November 29th, 2013 07:32 AM
Why we only use deadly force when threatened
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
November 29th, 2013 09:49 AM
The clerk should have been charged with murder. Tough to prove self defense
if the bullet hole/s are in the back. I'm not an advocate of protecting things with deadly force. Indiana law provides me the legal ability to use deadly force to prevent or terminate entry to my home or occupied motor vehicle, and protect myself and others from "serious bodily injury, or a forcible felony". Shoplifting, in my mind does NOT constitute a threat of serious bodily injury or a forcible felony.
From the linked article....
Lambert told investigators he believed that the man was a shoplifter.
Lambert’s jail booking photo has not been released because detectives are still using it in their investigation, police spokeswoman Tiara Ellis Richard said.
He faces a murder charge because the man posed no threat to human life and was running away, which is not a justifiable reason to use deadly force, she said.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11...#storylink=cpy
Last edited by usmcj; November 29th, 2013 at 10:04 AM.
Reason: changed "when" to "if"
NRA Life Member ... Marine Corps League Life Member
Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste...
USMC 8652, 2531, RVN Jun '67, - May 69
Some of my toys....
November 29th, 2013 10:00 AM
The article doesn't say he was shot in the back. The article says the shots were fired, then the suspect was running. So with this much information it's hard for me to say "the clerk should be charged" or "the clerk should've never done this." We don't know if the robber pretended to have a gun, or grabbed something in the store to use as a weapon. Maybe the robber was fighting with the clerk, which committing a theft and adding assault is steady progression, what happens next?
November 29th, 2013 10:08 AM
I agree with all but the part I bolded and underlined. Depending on the situation, one need not adhere to the apocryphal axiom "Never shoot a man in the back."
Originally Posted by usmcj
Here, of course, based on the facts in the story, it does not appear to be a justifiable use of force.
-PEF, a Framer with a Steelie...
1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
November 29th, 2013 10:14 AM
The strangest part about all of this is if it would have been dark out, what he did would have been perfectly legal under TX law.
TX has some interesting laws.
Sec. 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.
November 29th, 2013 10:52 AM
Actually I think the Texas law is very smart. Steal something, you're taking your chances, as it should be.
Originally Posted by OutWestSystems
"Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way... The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way."
November 29th, 2013 12:18 PM
Hey, it's always dark somewhere, right?
Originally Posted by OutWestSystems
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
William T. Sherman
November 30th, 2013 11:17 AM
Maybe his lawyer could explain that 6 bullets in the back was a bad case of suicide?
November 30th, 2013 11:46 AM
The law on this sort of situation is of course what it is; it needs a little loosening. For example, the "at night" part
should be removed from our TX code. I think it is a relic, and a bit on the arbitrary side.
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
November 30th, 2013 12:34 PM
I was a security guard/undercover at Wal Mart. Some 6 yr old black kids lifted a $.25 candy bar. I took my shooting stance, and emptied my Lock 357 Sig. I got three kids and then wounded 18 Wal Mart shoppers. Reloaded three magazines. Tough to hit little kids ducking down aisles. Word spread "There is a new sheriff in town"
I could have just followed them out to their car and talked to the parents, or took down a license plate, but Wal Mart didn't hire me to be a child psychologist. I see myself as a cross between Taxi Driver and Scarface.
December 1st, 2013 03:13 PM
The clerk made several mistakes. He should not have chased the suspect after the suspect left the store. He should not have shot at the guy since no weapons were produced. He should not have held the getaway driver at gun point.
It looks like the clerk killed a man over a misdemeanor theft. I agree with the charges as filed.
A 9mm might expand but a .45acp never shrinks.
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
December 1st, 2013 03:21 PM
How do we know, that no weapons were produced? How do we know the clerk chased and then shot? The article says there were shots, then they were seen running.
December 2nd, 2013 01:57 PM
Why would they impound the Mercedes with a bullet hole in the door? Take a few measurements and photos and send it to the body shop.
I don't always have nothing to say, but when I do, I post it on Facebook.
December 2nd, 2013 05:51 PM
It doesn't matter if it's dark out or light out, the law you're quoting is referring to 5 different activities:
Originally Posted by OutWestSystems
4. aggravated robbery;
5, theft during the nighttime.
Maybe the guy was committing a robbery. We don't have enough facts from the story and the shooter is 'facing a charge', but that doesn't mean he will actually be charged or found guilty.
Cogito, ergo armatum sum. I think, therefore I am armed. (Don Mann, The Modern Day Gunslinger; the ultimate handgun training manual)
December 2nd, 2013 06:02 PM
The TX theft during nighttime portion of the law will play out in a case that happened in Ft Worth last night. Guy wakes up at 4am to find a robbery in progress in his garage. Tells the BG to stop, BG doesn't, and gets shot twice. Didn't die though....
Police will find this was a legal shoot.
This law serves its purpose - 6 million people in the DFW area, and night time robberies typically make the headlines. Can't say so for Detroit, Chicago, NYC, etc
My EDC: Springfield XDS
My sometimes EDC: Colt XSE LW or G26
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors