Saw it on the news a few minutes ago. Here's the newspaper version:
A man shot and killed a suspected armed robber Thursday during a gun battle in a northeast Harris County shopping center parking lot.
The 28-year-old man, a former Marine, was eating lunch about 12:30 p.m. when he saw two suspicious men outside a Game Stop store along Wallisville near the East Sam Houston Tollway, authorities said.
"He saw them get out of their car and slip bandanas over their faces," said Deputy Thomas Gilliland with the Harris County Sheriff's Office.
The veteran, who has not been identified, saw the men open the trunk of their car then dash inside the store. Minutes later, one ran out carrying several video game systems in his arms.
The other suspected robber remained in the store and was demanding cash from customers, deputies said.
The veteran, who has a concealed handgun license, went to his pickup truck and pulled out a semi-automatic pistol then told a bystander to call 911, deputies said.
He took cover behind his pickup truck as the two men left the store. Deputies said one of the men then pointed a pistol at him.
"At that point, the veteran raised his gun and fired," Gilliland said.
Deputies said about 10 rounds were fired during the gunfight.
The suspected armed robber was struck by gunfire but managed to get inside the car, an older model Toyota Corolla, where he died.
"The second suspect just threw everything down and ran," Gilliland said.
He was soon captured outside a nearby fast-food restaurant, deputies said.
No other injuries were reported.
"There were a lot of shaken-up patrons and store employees, of course," Gilliland said.
Some of the buildings in the shopping center were hit by stray rounds, deputies said.
Officials will present the case to the Harris County grand jury, recommending no charges be filed, authorities said.
TV version stated the masked men fired first. I fully agree tho, that it should go to the grand jury, as I do with all shootings regardless of who pulls the trigger.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-29-2014).]
Some of the buildings in the shopping center were hit by stray rounds, deputies said.
I'm glad it went down like this. How would you feel about this issue if the above sentence would have read: "Two bystanders at the shopping center were hit by stray rounds, deputies said. One died while being taken to the hospital,"
I'm glad it went down like this. How would you feel about this issue if the above sentence would have read: "Two bystanders at the shopping center were hit by stray rounds, deputies said. One died while being taken to the hospital,"
So, I'm understanding that you feel the civilian shouldn't have responded? Would you feel any different if it read "The police officer took cover behind his pickup truck as the two men left the store. Deputies said one of the men then pointed a pistol at him.
"At that point, the officer raised his gun and fired," Gilliland said. "Two bystanders at the shopping center were hit by stray rounds, deputies said. One died while being taken to the hospital."
The veteran was present and equipped to stop a criminal. From what I remember of photos of you, you're pretty physically fit. Would you walk away from someone who's beating hell out of his girlfriend or wife or kid, even though you're physically capable of stopping the crime? Let's say you took on the perp, gave him one good punch to the jaw and he fell, smashed his head on the curb and died. Would that be any different than the veteran?
I'm glad it went down like this. How would you feel about this issue if the above sentence would have read: "Two bystanders at the shopping center were hit by stray rounds, deputies said. One died while being taken to the hospital,"
How would you feel if the veteran wasn't there, and the police went after the criminals and ended up shooting up your wife's car killing your wife?
You can always imagine what-if scenarios that are worse than what actually happened.
How would you feel if the veteran wasn't there, and the police went after the criminals and ended up shooting up your wife's car killing your wife?
You can always imagine what-if scenarios that are worse than what actually happened.
Makes zero impact on anyone with a preconditioned agenda to promote or protect.
Bondage Faith Courage Liberty Abundance Complacency Apathy Dependence Bondage
Our population is varies between Complacency and Dependence.
I think we are past the realistic point of discussion or understanding the progressive point of view. In my opinion any discussion,education,planning or understanding at this point should be reigned in to those like minded.
When I say like minded I don't mean the nutcases but the more enlightened people that accept what we are and are willing to work with that to implement the systems that are known to be effective.
We are not evolved and can't be forced to be any better but we know who we are and we know how we work best.
I'm glad it turned out like it did. I'm curious if his partner in crime will agree with the "he pointed his gun at me and that's when I fired part." I hope the ex-marine has other witnesses to that part as the only other witness has a "dog in the fight."
Originally posted by yellowstone: How would you feel about this issue if the above sentence would have read: "Two bystanders at the shopping center were hit by stray rounds, deputies said. One died while being taken to the hospital,"
Originally posted by fierofool: From what I remember of photos of you, you're pretty physically fit. Would you walk away from someone who's beating hell out of his girlfriend or wife or kid, even though you're physically capable of stopping the crime? Let's say you took on the perp, gave him one good punch to the jaw and he fell, smashed his head on the curb and died. Would that be any different than the veteran?
