CHL holder unintentionally kills store clerk, trying to stop armed robbers.

[russ1943]

HOUSTON -
Houston Police confirm it was a customer with a concealed handgun license who accidentally shot and killed a store clerk. The CHL holder was trying to protect Tyrza Smith, 26, from armed robbers, but something went terribly wrong and she was killed. It happened on May 17 at the Family Dollar located at 6951 Bellfort in southeast Houston.

Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18661869/2012/05/30/chl?clienttype=printable#ixzz1yHxsVyFn

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18661869/chl

I thought it interesting that the news article includes the statement “The CHL holder could still be sued in civil court even if the deadly force is found to be justified.”

[safeinOhio]

1. Civil law is about loss and criminal law

is about crime. The two are very different. You may be sued for actions that are legal or illegal.

[sarisataka]

2. I believe Texas

law could protect the CCL holder is no charges are filed.

Since the robbers locked the door with the customers inside, it is reasonable to expect this situation was going to go bad. The civilian did try to leave.

A big question then was should he have stood by and allow the robbery to progress or did the robbers open fire to stop him from leaving or did he try to pre-empt their actions?

No good choices there.

Does anyone know what charges the robbers are facing?

[safeinOhio]

3. I'll bet a good lawyer could find him at fault,

at least for being a poor shot.

[ManiacJoe]

4. Assuming the clerk did not step into the line of fire...

We have no details on what actually happened.

[russ1943]

22. Immunity means?

Since immunity from civil liability is one of the only reasons IMO to even consider legislation in this area, I thought that statement, as I posted, interesting. I understand the general difference between civil and criminal law. I’m not an attorney but since a “google” of SYG laws provides the information that; Texas'
Senate Bill 378 also provides immunity from civil liability for a personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force to a defendant who was justified under the law in using such force or deadly force
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillSummary.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=SB378

Maybe it’s just a case of a reporter who is unaware.

[gejohnston]

24. Could be. While common in SYG states,

at least one DTR state also has immunity from civil action if you prove your self defense case. AFAIK, Wyoming is the only one like that.

[sarisataka]

34. If Texas law gives civil immunity

it will never get to trial.
Even if it does, proving negligence would be very hard if the robber had hold of the clerk. Defense would argue that he used the clerk as a shield at the last moment.

Say the shooter was a LEO. Of course the department would be sued but do people often win such suits when the unintended victim is unavoidably in the line of fire?

[ManiacJoe]

8. Charges are probably robbery and felony murder.

Assuming that state has a felonly murder law.
Depending on the criminal histories, illegal gun charges could be added.

A big question then was should he have stood by and allow the robbery to progress or did the robbers open fire to stop him from leaving or did he try to pre-empt their actions?

Unfortunately, the media will probably not give us those answers due to a lack of follow-up.

[ManiacJoe]

5. Interesting question from the article:

Should the customer have pulled his weapon, especially since most robbers are happy just getting the cash?

The locked door by the robbers suggest they were not there "just getting the cash".

[Gman]

6. He should have never had a gun to begin with

These Zimmerman wannabes are worse than the robbery.

The facts are that there are entirely too many people running around claiming its an idiot's constitutional right to have a CHL.

That's what gun nuts don't get for reasons I won't go into. Not everyone should have a gun. They're too fucking stupid.

[Atypical Liberal]

10. Of course not everyone should have a gun.

But I don't see the problem with people who have have a background check carrying one.

[Gman]

12. Background checks dont screen for stupidity

and way too many CHL holders are that fucking stupid.

[PavePusher]

15. May I see the result of your...

Anti-stupidity Voting Check?

Please?

[Atypical Liberal]

68. We don't have intelligence tests for Constitutional rights.

I suppose you want testing prior to voting, too?

[Meiko]

14. This has nothing to do

with Zimmerman and that shooting.Why even bring it up, I am sick of the constant attempted comparisons. Actually gun owners are claiming that they have the right to own firearms and carry them where they want to, it's the state governments that put restrictions on it by saying you must have a CHL. You are correct about one thing, not everyone should have a gun. The big question is how do we weed out the good from the bad.

