Jewelry Store Owner Fatally Shoots 3 Men During Failed Robbery Attempt

[Rage for Order]

A Houston jewelry store owner shot and killed three armed men who tried to rob his business on Thursday, police said.

Two men were in an east Houston jewelry store Thursday afternoon pretending to be customers when a third man burst into the store and stated, "This is a robbery," said Houston police spokesman Kese Smith.

All three men then pulled out pistols, tied up the store owner's wife and took her to a back room, Smith said.

As they were trying to tie up the store owner, he took out a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects, Smith said. The store owner then grabbed a shotgun and shot and killed the two other suspects in an ensuring gun battle, Smith said.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/16/ap/national/main7157952.shtml


Chalk one up for the good guys. And he saved the public the expense of putting these assholes on trial and incarcerating them. It's a win-win!

:party: :thumbsup: :applause:


on edit: more information has emerged about the would-be robbers:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Police-identify-2-of-3-robbery-suspects-killed-by-Houston-jewelry-store-owner-112083964.html

Police said Nelson Tambora-Ramiro, 21, Onilton Castillano, 38, and a still-unidentified third suspect were killed when they attempted to rob the Castillo Jewelry store in the 4500 block of Canal Street.

All three suspects were Honduran nationals, according to police sources. It's not clear if they were in the country legally.

Sources said the suspects were part of an organized group of robbers targeting Hispanic businesses in the area. They said they likely spoke only Spanish and one of them had rotten teeth. Police are hoping other business owners who were victimized by the group will come forward.

Neighbors called (jewelry store owner) Ramon Castillo a hero. They said their area is overrun with criminals, and Thursday’s robbery wasn’t the first time Ramon Castillo’s business has been targeted.

[bluestateguy]

1. "Cleanup in aisle 7!"

nt

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. before it gets locked or gungeoned...

that's some damn fine shootin!

[virgogal]

4. He was defending his wife and himself. He did what most of

us would want to do.

[Texasgal]

3. Weird...

Why did the article mention "rotten teeth"???

[Aristus]

5. This is Texas, remember. They were foreigners with bad teeth; they had it coming...

Having said that, they were attempting armed robbery; they had it coming...

[virgogal]

6. They must be pretty bad if they are using them for I.D. purposes.

[Recovered Repug]

8. From the article:

Sources said the suspects were part of an organized group of robbers targeting Hispanic businesses in the area. They said they likely spoke only Spanish and one of them had rotten teeth. Police are hoping other business owners who were victimized by the group will come forward.


See the 3rd sentence.

[NutmegYankee]

14. Meth use perhaps?

[aikoaiko]

7. The opportunity to defend yourself or others from violence is a basic civil liberty.

Hooray for the good guys.

[EstimatedProphet]

9. This will be in next Month's NRA's publications in The Armed Citizen column

It always starts by talking about how often the presence of a gun is enough to stop a crime without a shot being fired. Then it goes on to list a number of cases where someone is shot and killed doing something.

[spin]

60. In many, if not most, cases a firearm is enough to stop a crime ...

without a shot being fired.

It's hard to estimate just how many times a year this happens as few incidents are ever entered into a database. Let's just look at a bunch of surveys.

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.<11>

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."<12>

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.<13> <14> <15> Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.<16>

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,<17> U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.<18>

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."<19>

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.<20>

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:<21>

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"<22>
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[EstimatedProphet]

74. That may very well be. I'm not disputing it

However, that column is famous for stating that just having a gun often stops crimes from being committed with no shot fired, and then as supporting evidence lists a number of cases where someone is shot. It disproves its own argument.

[spin]

75. Out of curiosity I decided to read "the armed citizen" column in the latest issue ...

I usually don't as I am more interested in the historical articles and the firearm reviews rather than the other columns in the magazine. (Note: there is an interesting article in the January 2011 issue on the New S&W .327 Federal Mag revolver and an excellent on the Colt 1911 auto which turns 100 years old in 2011.)

One of six incidents discussed in "the armed citizen" described an incident in which a crime was stopped without shots being fired. At the bottom of the page was the disclaimer you describe.

Studies indicate that firearms are used more than 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases, property.