I applaud the guy at the scene for getting involved. I have done the same before during a robbery of a convenience store where I followed the guy, cornered him and after a few minutes, the police arrived. Since that didn't happen in the US, I had no fear that the guy would be armed, though.
Regarding your scenario, I wouldn't go up so someone and punch him in the jaw so that couldn't happen. I would use force only if attacked and without a possibility to safely retreat and I would never endanger bystanders.
Having said that, risking a firefight in a mall is not OK in my book, no matter if it was an armed citizen or the police (and, yes, I think that US police is not doing a very good job regarding this as often discussed on this forum). IMO no robbery is worth risking life and limb of bystanders any more than the perps are already doing. What I would do in such a situation is hide, call 911, try to take pictures of the guys and their car and then follow them while keeping the cops informed.
I also think that while robbery is a grave crime, it's not one that carries the death penalty and the proportionality is way off here. Yes, the perp brought it on himself but I disagree that his death was an appropriate consequence. There are courts to deal with criminals and taking the law into one's own hands in a situation that it not last-ditch self-defense is not the way to go IMO.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-30-2014).]
I'm guessing the police would rather not have bystanders take matters into their own hands in these cases, luckily no one but the person stealing was injured.
Something some people will never get is that no matter how many people who legally carry guns they will always be out numbered by those carrying them illegally in this country. And taking them away from those of us who do legally carry them will just make it even more one sided against the people who only want to protect themselves and loved one from those who would do like that kid who just killed all those college students. if just one bystander had a gun he or she was carrying legally the numbers may have been less.
Look at how many times the cops fire at someone and miss, they do not have enough range time at "Hogan's ally", Look that one up Yellowstone. Here I will save you the trouble,
When I lived in Taxachusettes I got the opportunity to go with a friend who was, is a lawyer and was amazed by how bad some of the cops were that were there with us. look at any recent shoot out with police involved and just how bad shots they are and how many innocent people are hit by stray shot from the police. And you want to wait for the cops to protect you? Come on give me a brake, many cops in the field never even take their guns out of their holster except to qualify once or twice a year and never in any kind of real life situation like "Hogan's Ally."
And remember when seconds count, the police are only minuets away! WTF how would you feel if someone it was you with some ass hole with a gun pointed in your wife's face and you couldn't do a dam thing because you were un armed?
lots of what ifs and lots of variables and Sh!t happens when you least expect it, better to be prepared than carried by 6, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, wouldn't you?
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Since that didn't happen in the US, I had no fear that the guy would be armed, though.
That`s kind of a silly statement. It`s like saying "Since it was a gun free zone I had no fear the guy would be armed" Criminals don`t play by rules and if someone makes a conscientious decision to rob a business with a firearm then they better be ready to deal with the consequences, even death. I would almost say that a Marine has just as much, if not more training than a cop. Hell, the way cops have been in the news lately they might have sprayed more bullets at these guys than the Marine did.
Originally posted by yellowstone: How would you feel about this issue if the above sentence would have read: "Two bystanders at the shopping center were hit by stray rounds, deputies said. One died while being taken to the hospital,"
A 19-month-old boy is fighting for his life after a SWAT team threw a stun grenade into his crib during an overnight home raid, the toddler's family says. The family, visiting from Wisconsin, was not associated with the crime, and the suspect was arrested at a different house.
Anyone that uses a gun to commit a crime intends to use deadly force to ensure their crime is successful. They should expect to be shot at because of that choice.
Walking away and not getting involved are actions that have brought on so much of the social and economic problems of this country. First it starts with your neighbor at 200 Elm Street letting his grass grow up. "Sorry, I don't want to get involved. If I call the authorities, he'll know who called."
So, eventually he starts to dispose of various household items by just tossing them out against the back fence. Soon, here comes an old rusted out Fiero parts car and once it's stripped, it gets put in the back yard. So, as his property goes downhill, neighbors just say what the hell and they begin to sell out to people who don't have a problem with household items and old Fieros piled in the back yard. "But I don't want to get involved."
Property values continue to decline and streetwalkers and druggies begin to populate the area. With that comes the pimp that beats up his woman in front of your home. More people vacate their properties as Johns looking for an enhanced experience begin to bring their drugs along when they visit their 'Ho'. "I'll just stay inside because I don't want to get involved." Homeless persons are sleeping in abandoned cars that are no longer kept in the back yard, but just left on the street or sidewalk.
Drug dealers see the opportunity to provide the drugs at the scene and they move in. Eventually, there are gunshots to be heard at any hour of the day. Stray bullets not only punctuate the night, but puncture walls and windows of nearby homes. More upstanding citizens move away as more and more undesirables move into a rapidly deteriorating neighborhood where no law abiding person would dare to venture and police only enter when they must.
