71 y/o concealed carry licenced saved cafe from robbery

[Chrisj CMA]

This is one fiesty 71 y/o and looks like he wont be in any trouble.....Good for him!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/

[Black Dog]

Good guy 2, bad guys 0... 

Black Dog

[fubar606]

that's one good reason that everybody (that's sound of mind ) should Carrie good for him

[..]

Why didn't the innocnet unarmed hit the ground as the gun was fired???

[Daniel Meyer]

Why didn't the innocnet unarmed hit the ground as the gun was fired???

People are generally *very* slow to realize they are in danger.

[bigguy]

Good for him, and I'm glad they're not going to prosecute him.

However!

Under Texas law, he'd be in trouble if the authorities wanted to press it. Once the bad guys decided to run and weren't returning fire, you can't continue to use deadly force unless it was to prevent them from escaping with property and you reasonably believed that you would not be able to recover that property.
Texas Penal Code, Chapter nine. (PC 9.42)

For the sake of the Good guy, I wouldn't suggest you shoot somebody in the back UNLESS, the bad guy is continuing to threaten somebody, or continues to hold stolen property.
Again, I'm not arguing the morality. (Walk in with a gun to rob somebody and for my part, what ever happen to you after that is your fault.) But there is room for prosecution if a prosecutor get a bug up his posterior and wants to.

[Chrisj CMA]

Good for him, and I'm glad they're not going to prosecute him.

However!

Under Texas law, he'd be in trouble if the authorities wanted to press it. Once the bad guys decided to run and weren't returning fire, you can't continue to use deadly force unless it was to prevent them from escaping with property and you reasonably believed that you would not be able to recover that property.
Texas Penal Code, Chapter nine. (PC 9.42)

For the sake of the Good guy, I wouldn't suggest you shoot somebody in the back UNLESS, the bad guy is continuing to threaten somebody, or continues to hold stolen property.
Again, I'm not arguing the morality. (Walk in with a gun to rob somebody and for my part, what ever happen to you after that is your fault.) But there is room for prosecution if a prosecutor get a bug up his posterior and wants to.

Thats one of the best parts of the FL law.......yu dont have to try to escape or retreat.  As long as you feel in danger you are cleared hot.  As we say in the military if the enemy is in range for you to shoot them, guess what you are in range for them to shoot you, and the guy had a gun, and he just pisssed him off.......that equals a threat in my mind

[Paxton]

In my mind, this is a most clear and appropriate application of "standing your ground." ???  Good for Grandpa!

[bigguy]

You don't have to retreat in Texas either. But it's my understanding (And I'm not a lawyer, so you can guess what that's worth.) that you must stop using deadly force as soon as the threat stops. In the class I took, (Instructor also not a lawyer) we were told that as soon as the bad guy starts trying to get away, unless he was taking a hostage with him, you had to stop using deadly force.
I guess at the end of the day,  the opinion that count's is that of the Judge/Jury.
Again, my concern is not a moral one. I think the gentleman is completely in the "moral" right. But it looks like he fired a shot as the bad buy was scrambling on hands and feet out the door. I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of a jury watching that video.
Any Lawyers see this? What do you guys think?

[Spirited-6]

Under Texas law, he'd be in trouble if the authorities wanted to press it. Once the bad guys decided to run and weren't returning fire, you can't continue to use deadly force unless it was to prevent them from escaping with property and you reasonably believed that you would not be able to recover that property.
Texas Penal Code, Chapter nine. (PC 9.42)

Bull crap ; stop firing and they come back at YA!
I`ll take what follows, 

[Slyk Willy]

why to go! Sadly, he'll likely be arrested for assult.

[BF]

why to go! Sadly, he'll likely be arrested for assult.

It's clear that he only shot them because they were black and wearing hoodies.  Probably had some Skittles in their pockets too.  Typical racist republican.  Probably voted for George Bush too. 

[BigAl]

Yes he was firing while they were runnig, but he did not fire until the guy turned the gun on him.

You were not there and outside the door the guy could have turned it around on him again, I was not there and niether were you.

Question.

Do any of you all including me have the cajones to do what the old fellow did?

Yah never know really.

But I myself would defend myself.

That means shoot the basterds if you were wondering.


Believe me, I have seen videos once the police start shooting back, they don't quit till the suspect is dead. Or defenseless.

The way he did what he did you will find out later he is retired law enforcement.

[BigAl]

You don't have to retreat in Texas either. But it's my understanding (And I'm not a lawyer, so you can guess what that's worth.) that you must stop using deadly force as soon as the threat stops. In the class I took, (Instructor also not a lawyer) we were told that as soon as the bad guy starts trying to get away, unless he was taking a hostage with him, you had to stop using deadly force.
I guess at the end of the day,  the opinion that count's is that of the Judge/Jury.
Again, my concern is not a moral one. I think the gentleman is completely in the "moral" right. But it looks like he fired a shot as the bad buy was scrambling on hands and feet out the door. I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of a jury watching that video.
Any Lawyers see this? What do you guys think?

