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.

Customer, armed robbers engage in shootout | News - Home

http://www.khou.com/news/Suspects-so...134532763.html

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...

http://www.khou.com/home/Armed-Waffl...121414449.html

[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]

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.

HPD: Homeowner shoots suspect allegedly stealing roofing materials | khou.com Houston