TEXAS: Business Owner Stakes Out His Own Store.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Business-Owner-Shoots-Burglar-175382701.html

Back in the 1960s and early 70s police would stake out stores that had a high probability of being robbed. The police would hide in the store and when the criminal produced his gun they would open fire on him, usually fatally. The ACLU, NAACP and other organizations were highly critical of the practice, claiming that the police were ambushing and summarily executing the robbers. By the late 1970s the practice had been abandoned.

This store owner's auto supply shop was burglarized Saturday night and again on Sunday night. So Monday night he waited inside his store with a shotgun. The burglars returned and he opened fire, firing five shots. He hit one burglar, the other got away. The injured burglar is in the hospital.

Under Texas Castle Doctrine he is not being charged.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand a person has a right to protect his property and himself. But waiting in ambush seems to me to be somewhat over-the-top.

I will be absent from this thread until Monday.

[rrneck]

1. I don't much like the idea

of shooting someone over property. Lying in wait for a property thief reads like an ambush to me.

[Eleanors38]

6. I'm on the edge about that as well. But it has to be absolutely frustrating...

to have your business (or home) hit time and time again. Most LEO will tell you that if someone breaks in your place, they WILL be back again, and if they succeed again, a contempt for the victim is built up by the thug. This can lead to more violent stuff, if you are home.

On a separate note, "man traps," as I understand them, are illegal. This is where a device is used to "automatically" take out a B&E-type who breaks in when no one is around. There are a couple of examples of this I heard of from my youthful days in Florida. One had a well-known gun-dealer setting up a crew-served machine gun, covering the front door of his concrete reinforced shop; the other where a Miami business owner, after experiencing his third break-in (entry through a vertical ventilation shaft) set up a shotgun which was tripped by entry. South Florida's biggest mortar claimed one puker. The grand jury no-billed.

[jollyreaper2112]

2. meh

Of mixed minds on this.

Generally, I find gun-fondlers to be tedious violence fetishists who are looking for a societally-sanctioned opportunity to kill someone and prove they're Billy Badass.

That being said, I don't have a problem with shooting someone who has clearly done a Bad Thing. I'd be murderously enraged if I found anyone breaking into my property. I know that would not leave me in the frame of mind where I should even be near a butter knife, let alone a firearm. I just can't muster up any sympathy for the victim, not even if he were dead.

However, the usual gun story is like the idiots shooting the "skunk" only to find out its a family member in costume. Gun-fondlers are not responsible firearm owners, they are reckless, dangerous, and do not respect the weapon.

[Eleanors38]

5. "The usual story" you hear are the exceptions. But most MSM like it that way...

Most homicides are committed by veteran felons, who for some peculiar reason are roaming about on the streets where they can, you know, get some more.

I don't know what you mean by "gun-fondlers." I should at least handle mine more by going to the range more often.

[holdencaufield]

7. I wasn't "fondling" it ...

... I was just cleaning it.

Get your mind out of the gutter.

[former-republican]

3. No sympathy for thieves that steal money or property

When someone steals your property they steal a part of your life.

I have to work a long time to be able to afford an item that costs several hundred or thousands of dollars.

Yet a person can steal my weeks or months of work in a few seconds.
I can't get that part of my life back.

The hell with thieves of any sort.

[Llewlladdwr]

8. I second this.

Thieves are amongst the lowest of the low.

[ileus]

14. Some around say that's the risk you take when you choose to own "stuff"

I shit you not...


You're supposed to not only expect your stuff to be stolen, but you should accept it.

[ileus]

4. I don't know I'm conflicted.

As much as I like the result when some scumbag puke is poked full of holes, I don't like the idea of waiting with the purpose of engaging the robbers. (unless you live above or beside the place of business) Install an alarm system and let the cops respond.

Toss in the fact the owner puts himself in danger and to me it's not worth it.

[holdencaufield]

9. Reminds me of the hackneyed sign ...

"This house is guarded by shotgun, three nights per week - you guess which three"!


Apparently, the robber guessed wrong.

[ManiacJoe]

10. Any place but Texas, charges would be filled against the shooter.

The way the article was written, the shooter was not defending himself when the shots were fired.