[apocalypsehow]

7. "Something went terribly wrong" - Yeah, some untrained Matt Dillon-wannabe pulled out his popgun,

and fired a piece of lead into an innocent person's body, killing said person. That's kinda the whole point in a civilized society of letting only those trained to enforce the law carry such weapons in the employment of their duties; why we have Police Departments.

Minimizing the extent to which amateurs with visions of being the hero in "High Noon" can wind up killing an innocent store clerk is just a side bonus in this business of getting civilized, but one I'll bet the family of this tragically slain store clerk wishes the state of Texas would get on board with, like, in the last century.

[PavePusher]

16. Please, post the details you are privy to that were not in the news report.

I can think of a myriad of ways it might not be the defensive shooters' fault.

[apocalypsehow]

19. Please, post an intellectually honest reply/query and it'll get replied to.

In the meantime, while you're figuring that process out, this is from the second link in this very OP:

"He pulled out his weapon and got in a gunfight with the robbers. Smith was caught in the crossfire, and ballistics tests show the CHL holder killed her."

Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18661869/chl#ixzz1yIhXEL2F

"I can think of a myriad of ways it might not be the defensive shooters' fault."

Really? That's nice. Meanwhile, back here on planet Earth, the rest of us can only think of one: he didn't actually pull that trigger of that firearm that put a piece of lead in that innocent clerk's body. But since he, well, did do just that - pull a trigger on a firearm in his possession that sent a piece of lead into an innocent person's body, thereby killing said person - that's not really a consideration reasonable persons of any stripe can (or do) entertain.



Edit: typo.

[PavePusher]

59. Your biases restrict your vision and perspective.

I can't help you with that.

"...post an intellectually honest reply/query...", indeed.

[apocalypsehow]

65. Your inability to address the issues raised in the OP is noted, and your refusal to

post an intellectually honest reply/query as regards those issues is acknowledged.

Have a nice day.

[PavePusher]

71. Since you want to play games, I'll give you two hypotheticals to jump-start your imagination.

1. One of the criminals could have pushed the clerk into the line of fire.

2. One of the criminals could have pushed/shoved/knocked the shooter while he was firing.

I'm sure someone as "intellectually honest" as yourself can come up with other scenarios that are not the fault of the defensive shooter. Have a nice day.

[gejohnston]

18. the locking door behind them

often means the cops won't be taking a armed robbery report from the clerk that night. Locking the door behind them usually means the next shift will call the cops while barfing their brains out, and the cops will call the corner and forensics lab.

[apocalypsehow]

20. "often means" - "usually means"

[gejohnston]

21. It's obvious at least one of them was less concerned about

getting the cash and making a quick getaway.

[apocalypsehow]

25. Please, post the details you are privy to that were not in the news report.

To coin a phrase...

Because there is nothing "obvious" about one bit of that in the publicly available reported stories to date - at least those that have been linked here. Perhaps you have info that the rest of us are unaware of.

The only "obvious" fact in this sad story is that an innocent store clerk is dead, and an "law-abiding gun owner" turned Marshal Dillon-wannabe is the person who put her there. End of story.

[gejohnston]

26. It was in the news report.

fifth paragraph, single sentence.

Police say Dwight Richardson, 20, and another man who hasn't been arrested are accused of bursting into the store, locking the front door and holding a gun to the clerk's head.

"They come in, they got guns out and they're threatening people in there. The CHL holder had every right to defend himself and that clerk," said Fox 26 legal analyst Chris Tritico.

The customer tried to leave but noticed the door was locked.

Did you read it, or are you too busy looking up fictional characters in TV westerns?
Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18661869/chl#ixzz1yItnOHI8

[apocalypsehow]

28. Simply false.

This was your original assertion:

"It's obvious at least one of them was less concerned about

getting the cash and making a quick getaway."

It was in reply to this:

""often means" - "usually means"

Which in turn referenced this, your rambling, disconnected attempt to...I don't know, just say something I guess, no matter how irrelevant it turned out to be:

"the locking door behind them

often means the cops won't be taking a armed robbery report from the clerk that night. Locking the door behind them usually means the next shift will call the cops while barfing their brains out, and the cops will call the corner and forensics lab."

This reply no more lends weight to your first reply than simply saying "Boo!" proves there is a ghost in the closet. But nice try.