Reading this statement I don't feel that the NRA is in anyway obligated to only discuss stories where no shots are fired, nor are they obligated to prove that a firearm often prevents a crime without being fired. They mention this fact and then describe when shooting IS justified. The stories where shots were fired were justified shootings.

[EstimatedProphet]

92. I'm also not questioning whether they're justified or not

And I haven't read the column in several years. But when I have, it always started with the claim that guns will often stop a crime just by being present, and that's all that it said - nothing about justified shootings. Oftentimes afterwards they would list a number of cases where there was a shooting involved. I remember once that not one single case was listed where there was not a shooting. Now, I'm sorry if you can't see the humor in an article claiming that guns will defuse a situation just by being present, followed by multiple cases in which a shooting takes place, but if you really can't see it, I can't help you.

[spin]

95. It might be wise to update your reading ...

obviously if the disclaimer had merely said that guns often prevent crime without a shot being fired and stopped at that point, I could see the humor.

But the disclaimer doesn't stop at that point, it now goes on to discuss what a justified shooting is. I went to the effort of digging to the bottom of my magazine rack and found an American Rifleman from April of 2008. The disclaimer then was the same as it is today.

No, I actually fail to see the humor mainly because the disclaimer doesn't say what you claim. It is now a fair statement that points out that firearms can prevent crimes even without shots being fired, but shooting a firearm to stop a crime is not always justified. It goes on to define when shooting IS justified. Where the humor in that?

And for all I know, your memory may be faulty. The disclaimer might have always been the same as it is today.

[SteveM]

107. You made up a bad joke, then explained its "humor."

There seems to be ample evidence that guns to indeed "defuse a situation" most of the times. But in the case of HyperPunks, this will not apply:

"...he took out a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects, Smith said. The store owner then grabbed a shotgun and shot and killed the two other suspects in an ensuring gun battle, Smith said."

Dem punk wanted some juice, but ended up spilling their own.

[PavePusher]

90. They also run many incidents where the perp is shot and not killed. n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

93. Still, those aren't cases where there's no shooting

[xchrom]

10. Unrec

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

13. i'll never understand the mindset of the human being who delights in such stories.

[quaker bill]

16. Agreed

One act of desperation met by another act of desperation, three dead as a result.

[Hannah Bell]

18. sad every way you look at it. another triumph for the forces who want to turn the country into a

libertarian hellhole.

[PavePusher]

78. Please explain how defending ones life and business equates to

"libertarian hellhole".

[Katya Mullethov]

88. Things will go much easier once you accept the simple fact

That it isn't your life , it's not your business ,and it ain't your money .

[PavePusher]

89. That'll be about 20 seconds after my pulse stops. n/t

[SteveM]

109. I don't understand your comments...

What "forces" are seeking a "libertarian hellhole?" What is a "libertarian hellhole?" Most folks here are strong advocates of self-defense (in the tradition of Gandhi), and hold quite progressive stands on other issues, like guaranteed health care, worker rights, non-interventionist foreign policy, a clean environment, protection of social security, a woman's right to choose (is this "libertarian?"), and full employment. I don't think these stands are typical of the average "libertarian," but correct me if I'm wrong.

The store owner, BTW, did the right thing. Please note that the stinking thugs PERSISTED after one of their own was shot; I think they were seeking just such a shoot-out so they could pump up their street cred and juice; after all, there are considerable numbers of people who relish the company of this kind. After the demise of these 3 punks, crimino-romanticists will have to look elsewhere.

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. See post #21.... n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. i'll never understand the mindset of the human being who prefers to be a victim

instead of a survivor...

[jazzhound]

86. Amazing, isn't it?

There are "progressives" who draw a moral equivalence between violence directed at a criminal threatening the life of an innocent victim with the violence directed at a victim by the criminal! Unfrigginbelievable........and the pinnacle of immoral insanity.

[aikoaiko]

25. really? Is it so wrong to take delight in a victim of violentcrime defending himself and family?

:shrug:

What kind of human being doesn't have some kind of positive reaction to a victim of violence defending themselves?

[SteveM]

108. Actually, these are posted to counter some myths...

That a citizen acting in self-defense with a gun is "more likely to have it taken away and used against him."
That "more guns = more crime."
That armed self-defense is in general a poor policy, and best left to LEOs.

I should point out that many gun-control/prohibitionists post stories of how someone was shot by accident, by "mistake," and by a thug shooting at rival gang members, and hitting instead innocent bystanders. These postings are almost always posted with no comment. Do these gun-control/prohibitionists also "delight" in posting these stories?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I'll explain why I just unrecced it...

I wouldn't have done it except yr post prompted me to. Here's why. There's something very wrong with a mindset that shows glee at the killing of three people. It's the glee that's wrong, and the way it seems to be believed that there's no need to worry about piddly things like wasting time with a trial and conviction and punishment. The story itself is tragic and seeing none of us know if the situation was one where the store owner was in imminent danger of being killed, no-one knows whether he was justified in killing them. So the glee is a bit off, imo...

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Of course I read it, and there's nothing absurd about anything I said...

Trying to tie someone up does not put them in imminent danger of being killed. And the store-owners account of what happened may well be what happened, but then again it may not be, so it shouldn't be taken as that's definately what happened. The police will investigate something like that and after that investigation is complete is when there'd be more idea as to what actually happened...

And fyi, I've got every bit as much of a right to have an opinion as you do. What I do know is it's sick to be so gleeful about the killing of three people. It's that attitude that's deplorable and absolutely sickening...

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. "Trying to tie someone up does not put them in imminent danger of being killed."

Yeah, tell that to the person being tied up, who just watched his wife get tied up and carried off... like I said, if you have never lived it, you don't really have a valid opinion to offer.. speculation maybe, but not an opinion based on fact or experience...

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I don't need to tell it to anyone else. It's obvious...

Being tied up does not mean yr in imminent danger of being killed.

And as I've already said, I have every right to have an opinion, regardless of whether you disagree with it.

[spin]

73. While what you say is true ...

and that while the bad guys might have just tied up the store owner and left, you also have to realize that allowing yourself to be tied up eliminates any chance you have of defending yourself.

What do the experts say?

Home Invasion Family Survival Tips

***snip***

What Not to Do

Don’t ever try to pull a weapon on an armed perpetrator who has you covered with a handgun unless you feel it’s your last chance. Don’t ever agree to be transported somewhere else like to an ATM machine or other location unless you feel it's a life or death decision. The second crime scene is almost always more violent than in your home. If you have a choice, never agree to be tied-up, handcuffed or be placed in the trunk of a car because it takes away most of your self defense options. Don’t ever follow an intruder once they leave your home. Leave that for the police. Don’t fight over property loss, it can be replaced…your life cannot.
http://www.crimedoctor.com/home2.htm

[SteveM]

113. Hear, hear!

[lawodevolution]

81. Feel free to allow the criminal to decide what to do with you, rape you, give you HIV, or kill you

I will give the criminal only one choice. 44 magnum in the front or back.

[SteveM]

112. You are way too submissive to violent thugs.; they have contempt for that...

Anyone who is tied up, or in the case of other violent crimes posted here, forced to his/her knees, forced into a back room, should be ready to take defensive action. The above actions are often ritualistic precursors to a thug gettin' his juice.

Again, no glee, no lost sleep. I commend the store-owner.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

65. So you seem to be saying that the store owner....

should have let himself be tied up before making the decision about imminent danger.

By which time, resistance would have been much more difficult if not impossible.

[SteveM]

111. No glee here, and no lost sleep. All clear, now?

[Obamanaut]

24. "...a trial and conviction and punishment..." Three guys with guns,

grab a guy's wife, take her into another room, gonna rob them, and they need a trial to tell whether or not they are guilty? Are you joking?

And you wonder whether/not the store owner was in imminent danger of being killed? Are you joking again? Three guys with guns, gonna rob, take wife into another room, etc... They had guns, and they shot they guy, and they tied up the wife.

They had a trial, they were found guilty, they were sentenced, and the sentence was carried out. And it wasn't all strung out with multiple appeals.

When they entered the store with guns, they bought their ticket. And then they took the ride.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I don't support summary executions. I thought most Left Wing Americans wouldn't either...

Being robbed does not mean that someone is in imminent danger of being killed. You can't just turn around and kill people if they're holding you up. Well, you can, but unless you were about to be killed yrself, it's not going to be justifiable...

