How the fuck is this legal?

Oh, Texas, yea nevermind.

in other cases that pursuit, to get a description, license plate number etc. is not considered escalating.

A local case involved a CCW holder following a purse snatcher. When he told the thief to return the purse the criminal puled a gun. The CCW holder shot and killed him. It was ruled justified as he did not resort to force until confronted with force.

This case appears similar.

Someone should tell those guys it's dangerous to be criminals. They could move to California, D.C., or NY and this would not happen there.

even in the most liberal of jurisdictions.

As the story indicates, the boyfriend did not fire on the robbers until after they turned around to confront him.

If he had shot the escaping robbers in the back after the crime and while they posed no danger to himself or others, any claim of self-defense might prove difficult. If the robbers were smart, they would have kept on running after the robbery.

Maybe next time the robbers will make better, and far less dangerous, life choices. Nevertheless, I'll save all my pity for those who don't steal from others and have the temerity to claim to be victims.

This is OK in Texas, yeah? Whatta hero.

Did you notify the TX. authorities yet? I'm sure they want to hear from you as you seem to be an eyewitness.

On a serious not, you have no fucking clue why he chased after them, the most likely reason was to get a description for the cops.

It must be true then, everyone runs after robbers just to jot down their physical description for the cops, and then shoots them. Saves money by cutting down on the cost of policing, right? I dunno, between the robbers and the crazy guy with a gun chasing after them and shooting up the neighborhood, I'm glad I don't live there.

Say, aren't you the same person defending the POS ARMED robber that was shot and killed in IL in another thread?
Why, yes you are.
Your credibility is in the toilet.

Weak , very weak, but pure comedy gold.

Odder still, finding someone who actually does. We live in different worlds, my friend, we really do.

has decreased 50% in the last 20 years, I remember laughing at you and your defense of criminals.
You're right about one thing and one thing only, we do live in different worlds, I live in the world of reality while you live in a fantasy world.

people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, you are also saying that people should stand around and take pictures while waiting for the cops. Kind of like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

I'm guessing that Petit using a gun against the two home invaders would be a chargeable offense in your world also?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

The logical extension of your posts are just that. That is a very illiberal view. The only way it can be progressive is through the horseshoe theory. The reason being, you espousing an aspect of pre Enlightenment thought were individuals did not have natural rights, only privileges granted by the Crown or State based on their social class.

If I am in error, please explain what I am missing.

is not self defense. And, no, you shouldn't need someone to explain that to you. The threat was over, and he had other options available. Where do you draw the line? If the robbers drove off instead running away, would it be OK to follow them home and then shoot them as they sat on the sofa? Would it be OK to kill them for trying to take your stuff?

Gun people extoll the idea that their guns protect them. Yet here's some guy who grabs a gun after the danger passed, and then compounds his stupidity by putting himself in danger when he decides to chase after robbers who had fled the scene and no longer posed a threat to him. Its totally irrational behavior.

to their home or anywhere else, with or without a firearm. Criminals do not receive any form of legal immunity from pursuit from their victims during their escape.

The laws of self-defense also do not change because a pursuit is initiated. In your hypothetical, if the boyfriend followed the thieves by car to their home, he would still only be able to employ lethal force if reasonably endangered, just as he didn't fire until the thieves turned on him during the actual chase. The boyfriend would not be able to break into or trespass upon private property, but could wait and observe them on public property or, if allowed, other private property.

Your really have no understanding of basic criminal law and the rules of self-defense, regardless of whether or not a firearm is involved, including the fact that in some localities, such as Texas, lethal force is permitted to stop property crimes. You're hatred of guns is blinding you to centuries of jurisprudence in both liberal and conservative jurisdictions.

Lastly, the only "stupidity" of display was that of the thieves. They should never have turned on the boyfriend, were lucky they survived the encounter, and hopefully will display better judgment in the future.

The efforts defending repeat, often violent, criminals, and then trying to criminalize innocent victims, all because of a dislike of firearms, is one of the reasons for the failure of gun control as well as increasing numbers of people carrying firearms for defense.

The danger wasn't imminent when he decided to chase them, and he wasn't defending anything when he shot them, so he just did it because he had a gun. When he became the gun wielding aggressor, then it would have been OK for any good-guy-with-a-gun to him too, right?

Life is held too cheaply in Texas if its true that lethal force is permitted to stop property crimes. That guy was willing to kill two men over lady's purse, but where does it stop? Would you kill another human being over a slice of pizza, what about bicycle, or an ipad... is there any limit to the madness?

You're changing the actual situation to conform to your own feelings and biases, and have not actually read or digested all of what I explained or what was detailed in the OP. According to the story, the man didn't "run after the thieves and shoot them down" rather he lawfully chased criminals, they threatened him, and only then did he use his firearm in legal self-defense. Your objection is that the man possessed the means to properly defend himself and not fear the pursuit of criminals. Not fearing criminals does not make one an "aggressor" under the law.

If you are robbed, you have a right to chase the thieves. In fact, absent unusual circumstances, you can follow anyone for any reason on public property. Your possession of a gun (or knife, bat, etc.) is immaterial, and the basic laws of self-defense do not change. Generally, you may only employ lethal self-defense, firearm or otherwise, if you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. You may not just shoot a fleeing thief in the back. However, if while pursuing the thieves, they turn and seriously threaten you, as happened in the OP, self-defense is indeed justified. Notable, thieves generally may not claim they were acting in self-defense if they are escaping from their crime and attempting to avoid capture. The more permissive self-defense laws in Texas which permit lethal force to defend property were not really pertinent in this incident, as usual self-defense laws as exit elsewhere would cover these circumstances. Robbery is also usually considered a violent crime, not just a property crime, justify more lethal self-defense measures.

The man did not simply kill two men over a purse, as you suggest. He was willing to give chase to actual thieves, and then use a firearm only when they threatened him because they wanted to ensure their escape. The thieves should have kept on running, but I most certainly do not sympathize with the results of their mistake to threaten violence in order to get away with their crime. They are lucky to be alive, and have only themselves to blame for their misfortune. Hopefully, they will reflect on their poor choices while incarcerated.

The only "madness" and belief that "life is cheap" was displayed by the thieves for engaging in a dangerous (and repeated) criminal enterprise, and you, because you want to effectively deny victims the right to defend themselves, and worse, defend and sympathize with criminals while blaming the victims.

Again, the use of a gun was ancillary to this incident as it pertains to right to lethal self-defense, and you truly do not understand the right of victims (or the public) or the rules of self-defense, regardless if the locale is Texas, San Francisco or most anywhere else.

As to whether I would kill another human being over a slice of pizza, a bicycle or Ipad, my response would be that if I possessed a means to adequately protect myself without endangering others, I likely would not voluntarily turn over my hard-earned property to criminals, and if they threatened violence, I would sadly feel the necessity of lawfully responding in kind to protect myself. The death or injury of the violent criminals would be regrettable, as any loss of life is tragic, but the fault would be the criminal's, not mine.

Are you actually suggesting that people should have a legal obligation to peacefully turn over their property to thieves in order to protect criminals from injury?

Anyone can pursue, tag along, keep in touch with Violent Lawbreakers. In fact, it might be considered a civic duty in order to have these Thugs removed from the streets. Would I do this if the Thugs were armed? I don't know because the danger posed to me maybe a deterrent. This citizen, however, did pursue the perpetrators lawfully. Only when a Thug turned to confront the citizen did the Thugs receive several examples of self-defense measures.

The lesson here is Not to perpetrate violent crimes and expect citizens not to take some kind of action. Or for others to give goo-goo looks and come-hither eye brow arching as mute rewards for their BadBoy skid mark behavior. The citizen's actions seem not just reasonable, but responsible.

He is on top of me, slamming my head into the curb, repeatedly...

It's the same one that was NOT widely reported in the press, but all the supporting evidence supported the "curb stomp" so that is why he walked...

If it was OK to shoot and kill someone because you think they might harm you, why isn't it OK to knock them senseless for the same reason?

Zimmerman may have followed Martin because he believed him engaged in criminality (although the evidence also indicated he stopped the pursuit prior to the altercation). Martin purportedly attacked Zimmerman just for following him, and more importantly, Zimmerman did not employ lethal force, i.e, fire his gun, until after Martin was slamming his head against the ground.

I would suggest you become familiar with the laws about what is generally permissible on public property, as well as the laws of self-defense in your jurisdiction and others. When discussing criminal matters where a trial has actually occurred, it is also prudent to rely on actual evidence in any discussion, rather than belief, hope and bias.

The law was on Trayvon Martin's side up to the point, *he* decided that it will completely ok, to viciously attack a person following him in a public place....

At that point, Trayvon Martin made a very poor decision that cost him his life.

Zimmerman was wrong (but NOT illegal decision) to follow and shout at Trayvon, Trayvon was much more wrong to attack Zimmerman. In the eyes of the law, when your stradling someone, slamming their head into the curb, they have every right to shoot you.. I cannot think of a SINGLE state where that would have been illegal..

IMHO, from the evidence given at the trial, two "hotheads" met in the night.

Put him in jail.

until the robbers turned on him- but I'm sure that doesn't matter.

Possession of a firearm does not change this at all.

If the robbers kept on running, rather than turning to confront the man in legal pursuit, they would not have been lawfully shot.

Engaging in a dangerous life of crime has its risks. If you want to ensure you will not be shot, do not engage in crime, and if you do, under no circumstances even appear remotely threatening to victims or innocent bystanders during or immediately after commission of the crime. Both robbers are very lucky the wounds weren't lethal. Hopefully, after a long stay as a guest of the Texas penal authorities, they will make better life choices.

"JUST" so he could shoot them.... Go ahead....

Woman would have been out a purse, her phone, and some cash maybe. Instead two men got horribly injured after ending the confrontation and fleeing. If the three guys had had knives and the boyfriend not done anything, no one would have been hurt. I mean no one uses knives to kill, rape, or kidnap or anything. Right?

Were "horribly injured" because they decided to attempt to steal someone else's possessions. This wouldn't have happened if the two idiots/felons who were shot hadn't decided to commit a crime. I have zero sympathy for any criminal that is shot in the commission of a crime. Although the woman wasn't injured, robbers kill their victims on almost a daily basis.

My comment was commonsense, not an "NRA talking point." I don't even know what the NRA does or does not advocate, other than from a general perspective, and certainly don't know what their "talking points" might be. I think a vast majority of people would agree that a criminal who gets shot in the commission of a crime would not have been shot had he or she not been committing that crime. Why do are you so concerned about the rights of a criminal?