A Deadly Conundrum... what would you do ?
 

If you saw 2 armed vato gang-bangers robbing a jewelry store in a busy mall, would you try to stop them ?? Details sketchy on just what happened but one unarmed man did and he ended up dead, a second man with CCL shot the robber who shot man #1. Robber #2 took off in the mall shooting back at man # 2 and wounded 2 shoppers. Robber #2 caught a bit later after wrecking a stolen car.

San Antonio PD: Escaped suspect in deadly attempted robbery caught in Converse - San Antonio Express-News

I found this especially interesting as years ago I lived just a couple of miles from that mall and frequented it fairly regularly...

Interesting scenario. If the man with the ccl had not shot at the perps perhaps no shots would have been fired at all then the bad guys would have got away and the shoppers would not have been hurt either.

What would have happened if the ccl guy was an off duty leo? Would he have challenged the perps?

Poor decision.

You don't start a running gun fight in a shopping mall.

That's irresponsible.

No, I am untrained and not a cop and I would not intervene in a armed robbery of a store. No way.

absolutely foolish choice based on the info you gave us.

I tried to read the link but it was very poorly written.

Given the circumstance, no, I would not intervene. Not my jewelry. First order of business is to get as far away as possible, call the authorities and protect myself.

I don't carry but if I did the answer is the same.

First shot was fired by the robber and it killed the unarmed shopper who tried to stop his get away.
CCL holder then shot and killed that robber
So a man was killed and the shooting started before the CCL holder fired a shot.

Personally, I really do not know what I would do in that situation.

Ah well this changes things!

I've not seen any info on what the unarmed shopper actually did. First reports said he tried to stop their getaway but his wife seemed to indicate he just stepped in front of her to shield her ?? Based on the picture of the robber, definitely not the type to mess with under any circumstance if he is armed.

Some folks need killin'.

If the punk shot someone and I was carrying, I'd return the favor. otherwise nunya.

Well, we do know the unarmed shopper did not fire the first shot, since he was well, unarmed.
We do know the first shot was fired by the robber to stop what ever the unarmed shopper was doing.
Taking a knife to a gun fight is stupid but this shopper did not even have a knife?? So what ever he was doing was beyond stupid to me, and he paid for that bad decision with his life.
So the shooting was started by the robber and that robbers deadly shooting was stopped by the CCL holder. Now maybe that robber would not have shot again, there is no way to know and apparently that CCL holder did not want to take that chance and find out by letting him go after watching the robber shoot and kill someone.

So, to answer "Stomachmonkey" question yes, I do think it was a poor decision and it was irresponsible of the robber to start a running gun fight. But he did pay for his bad decision with his life.
Not a video game, no reset.

Not arguing your point. The robber that shot the unarmed bystander was shot by the CCL holder. The robber that later shot others was the second robber. The first robber did not die. The second robber has been caught. I have not found any information that the CCL shot at the fleeing robber.

The unarmed victim would have died anyway, given his actions. The unanswerable question is, if the first robber had not been shot, would the second robber have fired as he fled, wounding four other people?

Don't PARF this comment as it's just an observation. The CCL was carrying in violation of the policy of the Mall. There are four wounded people as the result of the fleeing robber's actions. The unanswerable question I posted could be grounds for civil cases against the CCL. Hopefully not, but one never knows.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/24/texas-mall-shooting-shopper-couldnt-carry-gun/96982144/

Only if I or my family or someone in my charge were directly threatened.

If you are going to ask a question it's proper form to provide relevant info in the original question as our answers may be different based on what we know at the time.

Carrying a concealed handgun if the Mall is PROPERLY posted, is a misdemeanor "Trespass by License holder".

As far as the shooting is concerned, as long as the CHL did not shoot anyone but a bad guy, he should be clear. Civil lawsuits like that have a VERY tough time in Texas, since they passed legislation killing civil lawsuits IF there are no criminal charges.

Why on earth would an unarmed citizen try to "stop" two vicious, armed robbers during the commission of the robbery? :confused:

That's what I don't understand. It's tragic but he made a very unwise decision and paid w his life. The less sensitive here might call it Darwinism. It also seems to have started the whole deadly confrontation.

Even cops would have let them get outside, if they were smart. You never want lead flying in a crowded public place. Let them get outside, then blast them.

I just checked the Texas3006 database. They do not list Rolling Oaks Mall. Kay Jewelers around the San Antonio area restricts both open and concealed. But there is no listing for the store at the mall.

Like I said earlier, we have no idea if the robber who shot and killed the unarmed shopper would have continued killing unarmed shoppers.
He did not die as you correctly pointed out, but he was stopped from shooting any more from the CCL holder, but would he of shot any more people if not shot by the CCL holder? No one knows for sure.
But the known quantity, is he had killed once while fleeing. so he has proving he will kill.
Now as for the second robber shooting, we are only guessing that he did not have the same mind set as the killing robber and only shot out of self defense?
I really doubt that theory and think he would have shot his way out of there regardless of the CCL holder like the first robber was doing.

It was provided in the original link in the first post.

The story on the website has been updated.

The robber that was running and firing was successful in getting away from the mall. He did hit a few people in the mall. He was captured, not far away, around midnight, after he fled from a car accident.

The robber who was shot was the one who killed the unarmed patron.

Not to make this a political statement. But can we just say "Off with his head"? I really don't want my tax $ going to feed this SOB.

I wasn't there and all accounts I've read are sketchy. so, to answer the original post...I dunno.