What yr advocating is summary execution of criminals. Actually, after reading yr last line, yr advocating the killing of anyone who walks into a store with a gun. They don't even have to point it at anyone or do a robbery with it. Just that gun is enough for them to be killed on the spot for. WElcome to the wild fucking west. Yeehaw...

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. Maybe you can organize a candlelight vigil for the poor little would-be robbers...

As a bonus, maybe you could get statements from their families about what fine, upstanding citizens they were and how they didn't deserve to die...

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Huh? Where did that come from? That makes no sense at all...

Let me make myself clear here. I don't think and most definately haven't given the impression that I feel much sympathy for them or think they're 'fine, upstanding citizens'. What I object to is the sick attitudes I see where cheering the killing of three men and a complete disregard and disrespect for the justice system. I would appreciate it if you could stick to talking about what I've actually said rather than attributing views to me I most definately don't hold...

[Obamanaut]

31. Well, they did mention something about a robbery while brandishing

their guns. That is a clue as to intentions.

They did take the wife to another area and tie her up, that's sorta like kidnapping - another clue.

They shot the owner, another really big clue as to whether/not he/they were about to be killed. Yes, a really big clue.

Not advocating summary executions of all criminals, just maybe those who provide multiple clues as to their intentions, like kidnapping, tieing up, shooting someone in the process.

Once again, these former felons bought their tickets, and they they took their (final) ride.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Yr wrong,. The owner wasn't shot first...

He killed one of them before he was shot.

Robbing a store doesn't mean the intention is to kill anyone. So what yr doing is advocating the summary execution of anyone who commits an armed robbery...

[Obamanaut]

37. All righty, I'll give you that one.

"All three men then pulled out pistols, tied up the store owner's wife and took her to a back room, Smith said.

As they were trying to tie up the store owner, he took out a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects, Smith said. The store owner then grabbed a shotgun and shot and killed the two other suspects in an ensuring gun battle, Smith said."

The former felons tied up the wife, moved her to another room. "Well", one might say if in this situation, "this certainly bodes ill."

They had guns, attempted to tie up owner who doesn't want to be tied up. And the situation degrades from then on.

Now check this out. A vandal pulls a gun on someone, that someone has every expectation of the gun being used on him. Would a prudent person wait to see if that expectation comes true, and while bleeding out on the floor say to himself "Oooh, I was right!"

[Violet_Crumble]

41. No, the man's life wasn't in imminent danger...

Tying someone up doesn't mean they're in imminent danger of being killed. I wonder why there seems to be so much premature glee over the killing of three people instead of waiting till a proper investigation is carried out into what happened?

[Obamanaut]

43. Look into the pointy end of a handgun. If it is a revolver one can see

the potential projectiles peeping out at you on either side.

That is imminent danger of being killed. The things that spew forth from the pointy end will in fact kill.

A proper investigation will now show that three thugs with guns came into the wrong store, and will not make that same mistake. Ever again.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Nothing like that was in the article, so I strongly suspecdt that isn't what happened...

The article doesn't say anything about a gun being waved in anyone's face. While that would be an imminent threat, there's nothing in the article about that at all...

A proper investigation involves professionals and experts examining evidence and coming to conclusions about what happened. But why don't you save them all some time and tell them that you've already completed their investigation for them ;)

[Obamanaut]

45. And I did not type that it was in the article. I was describing imminent

danger with firearms.

They had guns. They pulled them out. Imminent danger.

They would not have needed handguns if the owner had placed the proper sign in the window "Come take my stuff."

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Well, if the article didn't say it happened, then it's not a justification...

Easy as that.

And yr last sentence doesn't make any sense at all.

[Obamanaut]

47. Of course the last sentence made sense. Put out a sign that says

"Free stuff" or "Come take my stuff 'cause I won't protest" and then the robbers don't need weapons.

Obviously there are people who post here who must have such signs.

I don't at my house. I have handguns. More than one. In various places. I have no children in the house. Leave my wife, my dogs, and my stuff alone.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Nah, actually it doesn't make any sense...

It's actually really weird. You really think if someone's not Rambo'd up then they may as well put up a sign saying 'come and get it?' That's absolutely ridiculous...

[Katya Mullethov]

94. Even if you were to post this "EVERYTHING FREE " sign

They will still destroy your property in order to steal it . Somewhat analogous to a "You cant bring a gun to OUR school board meetings " sign .

///////////

The owner of an unusual Edmonton store is scratching his head after two men broke in earlier this week to steal things. Why break in, the owner asks, when everything in the store is free?

The Free Store, located near 84th Street and 118th Avenue, opened earlier this year. People pay a $2 fee to drop off unwanted items, and store customers can take whatever they want for free. Co-owner Brandon Tyson came into the store on Thursday night and found two men inside. They’d kicked out the front window, leaving a lot of glass to clean up. “For the most part, being a free store, we wouldn’t expect someone to come and rob us because they can come back and get it all free the next day,” Tyson said. “But I guess apparently some people do.”

Tyson chased the two would-be thieves out of the store, caught one of them and called the police. He said the men were drunk. Tyson said the entire incident was bizarre. “We are a free store,” he said. “We give absolutely everything we have here completely free back to the community as a way to help keep these resources out of the landfill. So it’s really funny. It’s actually been a joke of ours — to actually have somebody break in here and steal from the free store.”

It wasn’t known if charges were laid.

[oneshooter]

56. And then they can give that report to the greaving family. It will do them so much good. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Yes, their lives WERE in imminent danger.

They were being foricibly moved from the primary crime scene (Main store area) to a secondary crime scene (back room). Any cop or detective will tell you that if a criminal starts to move you, it is often so he can kill you with no witnesses. If a criminal ever makes you move to a more secluded place, your life is in extreme danger.

[PavePusher]

67. Again you seem to imply a duty on the victim....

to wait until he's actually been shot before responding with force.

That's utter bullshit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. You are free to indulge in denial on your own behalf. You aren't free to do so on ours...

....or anyone else's for that matter.

You might like to think that armed robbers tying your family up isn't a mortal threat- but no one else is obliged to

feel or act accordingly.

And that's a good thing...

[Euromutt]

100. Robbery *by definition* involves threatening the victim with grievous bodily harm

As X_Digger points out in post #82, if you didn't believe the robber was actually prepared to inflict injury or possibly even death on you, you'd tell him to get lost. The reason robberies succeed is because the culprits successfully convince the victims that their life and limb is in imminent danger, and it's generally accepted that it's prudent not to try calling the robbers' bluff.

[Buns_of_Fire]

52. I believe most jurisdictions will give you a 'bye' for using deadly force...

IF you have reason to believe your life (or someone else's life) is in immediate jeopardy.

(1) Guns drawn, (2) wife tied up and taken away, (3) commencing to tie you up, too. Yep, I think a prudent person could come to the conclusion that their lives were in immediate jeopardy (I wouldn't vote to convict him, if anything ever came to trial -- which I doubt it will). Consider also that this wasn't the first time Mr. Castillo's business had been targeted.

It's a bad situation for all concerned, but the US hasn't cornered the market in nasty-ass people.

[one-eyed fat man]

58. Yes precisely.

I am "...advocating the summary execution of anyone who commits attempts an armed robbery..."

No one should be required to yield to a criminal assault. To insist that you must flee your own home or business and avoid confronting the interloper with as much force as is needed to make him quit is ludicrous.

What kind of twisted notion of "civilized" behavior requires me to accommodate a thief, an assassin, or a rapist and make HIS life less stressful?

Why so much misplaced sympathy for some villainous blackguards who were thwarted by their erstwhile victim?

Why so much thinly-veiled enmity for those who successfully resist a criminal's vile predations?

Robbers Execute 2 Store Clerks

This Florida robbery might go down as the most senseless double-homicide ever. These men rob a convenience store. Even though both clerks are obviously compliant, the man guarding the door shoots them both -- all for $77...

But you demand we trust that a gang of bastards herding folks into the back room and tying them up are harmless.

Why so much concern for the criminal who threatens your life? What compels you to hold HIS life in such high regard and demand victims risk theirs to soothe your sensibilities?

[Euromutt]

96. Small correction to your post there...

They did take the wife to another area and tie her up, that's sorta like kidnapping - another clue.

Actually, when you start moving people around under duress in the course of committing a crime, that isn't "sorta like" kidnapping; under federal law, that is kidnapping. Your smarter class of armed robber knows this, which is why bank robbers typically order people to the floor on the spot where they're standing, instead of herding them around.

As a result, it's generally a very bad sign when robbers do start trying to move people, because it indicates they aren't concerned about the resulting kidnapping charge, and while that may be because they're simply not aware of it, it's also possible that it's because they're intending to rack up some aggravated 1st degree murder charges by killing the witnesses.

[Obamanaut]

99. Actually, I worded it that way as snark. nt

[Euromutt]

105. Ah, I see. In that case, small correction to *my* previous post

For "correction," please read "clarification," in the event that our Antipodean friend with the RPG-wielding Miffy avatar failed to grasp that, under U.S. law (and for all I know, the laws of other countries), forcibly moving a person in furtherance of a crime does constitute kidnapping, regardless of the distance involved.

[WillowTree]

51. They SHOT the store owner!

Does that not qualify in your esteemed opinion as sufficient reason to believe that his life was in danger?

[oneshooter]

55. So how does the American self defence laws effect you in OZ? n/t

[pipoman]

63. It is just sour grapes..

another Aussie who has ceded his/her right to self defense in the interest of the criminal element and now is beginning to see the fallacy of the silliness.

[pipoman]

62. Such immense stupidity

really...at what point is the guy and his wife in imminent danger? After they are tired up? When they can't fight back? When the bad guy pulls the trigger on his head? Then would it be OK? Really at what point?

[PavePusher]

66. Self defense does not equate to "summary executions".

The act of stopping a crime may result in the death of the criminal. That is entirely the criminal's choice.

[X_Digger]

82. If a robber couldn't convince you that you were in imminent danger of greivous bodily harm..

..you'd tell them to fuck off.

Why do you not want to take them at their word?

[Straw Man]

85. A slight problem...

You can't just turn around and kill people if they're holding you up. Well, you can, but unless you were about to be killed yrself, it's not going to be justifiable...

The problem is that it's impossible to say for a certainty that one was "about to be killed" until one is dead... at which time it's very difficult to mount a successful defense.

Let's see: three armed assailants, wife tied up and moved to another location, perpetrators making moves to tie one up... Yeah, I would say that there's a high probability that one is going to be killed.

It can't be said enough: It's not good policy to entrust your life to the good will of the criminal who is holding you at gunpoint. If you have no other choice, then close your eyes and hope for the best. If you have an alternative, take it.

X-Digger has it right: If someone sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, do have a reasonable expectation that this person will grievously injure or kill you if you don't comply? Of course you do. Otherwise you'd tell Mr. Stickup to go fuck himself. No, the operative assumption is "This person will hurt/kill me." Once that has been established, deadly force in self-defense is appropriate.

Yes, this is all very sad. No glee here. It's a human tragedy no matter how you look at it, but I would much rather see the criminals dead and the store owner alive than the other way around.

[slackmaster]

97. You're obviously not familiar with US state laws governing use of deadly force

You can't just turn around and kill people if they're holding you up. Well, you can, but unless you were about to be killed yrself, it's not going to be justifiable...

Your opinion is based on ignorance.

What yr advocating is summary execution of criminals.

Wrong. Summary execution would be billable as murder. The purpose of deadly force can only be to stop a violent attack that is imminent or in progress. When the attack has been neutralized, there is no longer any justification for continued use of deadly force.

You shoot to stop an attacker, not to kill the attacker. If the attacker happens to die, that's an unfortunate consequence of the attacker's poor decision to attack you.

[SteveM]

114. Your position is morally unsound. Please read Gandhi on the duty of self-defense. nt

[Tejas]

102. So the media, shooter, shooter's wife,

even the cops are all lying?

Let me guess, you would've had to have been there and seen it go down in person eh?

[one-eyed fat man]

106. Oh, excuse me!

If some bloke sticks a knife in your face and demands you drop your knickers will you have any ambiguity as to who the villain is?

Is it your belief that a woman, dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to the woman explaining to the police how her attacker came to have three bullet holes in him?

[SteveM]

110. Some problems, here...

You point to the "glee that's wrong," yet extend such to include "...there's no need to worry about piddly things like wasting time with a trial and conviction and punishment." Excuse me, but those concerns were trumped by the actions of the thugs. Further, you claim "...none of us know if the situation was one where the store owner was in imminent danger of being killed, no-one knows whether he was justified in killing them." Yet, the story indicates three (3) thugs -- with guns -- were forcibly robbing a store, and had separated and placed in danger the wife of the store-owner. This is clearly a VIOLENT, LIFE-THREATENING ACT by the thugs, and the store-owner was justified in defending himself and his wife.

