Armed-Shopper-Opens-Fire-on-Walgreens-Bandits

[Alamo Ann]

Hmmm what's y'all take on this situation? Would this be justifiable or not if it happened in Texas, assuming the shooter had his concealed weapon permit of course. I learn legalities best with a discussions of real life news stories from those who know better than I regarding these matters. Thanks.

Armed Shopper Opens Fire on Walgreens Bandits | NBC Miami


PS Legal or not, unless he was driving directly toward me, I vote no. Seems to me as i read it appears as case of "shoot first, ask questions later."

 

[Rum Runner]

Yer linky no worky.

Here:
Armed Shopper Opens Fire on Walgreens Bandits | NBC Miami

Edit: and I don't see how that would be justified, based on the little info in the article.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Lmao....so he was walking out of a store and saw them hit his vehicle, then went Rambo? Negative, I wouldn't have shot.

 

[Alamo Ann]

Finally corrected link, thanks RR.
Well its a stretch but he did see other vehicles as well as his hit as the suspect fled the store....
But that's about all I could say in his defenseless defense.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Well, from what the story just states, it seems a stretch.

 

[jordanmills]

Walgreens attempts to ban all firearms in their stores. There was a news piece a year or two ago about a guy that saved himself and hostages in an execution situation, and they said they'd rather people be "safe" without guns than have armed people save themselves.

 

[Bithabus]

Hit his car, then he fired as they were driving away. Not justified.

 

[Skip]

Lmao....so he was walking out of a store and saw them hit his vehicle, then went Rambo? Negative, I wouldn't have shot.

+1

 

[Tejano Scott]

Haha... It reminds me of this episode of Southpark-

‪Patriot Act - South Park Style‬‏ - YouTube

 

[jocat54]

Hit his car, then he fired as they were driving away. Not justified.

Totally agree, no justification for shooting.

 

[matefrio]

Unless you're psychic there isn't enough information there form an opinion.

 

[codygjohnson]

Walgreens attempts to ban all firearms in their stores. There was a news piece a year or two ago about a guy that saved himself and hostages in an execution situation, and they said they'd rather people be "safe" without guns than have armed people save themselves.

Yeah, I'm with Walgreens on this one...I'd much rather be SAFE without having to carry a firearm...but the problem is, how the hell is that actually supposed to work?

I guess I'll just keep packin' heat until then...

 

[matefrio]

This one is much easier to figure out: Groom killed after fight during reception in NE Houston | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

 

[M. Sage]

...assuming the shooter had his concealed weapon permit of course.

This has zero bearing. There is at least one Supreme Court case that states even a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm can't be punished for using it in otherwise lawful self defense.

If you're carrying unlawfully and use a firearm in lawful self defense, it's still lawful self defense. You'll probably get in trouble for carrying unlawfully, but self defense is self defense.

 

[Bithabus]

This has zero bearing. There is at least one Supreme Court case that states even a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm can't be punished for using it in otherwise lawful self defense.

Do you remember the case? In Texas, according to chapter 9, carrying illegally would result in loss of presumption and allow a finder of fact to consider whether you failed to retreat. Also, a person carrying illegally may not use force if he begins an argument which escalates into a use of force situation.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02;

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: . . .
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

 

[M. Sage]

Do you remember the case? In Texas, according to chapter 9, carrying illegally would result in loss of presumption and allow a finder of fact to consider whether you failed to retreat. Also, a person carrying illegally may not use force if he begins an argument which escalates into a use of force situation.

I do not, but I think it was fairly recent.

 

[Bithabus]

I do not, but I think it was fairly recent.

There is a recent Michigan Supreme Court case dealing with a similar issue. Also, there are SCOTUS cases establishing no duty to retreat in certain instances. Still it looks like an illegal carrier may incur a few more hurdles than a legal carrier.

 

[M. Sage]

There is a recent Michigan Supreme Court case dealing with a similar issue. Also, there are SCOTUS cases establishing no duty to retreat in certain instances. Still it looks like an illegal carrier may incur a few more hurdles than a legal carrier.

Like I said, there are definitely going to be issues with the mode of carry, but my understanding is that lawful self defense is lawful self defense, even if you aren't lawfully armed when it happens...

 

[Jakashh]

The story is lacking in details, but it does say the bandits were also armed.

An armed shopper took his best shot at nabbing a pair of armed bandits who robbed a Miami Walgreens early Monday.

However, assuming they were already out and running with their stolen goods and not threatening anyone, I wouldn't have shot at them. A few dollars worth of product isn't worth shooting and risking bystanders lives for.

 

[Bithabus]

Like I said, there are definitely going to be issues with the mode of carry, but my understanding is that lawful self defense is lawful self defense, even if you aren't lawfully armed when it happens...

I'm thinking of an illegal carrier who loses his presumption because he is committing a crime at the time force is used, and then a jury decides his belief is unreasonable. Or, an illegal carrier loses his right to "stand his ground" because he is committing a crime at the time force is used and a jury decides he should have retreated. Unlikely but possible, according to my understanding.