Why? In part, because no one wanted to get involved. So now, Elm Street is a blight on the whole city, requiring immense amounts of the city's resources to prosecute and house those who've been arrested, to provide for social welfare programs for the untold numbers of fatherless homes.
Just because no one wanted to get involved. Take a look at areas of Miami, your adopted home. You will see large areas with this attitude, and the results.
America. Land of The Free. So long as we stay involved.
I have no intention of shooting myself, either accidentally or by design.
Sorry, I corrected that. But I guess you understood anyways...
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:Police reform? They (the police) will fight that to the very ends of the earth and to the last and highest court in the land.
America. Land of The Free. So long as we stay involved.
And I agree (read my post above). This is true everywhere, not just in the US. Getting involved and risking a firefight in a public space is not the same ballpark IMO.
I left off the part of the news story (TV) that stated the obligatory "The former Marine said he feared for his life".
This, IMO, is being way overused by shooters both in blue uniforms and by civilians. It's one of the reasons I support that all shootings be forwarded to grand juries. Just saying it, (right now) is all but an automatic "out" and saying it does not make it a true statement. IMO, in most cases, it is an untrue statement--an outright lie. I was, within the last 8 months, personally advised by a police officer (family member) to make sure, if I had to shoot a home invader or other criminal type, especially in daylight hours--to immediately call 911 and make sure I stated that I was scared. He knew my history and past, and when I told him that statement would be problematic as I would have to lie his exact words were "Doesn't matter--it works for us and it will work for you.". The conversation went downhill from there. There is a huge difference between being apprehensive, prepared or concerned--and being afraid. Been in too many firefights in the past life not to know this.
I do not know if this is taught in police training or in civilian CC classes but I very much suspect it is at least routinely advised "under the radar" so to speak.
Having said that tho, he did (apparently) act within the statutes of Texas law.
According to my handgun class, the marine acted inappropriately. The laws in Texas May be different, though.
The immenent danger period happened inside the store and it was at that time that he would have been authorized to use his gun. After the threat was over and they had exited the building, the workers and patrons were no longer being threatened. At that point, it was just two dudes with some stolen stuff. Property recovery is a police job.
If he had heard shots fired inside the store, that would have been different. He would have been stopping murderers or attempted murderers.
According to my handgun class, the marine acted inappropriately. The laws in Texas May be different, though.
The immenent danger period happened inside the store and it was at that time that he would have been authorized to use his gun. After the threat was over and they had exited the building, the workers and patrons were no longer being threatened. At that point, it was just two dudes with some stolen stuff. Property recovery is a police job.
If he had heard shots fired inside the store, that would have been different. He would have been stopping murderers or attempted murderers.
According to the story the Marine was taking cover behind his truck and the robbers shot at him first. As soon as they exited the store with no shots fired then it was a police affair, but when they shot at the Marine then the game was on again. They probably would have shot at anyone they encountered who might have been carrying a firearm. I don`t carry but if someone was exiting a store with guns drawn and if I did carry I might not engage but I would be taking cover behind something, with my gun drawn just in case they decided to come take a look.
According to the story the Marine was taking cover behind his truck and the robbers shot at him first. ... I don`t carry but if someone was exiting a store with guns drawn and if I did carry I might not engage but I would be taking cover behind something, with my gun drawn just in case they decided to come take a look.
And I wonder how they even saw him if he took cover behind a truck. Wasn't very good cover, I guess. Isn't "cover" supposed to conceal you?
Deadly force is permitted in the execution of a citzen's arrest. If he was intending to conduct a citzen's arrest, which would be a reasonable reason to intervene even after the criminals exited the building then he would most likely be within the law. That they opened fire first justifies his use of deadly force.
A Marine Corps veteran was eating lunch at a sandwich restaurant in Houston on Thursday when he saw two men pull up hoodies, tie on bandanas and enter a video game store.
The 28 year-old had a concealed carry permit but had left his gun in his truck.
He went to get it and waited for the criminals to emerge from the store, where they had robbed a cashier and stolen cash and video games, KPRC reports.
When the robbers exited, the veteran confronted them. He raised his gun and asked a by-stander to call 911, police said.
“At that point, the robber raised his pistol and aimed it at the 28-year-old male,” Harris County sheriff’s deputy Thomas Gilliland said, according to KPRC. “Fearing for his life, he exchanged gunfire with the robber. After several rounds were fired the robber attempted to leave in the vehicle. He was struck and killed as he was sitting inside the vehicle.”