I should point out that a police investigation will determine any questions of "imminent danger," if you need more authority.

[spin]

61. Why did you Unrec the post? Just curious ...

I recommended the post as I felt it showed that firearms can be used legitimately for self defense. In this particular incident it's hard to say what the criminals may have done after they tied up the store owner and his wife. Perhaps they would have calmly left or perhaps they would have killed both the owner and his wife.

They had a history of targeting Hispanic businesses in the area. Had they not been killed in this incident, they probably would have continued to rob Hispanic stores.

I'm confused. Did you Unrec the post because:

1) You feel that the robbers had the right to rob stores and store owners have no right to defend themselves.

2) People who own jewelry stores are obviously rich and deserve to be robbed.

3) You simply hate firearms and will unrec any post that mentioned them.

4) You have other well thought out reasons.

It's obvious that most posters disagree with you as this post has 15 Recs at this point.

[PavePusher]

64. Why? n/t

[Obamanaut]

15. You see? They were guilty as soon as the handguns appeared. But

soon we should expect several folks to ask "What about 'innocent until proven guilty.'"

Obviously guilty. Tried, convicted, sentenced, sentence carried out. No problem.

One does wonder how you can tell a dead guy "...likely spoke only Spanish..."

[AlabamaLibrul]

17. Not "chalk one up". I don't think anyone who is desperate enough to rob a place

deserves to be killed on the spot for it. And this is coming from someone who has had a gun stuffed in their face before.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. Organized robbery rings aren't desperate, they're in it for the money

Desperate is the man or woman who is out stealing groceries to feed their children...

[one-eyed fat man]

59. Armed robbery is confrontational

Armed robbery requires interaction with the victim. Armed robbery is predicated on the use of force, bodily harm and death to compel the victim to yield.

We are not talking about Jean Valjean stealing bread for his starving sister and her family! If it was just getting loot, there are all kinds of thievery and deception that do not involve sticking a gun or a knife in a victim's face.

If they just wanted stuff, why not break in when everyone was gone?

Very often the thrill of the robbery for robbers is not in the swag, but in regaling each other with how pathetic the victims were, how they pissed themselves, how they begged, how they died anyway.

Only need to scare one more minimum wage convenience store clerk shitless and he'll have enough money to enroll at the vo-tech and learn underwater messkit repair.

[SteveM]

116. "thrill of the robbery." Yep, these dead thugs were HyperPunks. nt

[X_Digger]

84. The might be miserable, but I doubt they were Les Miserables.

You are projecting the conditions that you think could lead to you robbing a store- in your (and mine, and most of us non-criminals) mind, it would take horrific desperation to make us turn to crime.

What makes you think they have the same motivations?

[slackmaster]

104. Someone who is desperate enough to rob a place, using a deadly weapon, is likely desperate enough...

...to commit murder.

It's a safe assumption to make.

[SteveM]

115. If the thug threatens you with a gun, the lead will be let. And justifiably...

It is unfortunate you were treated with life-threatening violence. In your situation, you may have done the right thing. In the case of the store-owner, it is evident that these thugs were BENT ON VIOLENCE. And they got more than their fair share. There is no glee in this, only respect for the store-owner, and no lost sleep by me.

[marmar]

34. I don't get the celebratory nature of these threads.

"And he saved the public the expense of putting these assholes on trial and incarcerating them"

:wtf:

I don't get this place sometimes.

[Cid_B]

35. Maybe it's fiscal?

The cost of incarceration for life of three felons is another 18 seconds of unemployment benefits when you spread it out across the nation.

[marmar]

36. So lets just shoot the place up and eliminate the need for incarcerations?

nt

[Cid_B]

40. Hey...

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm trying to find other perks if you don't see the natural upside in three robbers/rapists/kidnappers/felon murderers going away.

[sendero]

42. Celebratory?

Well there were several possible outcomes to this situation and this was among the better ones.