[apocalypsehow]

30. "It was in the news report"

This is what you're claiming was "in the news report":

"the locking door behind them

often means the cops won't be taking a armed robbery report from the clerk that night. Locking the door behind them usually means the next shift will call the cops while barfing their brains out, and the cops will call the corner and forensics lab."

Here's what was actually in the "news report":

"Police say Dwight Richardson, 20, and another man who hasn't been arrested are accused of bursting into the store, locking the front door and holding a gun to the clerk's head.

"They come in, they got guns out and they're threatening people in there. The CHL holder had every right to defend himself and that clerk," said Fox 26 legal analyst Chris Tritico.

The customer tried to leave but noticed the door was locked."

The disparity between the claim of what was "in the news report" and what actually was in the news report is laughable, of course. But par for the course in these environs....

[gejohnston]

31. it seems simple deduction is not your strong suit

unless it is poorly written, the CHL could have been the only customer. That is why it says "the" customer not "a" customer. Also, who locked the door?

[apocalypsehow]

50. It seems simple that you like to make statements that you are then unable to substantiate.

You said:

"the CHL could have been the only customer. That is why it says "the" customer not "a" customer. Also, who locked the door?"

And? So what? Those are not germane to your original rambling non-sequitur - you know, like, the one that fired off this entire sub-thread - that "the locking door behind them often means the cops won't be taking a armed robbery report from the clerk that night. Locking the door behind them usually means the next shift will call the cops while barfing their brains out, and the cops will call the corner and forensics lab."

That latter was pure speculation, un-tethered to the slightest relevance to this story. Which is why I followed it up with the following reply: ""often means" - "usually means", highlighting said speculative nature of your non-responsive and irrelevant reply.

Of course, this is all semantics game-playing by you in any event; an attempt to divert from the irrefutable fact that an innocent citizen lays dead from a gunshot wound, and a free-lance vigilante, aka "law-abiding gun owner," with a popgun perched in his pants put her there, period.

All the rest is just noise, including this ridiculous sub-thread, and attempts to obfuscate and divert from that irrefutable fact I outlined above are obvious to any honest observer.

Edit: typo.

[sarisataka]

27. Or...

Did the robbers notice the carrier trying to leave and they started shooting?

The story continues.

[apocalypsehow]

29. The story does not "continue": the innocent store clerk is dead, at the hands of an

"law-abiding gun owner" with an "CHL" and a deep desire, apparently, to act out Dirty Harry fantasies in the real world.

That is a fact we know - all the rest is just airy speculation and "pro-gun progressive" spin and wishful thinking.

[gejohnston]

32. now who is speculating?

"law-abiding gun owner" with an "CHL" and a deep desire, apparently, to act out Dirty Harry fantasies in the real world.

At least mine is actually based on something.

[apocalypsehow]

51. Now who's posting another laughably disproved falsehood? Oh, look!:

The reply of mine you are replying to stated:

"The story does not "continue": the innocent store clerk is dead, at the hands of an

"law-abiding gun owner" with an "CHL" and a deep desire, apparently, to act out Dirty Harry fantasies in the real world.

That is a fact we know - all the rest is just airy speculation and "pro-gun progressive" spin and wishful thinking."



The very first paragraphof the linked OP states:

Houston Police confirm it was a customer with a concealed handgun license who accidentally shot and killed a store clerk. The CHL holder was trying to protect Tyrza Smith, 26, from armed robbers, but something went terribly wrong and she was killed."

Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18661869/chl#ixzz1yLl6mvNE

So, everything in the reply you falsely claimed was just "speculation" is actually confirmed in the very first paragraph of the linked OP.

Such brazen mendacity would be stunning, were this not the Gungeon. Every one who has ever paid attention to the joint knows this is par for the course down here from our "pro-gun progressives."


Edit x 2: emphasis added & stray typo.

[gejohnston]

76. I don't see the phrase "Dirty Harry" or "Mat Dillon" in the article

nor do I see fantasy. Besides, cops hit the wrong person more often. If you read what I was talking about, you would notice I said nothing false.