The second robber bolted during the exchange of fire. Witnesses saw him stripping his hoodie and bandana. Several schools in the area were placed on lockdown during the search for the second suspect, though he was found captured at a local shopping outlet.
KPRC reported that the veteran was not hurt during the shooting. He was questioned by homicide detectives before leaving the scene on his own.
And I wonder how they even saw him if he took cover behind a truck. Wasn't very good cover, I guess. Isn't "cover" supposed to conceal you?
No. Cover and concealment are not the same thing. Cover in this context means protection from incoming fire. Cover fire for instance, would be laying out enough "bullets" to make the other guy hesitant to expose himself as a target and shoot back.
As far as the concealed handgun class instructor's comments.......
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.
§ 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.
I left off the part of the news story (TV) that stated the obligatory "The former Marine said he feared for his life".
This, IMO, is being way overused by shooters both in blue uniforms and by civilians. It's one of the reasons I support that all shootings be forwarded to grand juries. Just saying it, (right now) is all but an automatic "out" and saying it does not make it a true statement. IMO, in most cases, it is an untrue statement--an outright lie. I was, within the last 8 months, personally advised by a police officer (family member) to make sure, if I had to shoot a home invader or other criminal type, especially in daylight hours--to immediately call 911 and make sure I stated that I was scared. He knew my history and past, and when I told him that statement would be problematic as I would have to lie his exact words were "Doesn't matter--it works for us and it will work for you.". The conversation went downhill from there. There is a huge difference between being apprehensive, prepared or concerned--and being afraid. Been in too many firefights in the past life not to know this.
I do not know if this is taught in police training or in civilian CC classes but I very much suspect it is at least routinely advised "under the radar" so to speak.
Having said that tho, he did (apparently) act within the statutes of Texas law.
Yellowstone, While the terms Cover & Concealment are quite often used together, they can also be used separtely. Cover means simply that you have some sort of protection from being shot at. Concealment means that you are obscured from sight. Therefore, to have Cover & Concealment means you have protection from fire as well as having a location where it would be difficult to be seen.
If the vet acted within the law (and the grand jury can quickly confirm this) then I think it's case-closed. He walks. It sounds like he should.
However ... put aside male bravado and machismo for a second.
1. Did the visual presence of the vet's gun prompt the suspects to fire? Would they have otherwise? Was this the initiator of the stray fire? I am assuming the later report that one suspect fired first is correct but if not ...
2. What exactly did the vet fix/solve/resolve or prevent? The robbery already occurred. All he did was keep the merchandise from being removed from the scene of the crime. In fact, it appears only he protected himself after challenging the suspects by showing his weapon. Now if it's shown the suspects didn't see his gun and they intended to shoot him either way then this is a moot point. That's self preservation and I wouldn't even bother counting the number of bullets he use. He's right - period. I would probably pay for his bullets.
3. Are we saying the vets actions were correct only because he was a vet? It's certainly makes a compelling argument for everyone carrying a gun but what if it was an 80 year old fragile woman? A sixteen year old? The exact same scenario and actions play out - would we still give them kudos? I sense that somehow being a vet makes this more right than your average non-vet citizen. Maybe the point of him being a vet is just the category he was placed in but that's irrelevant. I certainly don't see him being a vet as being relevant other than maybe he was more skilled with a gun.
So far the evidence is that he fired well within the law and that's all I need to hear. He walks. But I am not sure what happened needed to play out that way. Bullet's flying isn't the single solution to this robbery. It's almost sounds like an artifact but the two are being linked together by the press.
'Vet stops a robbery'. Yeah, I guess he technically did.
I think most laws allow response if someone makes a move to bring a weapon to bear on you. It's prima facie evidence they intend to do you harm. Why wait until they shoot first. They may hit their target. Squarely between the eyes.
Sheriff's deputies are not identifying the man who they say was having lunch at a sandwich shot next door when he saw the suspect and an accomplice put on hoodies and bandannas in the parking lot at around 12:30 p.m. Thursday, and go into a GameStop store located at Wallisville Rd and Beltway 8.
Harris Co. Sheriff's Deputy Thomas Gilliland says the Marine veteran walked out to his truck and armed himself with a pistol while the suspects were inside the store. They robbed a clerk, and took cash and computer games, then ran outside to their getaway car to find the veteran waiting for them.
Sorry to rain on everyones keyboard quarterbacking, but it's not in a Marines nature to turn and run from injustice. We stand and fight it's what we do. Did he act within the laws of Texas? Who knows, we weren't there, we didn't right the report. I bet the surviving criminal with think twice before he pulls that sh!t again though. Semper Fi brother. I think he did the right thing. Now about those stray rounds, who fired them? If they were from the Marine, he might need requaled on the pistol range.....just saying
Well Said :
