once that "he needed killin' "is a valid defense in Texas. Maybe Arizona and Oklahoma too. Or it should be.

In a bit more serious vein, this points to what in my opinion is a serious flaw in our way of thinking. It's been mentioned, here and in many other places, that the rights of the criminal seem to take precedence of the rights of the victim(s). As far as I am concerned, if you are killed while engaged in committing a felony against another person or people, then that's it. That guy gave away his right to claim protection under the law when he robbed the first person at gunpoint. Further, there should be ironclad protection against any civil lawsuit(s) on the part of the perpetrator's family in such cases. It is going to take some drastic measures to stop such crimes which have flourished because of the "rights" of criminals being as protected as they are.

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.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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.

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.