[sarisataka]

33. So you know for a FACT

that

"law-abiding gun owner" with an "CHL" and a deep desire, apparently, to act out Dirty Harry fantasies in the real world

opened fire and that the criminals did not start the shooting.

are you sure you are not making

airy speculation and "pro-gun<control> progressive" spin

[GreenStormCloud]

38. When armed robbers lock the door it often means they plan to murder everybody.

There are several indicators that you are likely about to be murdered as part of a robbery. If the criminals start moving everybody to a back room is one of the indicators. When the criminals lock the door is another one. While nothing is 100% accurate in predicting the future, some things are very, very bad signs. If you reasonably believe that you are about to be murdered then your options are to fight or die. It is tragic that he missed and hit the clerk but she was likely about to be killed anyway, along with him too and any others in the store.

[apocalypsehow]

54. There's that "it often means" stuff again, along with this phenonmenaly callous observation:

"It is tragic that he missed and hit the clerk but she was likely about to be killed anyway"

That is not the kind of thinking of any "progressive" I've ever known: that is cavalier, dismissive regard for an innocent human life is simply stunning from any person, let alone one posting on a liberal discussion board and, presumably, claiming to be some kind of progressive.

I am going to check TOS on that, BTW, because although it will not likely get you bounced today, it will go into the file for the day you finally egregiously cross that line, and will be a weighing factor in that inevitable PPR.

In any event, here's what we are "100%" sure of:

"Houston Police confirm it was a customer with a concealed handgun license who accidentally shot and killed a store clerk. The CHL holder was trying to protect Tyrza Smith, 26, from armed robbers, but something went terribly wrong and she was killed."

Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18661869/chl#ixzz1yLqxCl00

All the rest is just diversion and obfuscation, as I've stated previously.

[ManiacJoe]

57. Why are you confused over the statistical qualifier "often"?

The actions of the robbers are an indication of what they may do in the future. In this case, locking the door is a high probability indicator that they were intending to kill everyone still in the building. Your lack of knowledge on criminal behavior is understandable; you parading it around is not.

"It is tragic that he missed and hit the clerk but she was likely about to be killed anyway"
"That is not the kind of thinking of any "progressive" I've ever known"

The statement you are complaining about is neither "progressive" or any other political leaning. The statement is an accurate reflection of reality based on experience and statistics.

If we ever find out what actually happened in the store, we may be able to Monday-morning-quarterback the scenario.

[apocalypsehow]

64. Why are you so confused by plain English? We KNOW "what actually happened in the store":

"Houston Police confirm it was a customer with a concealed handgun license who accidentally shot and killed a store clerk. The CHL holder was trying to protect Tyrza Smith, 26, from armed robbers, but something went terribly wrong and she was killed."

Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18661869/chl#ixzz1yMQhdiDC

There: I even highlighted a particularly relevant sentence to this story of a Dirty Harry-wannabe so you won't have so much trouble following along.

[PavePusher]

72. Yet we still know almost nothing about the circumstances.

Perhaps you should apply some of that "intellectual honesty" you preach, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45395

[ManiacJoe]

75. The sad part is that

you honestly believe you you know something of the circumstances. Given that the article contains all but no information, how exactly do you jump to your conclusion?

[Clames]

39. And police have never shot innocent bystanders before...

...

[Hoyt]

9. Another one of those tragedies gun culture says doesn't happen.

A gun cowboy screws up. He'll get off for some irrational reason.

BTW -- I have nothing against cowboys, except when they carry guns in the city.

[russ1943]

23. Bingo!

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Please show a post here where we say things like this don't happen.

You can't because we don't say that. We do say that it is very rare that it happens.

[Hoyt]

40. You know darn well members of gun culture claim they aren't cowboys and don't hit innocent people.

The shooter should not have pulled his weapon if there was a chance of hitting innocent people. He did and shot the store clerk.

I'll be interested in seeing what if anything the "hero gun cowboy" is charged with -- I hope it is something serious, with prison time. This assumption that permitted gun owners are "responsible" is BS, as the current incident indicates. The law has to make sure they are "responsible."

And, please, no gibberish about how stats show CCWers are so law-abiding. Things like this incident do not get reported (or it takes forever) to the system.

[ManiacJoe]

58. You make an aweful lot of assumptions

for someone with no data to work with.