See my post, he may be charged but never convicted.

[BigAl]

Did this policeman return fire once the suspect fired and was fleeing.

YES

And Killed the Idiot.

Hamilton Montana - Police Car Stop Shots Fired

[GreenLantern57]

I think the old guy needs to spend more time at the range with close targets.  Just saying!

I had to laugh out loud when I read one of them was shot in the one butt and opposite hip!  Sup dogg! Why you walk'n funny? Yo!

[DIGGER]

I think the old guy needs to spend more time at the range with close targets.  Just saying!

I had to laugh out loud when I read one of them was shot in the one butt and opposite hip!  Sup dogg! Why you walk'n funny? Yo!

and then again......maybe he hit right where he was aiming.....ha

[Fudd]

I think the old guy needs to spend more time at the range with close targets.  Just saying!

What do you mean?  If he had killed them, we'd be seeing Jr. High football pictures posted up on all the TV stations.

[Hook#3287]

You were not there and outside the door the guy could have turned it around on him again, I was not there and niether were you.

The perps were herding the customers to the back, nothing good ever happens after that.

If the young hooded perps were still armed while running away, they were still a threat to all around.

The hero was right in continuing to fire on them, to bad they still get to breathe

JM uneducated HO

[mrprez]

We have a pretty good SYG law here in Alabama, but once the threat is over (perps running away) you cannot shoot.  But, you can shoot to protect yourself no matter where.  House, car, down the street, doesn't matter.

We recently had a situation where a woman was crossing her street to round up her dogs and was nearly hit by some thugs in a speeding, passing car.  She yelled out for them to slow down.  The speed limit on her street is 25.  The car stopped and the front passenger hops out and shoots her dead where she stood.  They caught the 17 year old shooter a few days later during a drug sting operation.

The world is an ever increasing dangerous place and these days, you never know who has a gun.  But, the thugs seems to be pretty willing to use theirs so you better be prepared if you are going to confront someone.

[Gangman036]

This guy (prob a Vet) sends these two punks running in a hail of direct and controlled gun fire.

[SURVEILLANCE VIDEO] Shooting At Florida Internet Cafe

[Wizzard]

The answer is revealed in the stunning short video shown below. This remarkable solution:


• Requires no police.
• Costs the taxpayers no money.
• Requires no up-front paperwork.
• Protects innocent lives.
• Is deployed in as little as FIVE seconds.
• Works everywhere.
• Deters violent crime.
• Makes bad guys flee immediately.
• Is easy to learn.
• Functions at the local level.

    • Does not require control or intervention by the United Nations or any government entity.



http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/epZod2qyyN4

[alph]

yeah, and nevermind that the old man is now in jail for firing a gun into a public building!! 

i know, i know.......  protection, blah blah blah......

seriously, these things don't happen everyday.  the same old man could have easily wacked the guy with his chair and knocked him out.....

[Gavin_Sons]

Im sorry, but if someone is trying to rob me with a gun and I have my gun on me like I always do. Im not going to wack him with a chair. And if he is in jail that just shows everyone that our justice system sucks.

[Toledo Mark]

AND.....

What if the old man only wounded the two robbers and the robbers ended shooting several other people in the building and killing them?  Maybe if the robbers just got the money they would have left without firing a bullet.


There is a time to shoot back and in that video I think the old man was wrong to draw his gun.

[johnhunter44]

The old man did wound the robbers, and they fled without shooting any innocents.  If we are gonna play "woulda, coulda, shoulda" the robbers could have shot innocents in the building for any reason, such as if the innocents didn't react quick enough giving them money or if they did not get enough money, or if one of them looked at the robbers wrong, or what ever reason we dream up.  The bad guys showed their intentions by being armed with a gun  and entering the store.  The gun he was carrying pretty much states "give me what I want and you may not get shot".  If I were there armed, I would not want to leave it up to the bad guys to determine my outcome.  Also, the old man wasn't charged and the shooting was determined to be justifiable.

[alph]

that old guy pumped out 6 or 7 rounds, AND ONLY WOUNDED THE GUYS!!!  that's some awful gun control there buddy!!!  i think he's got to go to the shooting range more often!!



you guys have to understand, i'm NOT against owning a gun.  i'm against guns being in the wrong hands.  i don't like the idea of anyone being able to have a gun that doesn't understand the power of the instrument.  much like the 91 year old guy that ran over a bicyclist on a bike path here in Eau Claire last month, some people shouldn't be allowed to drive, just because they have a liecens and a car.......