Officials: Man interrupts store robbery, kills attacker

[Peikko 1,575]

Te death penalty implies that he was tried and convicted in a court of law. I think the D.A. and grand jury will call this justifiable homicide. Which is what it was.

Yes, it is going to go down as justifiable homicide, but what it actually is is an encouragement for untrained civilians to make judgement calls about criminal intent, that's not good for ensuring that our streets are peaceful and gun fights as rare as hens teeth, nor is it actually much good for encouraging a society wide respect for life which is really what ensures safety, not having loads of civilians armed to the teeth.

Edited May 31, 2014 by The Truth™

[Sousuke 1,214]

You missed the point. Dealing with criminals in a fashion that renders them incarcerated rather than dead is what the police are supposed to be good at, and that SHOULD be the desired outcome of all concerned citizens, not shooting people dead for committing crimes. That's why civilians are not and shouldn't be encouraged to engage in these gung ho shoot outs and why there are no death penalties on the statute book simply for engaging in crime. It's not desirable to encourage this type of behaviour, not desirable at all.

The police would have likely killed him as well. The man had a firearm, the police would have fired as well and as much as people believe the police will "shoot at the legs" or other such myths - its not true. They shoot center of mass like this marine.

I am against the death penalty, but in situations like this where the attacker is armed, the outcome is usually death. Its not the desired outcome and its not legal judgement, but its often the safest response by police so that they make it home to their families.

[GandD 5,966]

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Officials-Man-interrupts-store-robbery-kills-5514834.php

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.

So the guys robbing the store had guns they were using for criminal activities? We should prob do something about that so your hero of the story doesn't have to risk his life. Seems like a decent man and I wouldn't want him to have to continually put his life on the line. He prob has a family that cares about him.

[Karee 4,190]

Yes, it is going to go down as justifiable homicide, but what it actually is is an encouragement for untrained civilians to make judgement calls about criminal intent, that's not good for ensuring that our streets are peaceful and gun fights as rare as hens teeth, nor is it actually much good for encouraging a society wide respect for life which is really what ensures safety, not having loads of civilians armed to the teeth.

I'd say that the armed robber was the one that violated the peace. When you plan and carry out an armed robbery, you're pretty much throwing away your right to a trial. There's a chance an armed store owner, a cop, or in this case a concerned citizen will kill you dead for your troubles. This guy gambled and lost.

I'd hardly call a former Marine and untrained civilian.

So the guys robbing the store had guns they were using for criminal activities? We should prob do something about

Any ideas?

[GandD 5,966]

Yes, it is going to go down as justifiable homicide, but what it actually is is an encouragement for untrained civilians to make judgement calls about criminal intent, that's not good for ensuring that our streets are peaceful and gun fights as rare as hens teeth, nor is it actually much good for encouraging a society wide respect for life which is really what ensures safety, not having loads of civilians armed to the teeth.

It's amazing how convinced gun advocates are that the world is so bad they need to carry a gun when shopping for groceries. Yet balk at the suggestion that more and more guns would end up in the hands of the very people they are afraid of.

[lostinblue 1,989]

I know, but it's the entitlement to shoot because you legally own a gun that I was getting at. All these people felt that the possession of a legal gun entitled them to make poor decisions.

The thug was the one who made the poor decision. .. you side with the thugs all the time. Poor poor thug.... He chose a life of armed crime and paid for it. Bad decision on his part. The next armed robbery he perhaps would have killed someone you know?...

[GandD 5,966]

I'd say that the armed robber was the one that violated the peace. When you plan and carry out an armed robbery, you're pretty much throwing away your right to a trial. There's a chance an armed store owner, a cop, or in this case a concerned citizen will kill you dead for your troubles. This guy gambled and lost.

I'd hardly call a former Marine and untrained civilian.

Any ideas?

Lots. But I'm sure they're all wrong.

The thug was the one who made the poor decision. .. you side with the thugs all the time. Poor poor thug.... He chose a life of armed crime and paid for it. Bad decision on his part. The next armed robbery he perhaps would have killed someone you know?...

Oh hey man, I thought we'd lost you.

[Peikko 1,575]

The police would have likely killed him as well. The man had a firearm, the police would have fired as well and as much as people believe the police will "shoot at the legs" or other such myths - its not true. They shoot center of mass like this marine.

I am against the death penalty, but in situations like this where the attacker is armed, the outcome is usually death. Its not the desired outcome and its not legal judgement, but its often the safest response by police so that they make it home to their families.

That may be true, but I would hope that in the US as in other civilized societies the goal is to apprehend criminals if that can be done safely. I would imagine that it could have been done safely but of course I don't know anymore than you KNOW that it couldn't have happened in that way as you suggested. However, what we do know is that police, for all their faults, are trained to render suspects harmless to themselves and those around them, civilians are not. Civilians do not have the benefit of training that allows for a peaceful and secure outcome to criminal behaviour, nor seemingly do they have any interest in doing so. This shouldn't be something we accept blindly. A society that accepts and condones overkill in these situations is perpetuating violent outcomes. That's not a good thing.

