Houston - Armed Customer Thwarts Robbery At Dennys Restaurant

[mistergus75]

This one turned out right.

Two BG's burst in a Dennys wearing masks and waving guns.

They weren't counting on an armed customer being ready to shoot back.

Link Removed

Link Removed

More proof....Armed law-abiding citizens make us all safer.

 

[B2Tall]

Nice story but as in other threads it begs the question - at what point do you stop shooting. The customer persued the perps out of the restaurant and continued to shoot. Fortunately no bystanders were hurt by the GGs zeal. He also might want to work on his aim a bit.

If they start running, I stop shooting....as long as they don't stop running.

 

[mistergus75]

Nice story but as in other threads it begs the question - at what point do you stop shooting. The customer persued the perps out of the restaurant and continued to shoot. Fortunately no bystanders were hurt by the GGs zeal. He also might want to work on his aim a bit.

If they start running, I stop shooting....as long as they don't stop running.

Good point, but under Texas law, it's acceptable.

Almost a year ago, same thing happened in a Houston Waffle House. Three BG's burst in, two of them robbed the customers while the third cleaned out the cash register.

After they left, customer raced to his car, retrieved his 9mm, and fired several shots into the back of the escaping white SUV.

His actions were discussed in the Houston media. It was explained that he was within his rights according to the "right of fresh pursuit".

Here's the link for that story...

Link Removed

 

[Deserteagle]

Good for him for trying to stop crime. However, the business may have lost less money if they just gave the guy the money rather than have to fix bullet holes throughout the restaurant. Not to mention endangering others in a shootout.

And here is what I disagree with "The customer followed the suspects, firing as he went. "

Had the customer killed the men as they ran, that sounds like being the judge, jury, and executioner and is a bad bad idea.
Good intentions- maybe. Bad way of going about it- yes.
Sometimes its best to just get a good description and call 911 rather than be a trigger happy mall ninja.

 

[JSDinTexas]

When the Threat is No Longer

A while back, a guy grabbed a six-pack and ran out of a convenience store here in Texas - the clerk shot at him, missed I guess, and then followed him out of the store and back-shot him dead. Clerk said he was tired of being robbed. Charge: Manslaughter. Verdict: Guilty. And that was here in pro-gun Texas.

Official answer is, shoot only as long as the threat exists. And to address a related thread question, I am not too concerned with putting multiple rounds in them as long as the holes are generally all in the front (sometimes they spin around).

And doubt I would have engaged in this one - that is unless their attention wandered over to me - then, with my handgun already unholstered from the start of it, I would light them up.

 

[mistergus75]

A while back, a guy grabbed a six-pack and ran out of a convenience store here in Texas - the clerk shot at him, missed I guess, and then followed him out of the store and back-shot him dead. Clerk said he was tired of being robbed. Charge: Manslaughter. Verdict: Guilty. And that was here in pro-gun Texas.

I don't disagree that once the threat is over, probably no need to shoot. But I see a big difference in the story you relate in that there is no mention of the thief using a gun to commit the robbery. If someone shoots an unarmed man over a six-pack, yeah, that's not okay.

I'm just referencing how the laws in Texas seem to address these general situations, not the wisdom of shooting at fleeing BG's.

 

[nogods]

I have no issue with the guy protecting himself in the situation - he was the only customer. But what if the place was full of customers? would he have started a gun fight under those circumstances? hopefully not.

 

[B2Tall]

Good point, but under Texas law, it's acceptable.

First, thanks.

Secondly, "acceptable" doesn't always mean "wise". And the only reason it was acceptable is because no bystanders were hurt. I guarantee if somebody other than the perps had been injured by the GGs bullets, the GG would have been in a world of trouble. And that's not even taking into account possible property damage that, even under Texas law, I'm sure the GG would have been responsible for.

I'll shoot at an active threat, just not at somebody jumping into a vehicle and driving away. I'm not willing to keep myself in a deadly situation nor am I willing to put people on the street in danger.

 

[JSDinTexas]

I don't disagree that once the threat is over, probably no need to shoot. But I see a big difference in the story you relate in that there is no mention of the thief using a gun to commit the robbery. If someone shoots an unarmed man over a six-pack, yeah, that's not okay.

I'm just referencing how the laws in Texas seem to address these general situations, not the wisdom of shooting at fleeing BG's.

No problem, I wasn't really responding directly to your post, and the "fresh pursuit" thing is interesting. My example was just that shooting after the threat is gone is not too good to a grand jury. And you are right, my example was a little off.
Concerning Waffle House robberies - a guy was robbing them in Dallas I believe (a thread is on this site about it) and he would fire off a round when he entered the place - that guy I'd drop with no hesitation.

 

[mistergus75]

One more example...Homeowner engages in car chase with thief who had been stealing shingles off his house.

Homeowner is shooting at fleeing vehicle, trying to "shoot out his tires".

Homeowner catches vehicle, wounded driver pleading, "please don't shoot me anymore".

No charges against homeowner, even though story says nothing about thieves even having a gun, much less using one.

Robbery is a dangerous profession here in Texas.

Link Removed

 

[JSDinTexas]

One more example...Homeowner engages in car chase with thief who had been stealing shingles off his house.

Homeowner is shooting at fleeing vehicle, trying to "shoot out his tires".

Homeowner catches vehicle, wounded driver pleading, "please don't shoot me anymore".

No charges against homeowner, even though story says nothing about thieves even having a gun, much less using one.

Robbery is a dangerous profession here in Texas.

Link Removed

Shingles. Almost makes me feel sorry for the guy - I said almost :biggrin:

But on a serious note, I assume they are all bad news and act accordingly.

 

[maybejim]

Good for him for trying to stop crime. However, the business may have lost less money if they just gave the guy the money rather than have to fix bullet holes throughout the restaurant. Not to mention endangering others in a shootout.

And here is what I disagree with "The customer followed the suspects, firing as he went. "

Had the customer killed the men as they ran, that sounds like being the judge, jury, and executioner and is a bad bad idea.
Good intentions- maybe. Bad way of going about it- yes.
Sometimes its best to just get a good description and call 911 rather than be a trigger happy mall ninja.

Problem is bad law and bad juries. If like in Texas you were allowed to shoot them because they stole something and a few got shot, we might have fewer robberies. Fact is if they were still armed they were still dangerous and you might or might not win the jury trial depending largely on where you are located.

 

[Providence Ranch]

Yep, the guy was fine until he turned from armed citizen to superhero. Should never have fired at the fleeing vehicle. California, that'd get you 3-5.

 

[Iam2Taz]

Agree with much of above... Chasing and shooting at fleeing criminals. Probably not the thing to do. (Texas or otherwise.)
Until confronted with a situation where I am at a Denny's and 3 BGs come in to rob the place, I will not consider the outcome. There are simply too many variables.
Insurance will pay for all but the deductible. The store will get a nice new coat of paint, windows, and a Grand Reopening! LOL.

 

[NavyLCDR]

In Washington, if the good guy had killed any of the criminals after they were fleeing, he could have been prosecuted. RCW 9A.16.050:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished

It seems to me that the bold part above is the key phrase. Once the criminals left the restaurant and were fleeing, it would seem as if imminent danger of such design being accomplished had passed. The bullet holes in the van would have been great evidence for the prosecution of the good guy.

In that case, I would have followed them to the door of the restaurant and waited to ensure they were actually leaving rather than regrouping, but not continued shooting.

Know your laws, and know when to stop shooting.

 

[mercdragon]

Et Al,
Folk, a great many CCW permit holders have never had the misfortune of being in a firefight of any form outside of controlled range conditions. It is being stressed by posters, but not directly addressed, "in the heat of the moment" has to change to, "I perceived a life threatening action in progress and my reaction was to save my life and the lives of those around me." We all must take a step back and remember, if you don't practice the actions, the results are not always going to happen as you imagine how they are to occur.

Many states have a DO NOT PURSUE, unless being fired upon set of laws. It is to prevent spray and pray tactics. It may be wise to review your current carry laws, as they may have updates in January.

Experience? Yes. I'm able to write this because of my training and practice.

Take care and be safe
pfb

 

[walt629]

Good for him for trying to stop crime. However, the business may have lost less money if they just gave the guy the money rather than have to fix bullet holes throughout the restaurant. Not to mention endangering others in a shootout.

And here is what I disagree with "The customer followed the suspects, firing as he went. "

Had the customer killed the men as they ran, that sounds like being the judge, jury, and executioner and is a bad bad idea.
Good intentions- maybe. Bad way of going about it- yes.
Sometimes its best to just get a good description and call 911 rather than be a trigger happy mall ninja.

I guess you have to understand Texas law. As stated previously in here:

Good point, but under Texas law, it's acceptable.

Almost a year ago, same thing happened in a Houston Waffle House. Three BG's burst in, two of them robbed the customers while the third cleaned out the cash register.

After they left, customer raced to his car, retrieved his 9mm, and fired several shots into the back of the escaping white SUV.

His actions were discussed in the Houston media. It was explained that he was within his rights according to the "right of fresh pursuit".

Important to weight the actions of others according to the laws of that state in which the incident happens.

 

[walt629]

A while back, a guy grabbed a six-pack and ran out of a convenience store here in Texas - the clerk shot at him, missed I guess, and then followed him out of the store and back-shot him dead. Clerk said he was tired of being robbed. Charge: Manslaughter. Verdict: Guilty. And that was here in pro-gun Texas.

The clerk shot an unarmed guy in the back (per this description). He got what he deserved. A snatch and run is a heck of a lot different than an armed robbery and the reactions to each have to be measured by many variables.

 

[Deserteagle]

I guess you have to understand Texas law. As stated previously in here:



Important to weight the actions of others according to the laws of that state in which the incident happens.

Unfortunately Texas laws like this do not represent the larger majority of the country's laws surrounding this. And, as stated by another poster, just because you can do something doesnt mean its wise. Shooting at a fleeing person like this is murder in my mind.

 

[mistergus75]

Another thing to add to the mix...

Under Texas law, you can use deadly force to protect your property, but only at night.

Why it's legal to use your weapon in defense of property at night, but not legal to do so during the day is a mystery to me.