[GreenStormCloud]

61. CCWer save more innocent lives than we take.

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2009 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2009 there were 402,914 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there was exactly one (1) murder conviction and no manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 600+ convictions for murder in its various forms and manslaughter.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/09/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:
Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2009, there were 106 justifiable homicides, of
which, 52 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 54 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 52 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shooting are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus one innocent killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. Psst, Hoyt- your Colon is showing:

Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands To Reason, and was now a post-graduate student of the University of What Some Bloke In The Pub Told Me.

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Sounds to me like CCW holder was trapped in the store with the armed robbers.

The article says that at least one of the armed robbers had his gun to the clerk's head, and that the CCW permit holder tried to leave the store but could not get out because the robbers had locked the door.

For some reason he felt compelled to shoot at the armed robber and it sounds like the clerk, obviously nearby, got hit in the crossfire.

[Hoyt]

41. The supposedly law-abiding, responsible, well-trained gun toter was not any of those things.

A clerk is dead because the cowboy gun toter feared for his life and couldn't get out. Ain't that nice.

So, I guess now we will try for a new version of SYG:
"Pack a Gun. Stand Your Ground. Save Your Life. Shoot Inoccent People, It's OK. Buy More Guns."

[gejohnston]

42. chances are

they would have both been murdered, why else would the robbers lock the door?

[Hoyt]

43. As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

Fact is, the "responsible" gun owner shot the clerk.

I guess it's OK with the gun culture since he was "merely" trying to save his ass.

[gejohnston]

44. I'm guessing it did not occur to you that the cops

only had to stand outside to wait for you to unlock the door and walk out?

[Hoyt]

47. Apparently it has not occurred to you that the CHLer is as bad as the robbers.

Fact is, robbers did not shoot the poor lady -- gun zealot did trying to protect his sorry ass.

Robbers lock doors all the time in robberies like this, and don't shoot employees and customers -- they don't want another customer or off duty cop walking in while the carry out their ill-conceived plan. They also don't want someone running out to alert police.

Hope rest of gun culture learns something from this and doesn't shoot another innocent in the head to save their sorry ass.

[MicaelS]

53. So you admit you are a criminal, that explains a lot.

Hoyt

43. As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

No wonder you hate guns so much, you probably still have nightmare about getting your ass shot.

This is delicious as mikeB and his hatred of guns, as well as his finally admitting as being a criminal.

[Hoyt]

55. You should admit you can't size up a situation and should be barred from carrying guns.

I was way too optimistic, hoping for more from the gun zealots.

[MicaelS]

56. You know you remind me of that old southern phrase

"Alligator mouth and hummingbird ass".

You talk all this shit about how badass you are, because you're an anonymous handle on the internet.

I'm willing to bet you don't say this shit to your real neighbors in Georgia, face to face, because you know for a fact some of them might just kick you ass.

Just because you're an senior citizen and a widower, that might not mean shit to some people, and it that might not stop some local redneck from beating your ass.

You're just another sad, curmudgeonly old man filled with hate, bile and venom. You're a male version of iverglas.

[Hoyt]

60. Do you keep dossiers on everyone? You'd have to go back quite a while here to pick up

such information.

And, if you carry a gun with that attitude -- I think you ought to leave them at home, and even consider getting rid of them there.

I've had my run-ins with local rednecks, even armed ones. Still here and unarmed in public.

Have a nice day, and smile.

[MicaelS]

63. I just have an excellent memory..

And I believe in "knowing thy opponent". You ever lay aside your hatred for guns and gun owners, we might have much in common.

And I don't carry, never have. Not saying I never will, just never have up until now.

[Hoyt]

45. BTW -- no one else was hurt. So our CHLer managed to shoot a clerk, but robbers got away.

Goes to show we can't trust CCWers to be responsible, good shots, or smart.

[gejohnston]

46. more so than cops

or robbers for that matter.

[Hoyt]

48. I know, your brother in arms can do no wrong even if he shoots young lady in head saving his ass.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Yes, I often judge large groups of people by the actions of one individual.

[Atypical Liberal]

67. I disagree.

The supposedly law-abiding, responsible, well-trained gun toter was not any of those things.

He may well have been all of those things. He may have been quite justifying in fearing for not only his own life but the life of the clerk he tried to save.

[Hoyt]

69. He tried to save his sorry rear and shot the clerk. I guess he did save his life, at her expense.

[Atypical Liberal]

73. The clerk had a gun held to her head.

He tried to save his sorry rear and shot the clerk. I guess he did save his life, at her expense.