No, it does not say whether Han or Greedo shot first.

Finally the perfect answer to all these types of situations

Generally speaking my responsibility is to protect my family and my ability to get home to them. I don't think I'd engage unless there was an extremely compelling reason to do so.

Certainly not over stolen jeweltry (Man #1)
If they shot someone, well... You can't unshoot him. So probably not even after this... unless I though they were about to go on a spree.

Nope. I am not a police officer, and I have no duty to intervene, no legal representation nor immunities, no financial protections for my family should I get killed, etc. Not going to risk myself or my family's future to protect some insurance company.

I have a CCW and carry sometimes. I will defend my life, and loved one's lives, or against the threat of a stranger's life. I will not stumble in to stop a robbery where no one's lives are at stake.

I have to feel an "imminent threat" to life and limb before I get involved.......me or him !

^ What he said.

No, any fool would have sense enough not to engage, not a conundrum.

I think the deal is that EVERY situation is going to be different and will need to be judged separately. Without being there, it would be impossible to say. It sounds like one guy was a bit crazy, by trying to wrestle with a guy with a gun. Even if you are a bad-ass taking on 1 guy with a gun is one thing, but taking on 2 guys with guns is an absolute last resort.

Once shots were fired, then the guy with the gun must have felt like the situation was worse, and may have been trying to defend the guy that had just been shot or maybe his wife.

Maybe I'm just a fool, or a romantic, or grossly overestimate my abilities - there is no way in hell I could just stand by if someone is getting hurt by the bad guys. I would always feel compelled to do something, no matter how long the odds. We owe that much to each other, as a civilized society. That, and if we could somehow impress upon the bad guys that everyone in sight or in earshot would respond to help their victims, maybe it would give the bad guys pause.

Then again, reading the majority of responses above, I know that is not realistic. Every man for himself, I guess. "Hooray for me, to hell with you"...

So, how long would you guys say it is polite to wait before you go through the dead guy's pockets?

Only to defend myself. Shooting a robber is stupid in a crowd.....good way to get arrested and sued for being stupid. AND dead.

When in doubt...

I don't know if he was trying to stop the robbers, but probably trying to protect his wife. A friend was doing the same thing when he was killed at his law firm in San Francisco.

I found it a bit difficult to discern what actually happened in this case, that article was not well written. It seems like this mall was a posted gun free zone. I am not likely to go to a place that is posted as a gun free zone on general principles, but am not going to carry if I were to go there. Jeff, do you routinely take a firearm to gun free places, or are you saying you would be more like the unarmed man that attacked two armed bad guys doing bad stuff?

If I am in a store, and someone robs that store, but they are not trying to take my money, and maybe even if they are, I am probably not going to out with the gat and start snapping off rounds, unless me or mine are threatened. In a case like the one described here, two miscreants shoot a man impeding there egress, I would not draw from concealment. I let them run, call the cavalry and see if I can keep the guy they shot from being dead. In a different case, maybe I would do something else, but that is about how I would play the cards dealt here.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, next thing you might say is you would rush the hijackers of a airplane you were a passenger of instead of sitting there and letting the authority's handle it, people could get killed with thinking like that!
You are the kind of guy who would not wait and stand back when some one starts shooting in a mall when you have the means to stop them???
The authorities Jeff! Let those in charge handle bad things, you just need to learn to wait patiently while people or dying and getting killed.
Maybe if you get in the habit of filming stuff with your phone instead of thinking how you could make the situation better?

Yep.

Even in a best case situation, I stop the bad guys and no innocents, the many legal and financial liability risk to me is enormous. It will not be like the TV and movies when the cops just send you home with your gun and it is all over. Your life will be changed for a long time.

Every situation is different. Who has the calmness to calculate what is an acceptable risk to use a CCL weapon or not? If you do take action then innocent people can get hurt or killed or you could be hero of the day.

Taking this thread sideways with an impending hijacking.

Compare this to an impending hijacking such as flight 93. The cockpit was overtaken and one hijacker stayed in the cabin to prevent the passengers intervening. The hijackers had a plan and the passengers of course did not have a plan until they realized there was nothing to lose. At what point does joe individual step in and do something or not at all. Apologies for bringing back painful memories of flight 93 but much can be learned from these situations.

Absolutely choosing to use deadly force and getting involved has serious consequences. You could be responsible for the deaths and injury's of more people or saving more people from death and injury.
Doing nothing is the easy way out, and sometimes it can kill you or allow others to be killed.
To hijack the thread along a different line but with relevance, This is bucking close to 'Good Samaritan' law arguments, when should you intervene and how much?

Here are lots of arcticles out there on this topic but not much detail. It appears that the robbery was complete and the two robbers were attempting to leave when the unarmed Good Samaritan attempted to stop them and was shot. The CCH holder then returned fire. No mention of an imminent threat to the Good Samaritan that might otherwise explain his motivation to step in. I frequently carry, and if the only visible threat was the potential loss of property from a jewelry store there is no doubt in my mind that I would shelter my loved ones and step aside. I see no upside in potentially starting a gunfight solely to prevent a property crime. Now that drastically changes if there is an actual threat to either my family or someone else in the store, I would have a very hard time watching another innocent individual be harmed when I have the ability to help.

So I guess my Monday morning QB perspective is that the unarmed Good Samaritan made a big mistake by trying to stop two armed robbers, and once the confrontation escalated to a shooting I have a hard time faulting the reaction of the CCH holder. The entire situation escalated greatly based on the actions of the Good Samaritan.