Possible outcome #1 - scum kills both owners and takes the loot.
Possible outcome #2 - scum takes the loot but leaves owners alive. Owners' loss might or might not be covered by insurance. If not, they are financially ruined. No biggie, to you anyway.

Possible outcome #3 - Attacker are thwarted but not killed. Possibly the best outcome, but nearly impossible to accomplish

We got #4 - not the best, but the second best possible outcome. Compared to most robberies, it's pretty good news.

[distantearlywarning]

48. You forgot 1A and 2A:

Scum rapes wife in front of owner, then kills both of them and takes the loot.

OR

Scum rapes wife in front of owner, and then leaves owner and wife alive to think about it for the rest of their lives, and they may be financially ruined.

But hey, let's feel sorry for those poor thieves who didn't deserve such a terrible outcome!

[Ready4Change]

79. Don't forget 5A

#5A: Three men decide to do something OTHER than rob a jewelry store. Outcome: Everyone's still alive, bank continues operating normally, and a community becomes a slightly safer, better place.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

50. Same here.

I fully support the right of anyone to defend themselves and I won't second guess the store owner's actions but I'll never get the tingle that runs up some people's legs over this kind of thing.

[SteveM]

118. Maybe the "tingle" isn't running UP your leg. nt

[spin]

72. It is quite possible that these criminals would have killed the owners of the store ...

or eventually killed someone else in another robbery.

When I celebrate the incident, I celebrate our right of self defense in response to an attack that might result in serious injury or death. I also celebrate the right of the owner of the store to own and have available the tools which enabled him to successfully utilize his right to defend himself. I celebrate the wisdom of the lawmakers in Texas who allowed the store owner to have weapons in his shop unlike the lawmakers in Chicago or New York City who do everything in their power to discourage honest people from acquiring handguns and other firearms for their self defense.

I celebrate the courage and skill of the store owner to take on three armed men and win.

I do not celebrate the fact that three lives were ended because of a foolish desire to make money by breaking the law and a decision to threaten the lives of other people for profit.

The fact that three felons died is a tragic waste of life, but not as tragic as if they would have murdered the shop owner and his wife.

I celebrate the fact that in this case good defeated bad.

[SteveM]

117. Self-defense against extreme violence should be respected...

You may call it celebratory, I call it necessary and proper; in fact, not taking such self-defense measures (if the opportunity presents itself) is not a measure of humaneness, morality or sensitivity. If you want to "get this place," please study a little more about self-defense. May I suggest M. Gandhi?

[Stevenmarc]

53. You walk into an establishment brandishing a gun and get killed, that's on you.

[spin]

69. Definitely bad Karma to walk into a store brandishing a gun. (n/t)

[oneshooter]

57. Don't mess with Texans, go elswhere to do the crime. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

71. A far cry safer than Honduras

Or else they would be pulling this shit back home .

[spin]

76. If my profession was robbing stores I would go to Chicago or NYC...

Those two cities seem to take workplace safety for criminals seriously.

[Nye Bevan]

70. Darwinism in action.

No glee from me, but if this helps remove the jewelry-store robbing gene from the general population, there is one positive consequence here.

[timo]

77. TEXAS CASTLE LAW!!!!

He didnt have to worry about the robbers "intent" as long as he was in fear for his life,or his wifes,or to protect his property he is justified!!!! He is not required to wait and see what the thieves "intentions" were, when they pulled a gun they made him fear for his life....and thats all thats needed! Texas has no duty to retreat!!

[slackmaster]

98. The shooting would have been justified under even California's Castle Doctrine laws

:hi:

[Katya Mullethov]

101. Do they have a "Duty to retreat to the walk-in cooler " law ?

[slackmaster]

103. No, nothing like that

Go here and scroll down to Section 197: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[onehandle]

80. Yay Death!

[spin]

83. Good vs. Evil...

[one-eyed fat man]

87. You finally understand!

It is the absolute cure for recidivism. Those three robbers will absolutely, positively never attempt another holdup.

I have no sympathy, none, for violent criminals who get killed by the innocents they were victimizing. From the instant they walked through that door, produced a weapon, and announced the stickup they deserved to be shot.

Society owes them nothing except a fair trial if they live.

[PavePusher]

91. O.K., what would your desired outcome have been....

and what steps do you suggest people take to ensure that your ideas become more common occurances?

Constructive criticism would better support your views.