You do not have enough information to make that comment.

The news article says that one of the gunman was holding a gun to the clerk's head.

The CCW permit holder may have thought that her death or his own was imminent.

[Hoyt]

74. And you believe in the hero fairy that too many gun toters dream of.

Neither you, nor any other gun toter, should be making that decision. Fact is, girl was alive until Joe the toter decided to save his ass first, and shoot the guy in the head like in some friggin TV show. This guy goes home tonight, and within a few weeks will be thinking of his next gun purchase and telling people why they need to pack a gun. He should be in jail.

[Atypical Liberal]

77. Get used to it.

Neither you, nor any other gun toter, should be making that decision.

Get used to it. Victims of violence have the right to try and defend themselves. Sometimes it goes wrong. If you want to blame someone, how about blaming the armed robbers?

Try rooting for the home team once and a while.

[Hoyt]

78. I'm mad when system executes wrong person. Doubly mad when some gun nut does.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Vile.

Just vile.

[Hoyt]

80. What would you call shooting innocent young lady in head to save yourself?

Now, that is "vile."

[GreenStormCloud]

81. I would call it a "tragic accident". N/T

[Hoyt]

85. Tragic, yes. Accident -- No way.

The shooter bought at least one gun (probably more); trained (badly) to shoot people; made the decision to carry his gun into public; pulled the damn thing to save his worthless ass; and shot young lady in head. Then he and you, claim it is an "accident."

[AtheistCrusader]

82. The only possible way I might agree with you, is if it was intentional.

That doesn't seem to be the case, so I heap the blame upon the two individuals that robbed the store.

In fact, so will the law.

If the police actually completed the ballistics tests, and the bullet that struck her was fired by the other victim, then that's a terrible tragedy, and something he will have to live with. That really sucks.

[Hoyt]

86. Yep, let's protect the gun carrying cowboys who shoot innocent people to save their own ass.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Obvious troll is obvious.

[Meiko]

13. It said in the article

that one of the robbers had his gun pointed directly at the clerks head. Given what few facts we have I would not have drawn my weapon, you are just asking for an escalation you can't win. Just because you are carrying a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. I would have let the situation develop a little more before making a decision to pull my gun. Even a cop would have to think twice about pulling his weapon given the circumstances.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. And once you discover that the bad guys have locked the door - then what?

Having the robbers lock the door is a very bad sign for your future. It ranks with being moved to a second crime scene (herded into a back room) as being dangerous for you. There is a very high probability that the thugs are about to murder everybody.

[Meiko]

49. The key I am looking at is

that one of the robbers has his gun pointing at the head of the clerk. Myself putting a Hollywood style head shot on the guy to stop him is unlikely, and careless. I am a very good shot and I practice head shots but the situation is different when it's real.They locked the doors for one of two reasons. They are going to take us in the back and kill us or they just don't want additional customers coming in so they control of the situation. If they are going to kill us when they move us that's when I open fire, hopefully I will have good aim and hopefully the one robber would have become distracted while they were moving us and lowered his weapon giving me an opportunity to draw my weapon and fire.

If the robbers intent is to snatch the money and run then let them have the money and let them go. No need to risk your life or someone else.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Good answer.

We would need more information than we have now to fruitfully discuss the event.

[Hoyt]

70. +1. Wish he didn't have his gun that day.

[G26]

17. Tragic! I don't know what the training requirement in Texas is ...

but I was taught that I'm responsible for every bullet I shoot. Of course, even before I heard it in class, I assumed that was the case.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. Yes. In Texas you are responsible for every bullet you fire. N/T

[Logical]

52. In most cases in a armed robbery in a store, not pulling your gun is the best option. n-t

[GreenStormCloud]

66. The CHL holders name is...

...Kevin Simon.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8666763

"On Thursday night, police say two armed, masked men walked into the store just before closing and demanded money. That's when a customer police identified as Kevin Simon pulled out his gun and exchanged fire with the robbers. The assistant manager of the store was shot and killed."

Unfortunately when I tried to google.news the name I got dozens of hit for an NFL scout of the same name. Maybe someone else here from that area will be able to keep up with the story.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

84. so very sad. My condolences to the Smith Family.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Mine, too.