I have no problem with the owner waiting in/near the store. This is exactly what any hired guard (armed or not) would be doing.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Good point about the guard.

I hadn't considered that.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Nope, not in Alabama, either.

In Alabama, you can use deadly force against someone in the act of robbery or burglary.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. There are quite a few states where this would be protected by Castle Doctrine.

Most castle doctrine laws provide that unlawful entry into an occupied vehicle or home IS basis/cause for reasonable presumption of grievous bodily injury or deadly threat. The mere fact that someone has broken into your occupied home or vehicle, whether armed or not, meets the requirements to use deadly force because a reasonable threat is legally determined to exist.

The fact that this occurred in a privately owned business rather than a house make little difference to me. In the end, don't be a criminal lowlife scumbag... don't get shot at. It's that simple.

[ManiacJoe]

20. Not quite.

Most Castle Doctrine laws require the illegal entry to be illegal and violent. Plus, when the intruders are no longer a lethal threat, you are no longer allowed to use lethal force against them, Castle Doctrine or not.

[Jenoch]

22. Are you suggesting

that the robbers in this incident entered the business legally?

[ManiacJoe]

23. I am not suggesting that.

According to the article, they were shot while fleeing. Since they were fleeing they were no longer a lethal threat.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. I would not be so sure about that

Illegal presence is presumptive of harmful intent for most states and there is no duty to retreat That also means shooting them in the back is also legal.

[ManiacJoe]

25. As always, check your local laws.

In most of the recent SYG laws passed recently, the standard is "illegally and forcefully entered". However, that only establishes the _initial_ state of lethal threat.

The problem is not _where_ they are shot, front-back does not matter. The problem is _when_. When the criminals are fleeing, they are no longer a lethal threat, thus in most juristictions you legally cannot use lethal force against them at that time.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. The problem arises if the perps are shot while still in the house but are "fleeing"

In most jurisdiction, the illegal presences means it will be considered a legal shooting.

[ManiacJoe]

27. My understanding of most jurisdictions (Texas not withstanding)

is that it takes noticeably more than just "the illegal presence" to justify the shooting, even under the newer SYG laws.

Thus, check your local laws.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. OOPS. Got my days mixed up. I thought today was Friday.

I am not able to post over the weekends due to my work schedule.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. I have no problem with this.

The man was robbed two nights in a row.

Here is the interesting part:

"Police records show that thieves broke into Gabby Hall Auto Parts on Saturday, then again on Sunday."

So the police had a record of the two previous thefts, but did not watch over the store to make sure it did not happen again!

So the police, the very people we are told we should rely on to protect us and our property, did not protect this man's store despite the fact that they knew it had been robbed two nights in a row already!

So what is a store owner supposed to do? Nothing? Keep filing police reports?

Hell no. A good man stood up to bad people bent on robbing him a third time.

Good for him.

[slackmaster]

16. I think he had very good reason to guard his store

I don't believe the word "ambush" applies here, because he wasn't trying to attack people who were engaged in lawful activities. He was simply guarding his property and himself.

His actions would have been legal even under California's Castle Doctrine. A person can keep a loaded firearm, even concealed, in his or her home or place of business at any time.

[MicaelS]

17. I have no problem with this.

As far as I'm concerned, the RKBA exists precisely for actions like this. As others have mentioned, it is no different from him hiring an armed security guard who shot the two thieves.

And one should not felt guilty about protecting the property that represents how you feed, clothe and house yourself and your family. And independent business man or woman who can't work could find himself and family hungry or homeless.

I do not believe it it ethical and moral for someone who works hard, pays their taxes, and doesn’t commit crime to become homeless to save the life of a thief.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Thank you all for your helpful responses. N/T

[4th law of robotics]

21. Waiting in an ambush for someone does precisely zero harm

unless that person chooses to invade your property.

[Francis Marion]

28. Getting shot while burglarizing

... is a job hazard. Just like the risk of getting hepatitis for health care workers.

A prospective burglar should consider the risk implications in their 'chosen field'.

The tragedy of the story consists of the 20% casualty rate; given close quarters and the weapon used, the store owner has some room for improvement.

Sergeant York (according to folklore) would shoot the guys farthest away, and then work inward. So as not to 'spook' the guys in front.