Edited May 31, 2014 by The Truth™

[Peikko 1,575]

I'd say that the armed robber was the one that violated the peace. When you plan and carry out an armed robbery, you're pretty much throwing away your right to a trial. There's a chance an armed store owner, a cop, or in this case a concerned citizen will kill you dead for your troubles. This guy gambled and lost.

I'd hardly call a former Marine and untrained civilian.

Any ideas?

The armed robber did make the first bad choice, of course that's correct and no one, least of all me is suggesting that had he started shooting to kill both innocent bystanders or those trying to apprehend him he should just be left shooting away. However, that does not mean that the inevitable outcome is death to the armed robber, and in fact in many other countries around the world not only are armed robberies incredibly rare, but the police apprehend the criminals without endangering themselves and those around them rather than shooting them dead.

As to a former marine being an untrained civiian, absolutely, he has no training in apprehending criminals,assessing criminal intent or securing a crime scene, none whatsoever. He may be a crack shot, but a crack shot a policeman does not name.

[Peikko 1,575]

The thug was the one who made the poor decision. .. you side with the thugs all the time. Poor poor thug.... He chose a life of armed crime and paid for it. Bad decision on his part. The next armed robbery he perhaps would have killed someone you know?...

I am not siding with the thug by preferring to have criminals arrested than shot dead. I am not in favor of wild west style shootouts in shopping malls because a civilian decides he knows how to deal with a crime scene.

[lostinblue 1,989]

I'd say that the armed robber was the one that violated the peace. When you plan and carry out an armed robbery, you're pretty much throwing away your right to a trial. There's a chance an armed store owner, a cop, or in this case a concerned citizen will kill you dead for your troubles. This guy gambled and lost.

I'd hardly call a former Marine and untrained civilian.

Any ideas?

That Marine if he saw action in the last two war zones could have seen more defensive action in one afternoon than most Barney Fife's do in a life time. A friend of mine spent most of his time clearing houses when overseas. This is when he was on patrol anyways. He is very well trained to handle this type of situation. He this shooter saw a threat and neuteralize the killer ;.

[Sousuke 1,214]

That may be true, but I would hope that in the US as in other civilized societies the goal is to apprehend criminals if that can be done safely. I would imagine that it could have been done safely but of course I don't know anymore than you KNOW that it couldn't have happened in the way as you suggested. However, what we do know is that police, for all their faults, are trained to render suspects harmless to themselves and those around them, civilians are not. Civilians do not have the benefit of training that allows for a peaceful and secure outcome to criminal behaviour, nor seemingly do they have any interest in doing so. This shouldn't be something we accept blindly. A society that accepts and condones overkill in these situations is perpetuating violent outcomes. That's not a good thing.

When a suspect is armed and wielding, they are trained to shoot. Personally, I think some* police are alittle too quick to shoot (I have to say 'some' as I have family in law enforcement and I trust them 100%). I watched the police corner a homeless man who was mentally ill who had a knife. They ended up shooting him....why they could not have used tasers I don't know, perhaps their department doesn't issue them.

If your primary point is that we shouldn't glorify death as the solution then I agree with you completely.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[lostinblue 1,989]

I am not siding with the thug by preferring to have criminals arrested than shot dead. I am not in favor of wild west style shootouts in shopping malls because a civilian decides he knows how to deal with a crime scene.

So the marine should just stand there and let the thug kill him. A loaded gun wag being pointed at him .

[Peikko 1,575]

When a suspect is armed and wielding, they are trained to shoot. Personally, I think police are alittle too quick to shoot. I watched the police corner a homeless man who was mentally ill who had a knife. They ended up shooting him....why they could not have used tasers I don't know, perhaps their department doesn't issue them.

If your primary point is that we shouldn't glorify death as the solution then I agree with you completely.

You are right on that score, but it seems to me that part of that lies in the fact that the police never have any idea at all who may or may not carry a gun. However, I still do not favor allowing civilians to make these choices as well. It just escalates the likelihood of a violent outcome, sadly.

So the marine should just stand there and let the thug kill him. A loaded gun wag being pointed at him .

Yes lib, that's exactly what I said.

Edited May 31, 2014 by The Truth™

[GandD 5,966]

That Marine if he saw action in the last two war zones could have seen more defensive action in one afternoon than most Barney Fife's do in a life time. A friend of mine spent most of his time clearing houses when overseas. This is when he was on patrol anyways. He is very well trained to handle this type of situation. He this shooter saw a threat and neuteralize the killer ;.

Does he have any foresight on when the army will be mobilized against the American populace? I need to make sure I've got my gun before that. Can you check and get back to me? I mean, I know we don't agree a lot but I'm not a criminal or anything so I don't think you'd want me to be a victim of the liberal government crack down looming on the horizon.