CHALK ONE UP FOR THE GOOD GUYS...

Chung Brad has a certain ring to it.

Wang Chung sounds better

Chung Brad has a certain ring to it. Originally Posted by pyramider

Wang Chung sounds better Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

"everybody have fun tonight, everybody Chung Brad tonight..."

um.. nope, Chung Brad is a little stiff..

I strongly support the 2nd Amendment; but personally I would have a hard time pulling the trigger on a fleeing robber over a gold necklace in a public parking lot.

But if this scenario went down in my home at 2 am - stolen jewelry or nothing; no problem.

Google "Joe Horn"

Houston DA (Pasadena?) tried to indict. Grand Jury "no billed". That is, the grand jury told the DA to stick up his #SS. This is not CA/NYC/MA or the People's Republic of Travis County. No Way a Grand Jury in Dallas/Tarrant/Collin County indicts this guy and without that a civil suit has a minimal chance of success, no matter what some lawyer might say. This is not he OJ case.

The asshole also knocked the guy's wife to the ground. So on top of theft, you have assault and battery.

Note:: if you ever get in to a situation like this, shoot his stomach. Or a little lower. Farther up and you could be indicted as trying to kill him instead of trying to stop him.

...

Note:: if you ever get in to a situation like this, shoot his stomach. Or a little lower. Farther up and you could be indicted as trying to kill him instead of trying to stop him. Originally Posted by Prolongus

I have never heard that advice before.................I have heard, if you are going to pull the trigger, shoot to kill.

Center mass.

Center mass

Center mass.

Period.

When my dad was about 75 he was sitting in his car in a parking lot. 3 20-somethings apparently didn't realize he was in the car and decided to roll a shopping cart down the hill to see if they could hit the car. They did and start hooting and hollering like they had won the lotto. Dad got out of the car and yelled a few obscenities back and forth with them, stuff about kicking each other's asses and such, and one of the guys ran full bore down the hill towards my dad. Now as a sidebar, my dad has ALWAYS had a hot temper and has always been a pretty violent person. And he was still a gym rat even at that age. He stood his ground and as the young guy got within his range he let loose with a right and caught him square in the face. Considering the kid was running at him with the apparent idea of tackling him you can imagine the impact the fist had on his moving face, LOL! Dad said he hit him so hard that his feet flew up and his whole body was airborne briefly. As he staggered up from the ground dad took a step towards him and he took off running with what we will call extreme urgency. Sure it didn't fix the dent in the car, but dad said he left the parking lot feeling like they were even, hahaha!

I forgot to add, apparently the young man enjoyed flowing locks as my dad said when he hit him "there was hair flying everywhere." LOL!

If the bad guys hung around any CHL classes, they'd realize that a high number of participants are retirees, and maybe they'd think twice about assuming everyone over 65 is an easy target. Originally Posted by TinMan

True that! Gotta watch out for us older guys. Some of us just aren't interested in being easy targets!

Google "Joe Horn"

Houston DA (Pasadena?) tried to indict. Grand Jury "no billed". That is, the grand jury told the DA to stick up his #SS. This is not CA/NYC/MA or the People's Republic of Travis County. No Way a Grand Jury in Dallas/Tarrant/Collin County indicts this guy and without that a civil suit has a minimal chance of success, no matter what some lawyer might say. This is not he OJ case. Originally Posted by blue3122

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pa...na-1587004.php

But even more amazingly, there's this:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...er-4581027.php

A key argument was that the shooting was justified in order to recover the property ($150 in consideration for which no escort services were rendered) by means of deadly force, since the incident happened at nighttime. Whether the jury acquitted for that reason, or for some other, this seems to indicate that the prosecution tends to have a tough time in instances where it can reasonably be alleged that the decedent committed any type of theft immediately prior to the use of deadly force.

.......I have heard, if you are going to pull the trigger, shoot to kill. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

That's not what we were taught in any of my CHL renewal classes.

Rather, we were told that the objective should be to stop the attack. (And, if the assailant dies in the process, so be it.)

Yes, that means aiming for center mass. But the instructors I've had all emphasized that if you are ever asked directly, in any criminal proceeding, whether you "shot to kill," you should reply in the negative. You shot to "stop the attack." Nothing more, nothing less.

Now watch. >sarcastic tone ON< The family of the thief is gonna sue the old guy because their poor-poor misunderstood yuuf didn't deserve to die over a gold necklace. >sarcastic tone OFF< Originally Posted by Hercules

I doubt that you'll see a lawsuit in this case, if only because the guy probably isn't much of a target. I happened to see a local TV report that showed a quick pan of the shooter's residence. It's very modest, to say the least, so it's likely that he has little or no net worth.

If the guy appeared to have high income earning potential or substantial net worth, you can bet that he'd be in the sights of some lawsuit-happy plaintiff's attorney, no matter the facts of the case and the apparent justifiability of the shooting.

Sound legal advice; hope I never have to say use it.....

But in the case of Mr. Lumens; the news story says he shot the fleeing robber.....how is that shooting to stop the attack? The attack was over, yet it looks like Mr. Lumens won't face a grand jury....and if someone is shooting a fleeing attacker, doesn't that shooter risk shooting him in the back, and creating even more legal exposure for the shooter ?

..,,,

You shot to "stop the attack." Nothing more, nothing less.


Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Sound legal advice; hope I never have to say use it.....

But in the case of Mr. Lumens; the news story says he shot the fleeing robber.....how is that shooting to stop the attack? The attack was over, yet it looks like Mr. Lumens won't face a grand jury....and if someone is shooting a fleeing attacker, doesn't that shooter risk shooting him in the back, and creating even more legal exposure for the shooter ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It appears that in this case, Lummus did not shoot to "stop the attack," but rather to recover stolen property from the fleeing criminal. As I understand it, that may be permissible under Texas law. At least, that's what some news reports on this and other similar crimes indicate.

What I was speaking to was the issue of whether you should, under any circumstances, admit that you were "shooting to kill."

Perhaps a corollary here would be that Lummus's defense team, in the event that he faced prosecution, would maintain that he was acting only to "recover his stolen property," not to kill the assailant in a vigilante action.

But I don't think I would shoot anyone under any circumstances other than those involving fear for my life. Could an ambitious, aggressive prosecutor make the case that I had crossed the line separating reasonable actions to recover stolen property and vigilante justice?

I wouldn't want to find out the hard way.

Decades ago when my family lived out in the boonies and I reached an appropriate age, my dad taught me to always fire three warning shots at the chest if necessary.

Sorry but us ol guys do not play well with so called bad asses . We Cheat !

I never knew it was legal for a private citizen to shoot a fleeing criminal for the purpose of recovering stolen property.

Any legal experts out there that can shed light on case law around use of deadly force to recover stolen property. Any other states with similar use of deadly force?

...It appears that in this case, Lummus did not shoot to "stop the attack," but rather to recover stolen property from the fleeing criminal. As I understand it, that may be permissible under Texas law. At least, that's what some news reports on this and other similar crimes indicate.

.... Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight