Man who tried to rob Waffle House with an AK-47 is shot by customer

[hack89]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Houston Chronicle

A man with an AK-47 who robbed customers at a Waffle House in Texas is on life support after being shot by a customer with a licensed handgun.

According to the DeSoto Police Department, Antione Cooper, 26, entered the restaurant in the 1500 block of North Beckley Avenue at 2:30 a.m. Thursday. Patrons at the Waffle House told police Cooper robbed several customers before leaving the restaurant and entering the parking lot.

A handgun-licensed customer, whose wife was on her way to meet him at the restaurant, followed Cooper to the parking lot, fearing for his wife's safety, according to DeSoto police.

Police said the customer called to Cooper once they were outside. Cooper pointed the AK-47 in the customer's direction, prompting the customer to shoot Cooper several times, according to police in the southern Dallas suburb.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Man-who-tried-to-rob-Waffle-House-with-an-AK-47-8365342.php

---

Cool headed response.

[Statistical]

1. Good job to the citizen.

Also why bring a rifle to rob a store? Granted I don't really want to help criminals out but part of a robbery involves getting away with the robbery. A handgun is far more concealable than a rifle so I think that might aid in that aspect.

[hack89]

4. Prisons are full of stupid people. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

120. Graveyards even fuller with stupid people. The shooter risked death & is likely going to prison. .nt

[hack89]

123. Hard to imagine him being charged.

just like we learned with the Zimmerman case, what people think about self defense and what the law actually says is completely different.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

130. Easy to imagine him being charged. You keep acting like a law expert but you don't post

You don't post relevant credible links to the laws and analysis of the applicable laws.

Quit pretending you know "what the law actually says". We see through you.

[406-Boz]

147. It's Texas,

The shooter will be viewed as a hero, if charged he certainly wouldn't be convicted.

[uawchild]

149. THIS. n/t

[TwilightZone]

157. It's Texas. The chances of him getting charged are roughly zero.

The concept of self-defense is stretched further in Texas than just about anywhere else in the country.

[olddad56]

77. probably didn't happen quite like the guy claimed, but makes good propaganda for open carry

[Statistical]

81. Nothing indicates that the civilian was open carrying.

[AllyCat]

2. Oh goody! More guns for everyone!

This person acted responsibly. Most don't or I doubt they would be able to. Glad some of these people are saved. Why on earth someone needs an AK47 is beyond my comprehension.

[yeoman6987]

23. A nice ending for a change

[camelfan]

163. And the gun nuts will point to it and say

"see? Having armed citizens works!" as though this one incident makes their viewpoint credible despite the mountains of times more guns simply mean more shootings and more deaths. To me, they're similar to the intelligent design and creationist defenders who say "wait a minute! There's a scientist who agrees with us!" Yeah, one scientist doesn't make it so.

[LuckyTheDog]

3. Well, that's one (nt)

[aggiesal]

29. I agree, ...

Now the gun nuts will use this example forever, on
how a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.

So let's legalize gun carry laws everywhere!!!

[csziggy]

5. Wonder if it's the same guy who was chased off by a 70 year old veteran

In Fayetteville, North Carolina?

Waffle House robbery foiled by 70-year-old veteran and his cane
By Monica Vendituoli Staff writer Apr 6, 2016

Phillips Brooks said he initially thought the man attempting to rob a Fayetteville Waffle House on Saturday morning was pulling a prank.

"I thought maybe it's a delayed April Fool's joke," the 70-year-old retired Army veteran said.

It was 5:20 a.m., but he soon realized the gravity of the situation when the man pointed what appeared to be an AK-47 rifle at employees and demanded money.

Rather than cower, Brooks said he confronted him. The actions of Brooks and several others led to the man being chased out of the restaurant without getting any money, a police news release said.

More: http://www.fayobserver.com/news/local/waffle-house-robbery-foiled-by--year-old-veteran-and/article_bd24d489-113c-58c0-91d6-88dd0f86300a.html

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. NOT a cool-headed response.

Guy was trying to be a "hero" (the kind soldiers are so derisive of because they get other people killed).

He could have followed the guy, but calling out to him was very stupid and completely unnecessary.

The handgun wannabe-killer was just trying to provoke something. He thought up the "feared for his wife's safety" excuse later. If he really wanted to protect his wife he would not have risked getting himself killed -- not much protecting can be done from the grave.

[FailureToCommunicate]

9. Thank you. That's the correct response.

[lapfog_1]

10. My thought exactly

The robber was leaving... the "hero" with the handgun followed him into the parking lot and yelled at him, when the robber turned to face the "hero" the hero shot him.

If this had gone another way and the guy with AK-47 killed the "hero" and then proceeded to shoot it out or hold the other customers hostage, I wonder if anyone praising our hero would still be praising him.

Yes, this time it worked. Citizens (and police) have a right to defend themselves, but I don't think this person was defending anyone (the wife wasn't there so could not be in danger).

But whatever.

[COLGATE4]

11. Thread Winner!

Thanks for pointing out the fallacy of this guy's 'heroism'. He just wanted to be a good guy with a gun. Now he's a hero to some.

[SpankMe]

14. 100% agreement. n/t

[guillaumeb]

56. Excellent, common sense response to this attempt

at justifying universal carry. I wish I could recommend your response.

[Rex]

65. Now he is liable for shooting the guy, just imagine if the customers wife had shown up right then?

Idiots with guns, take on other idiots with guns.

[rockfordfile]

76. I agree

[moonscape]

160. Exactly. What's wrong with

calling the police and letting them handle it? This story actually terrifies me. I don't want an armed citizenry, and this will now be quoted as an example of why everyone (even in bars, a la Trump) need to be armed.

Uch.

[George II]

7. Oh great, are we now going back to the "Wild Wild West"?

[ManiacJoe]

31. Hollywood's version any way....

[villager]

8. "Man who terrorizes and robs several with easily available AK-47 is luckily shot...

...before more could be terrorized, robbed, or murdered."

Headline corrected.

[greyl]

12. Is "Cool headed response" a joke? nt

[hack89]

13. Or a lure. Can't decide which is a more apt description. nt

[greyl]

71. Is lure describing your OP comment, or the shooter's tactic? nt

[Rex]

72. The OP. They love all this negative attention.

Ask yourself why?

[hack89]

100. The comment

there was nothing wrong with the shooter's tactics.

[sarisataka]

15. Catch 22...

If he intervenes, he is a cowboy vigilante who escalated the situation because he was armed.

If he sits by and does nothing, it proves guns are useless against criminals.

“It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”

-Paul Quander, Former D.C. deputy mayor for public safety and justice

[Blandocyte]

20. Indeed. If he were an off-duty cop

he would be called a hero right now for taking the same actions using the same skills.

Instead, he's apparently "just" a civilian who learned skills to handle his gun and is now being derided.

Add to the "what if's" which are ranging from sensible to whimsical already -- maybe he thought, "Oh, crap, while we all were cowering, I forgot to give that rifle-wielding chap this valuable handgun I have. I'll see if I can catch his attention in the parking lot so that I might hand it to him before my wife arrives to pick me up." While trying to do that good deed, the rifle guy turned on him and he didn't get to follow through.

[Arkana]

16. That guy must really love waffle fries.

[hack89]

17. They are to die for! nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. Cool headed response?

That's debatable.

[hack89]

19. ok. nt

[Skeeter Barnes]

21. I think cool headed is avoiding conflict. The shooter sought a conflict. Still a good shoot,

I guess, but I wouldn't have followed him looking to fight. I'd have called my wife and told her to stay away from the restaurant.

Would you have gone after the guy?

BTW, I just put some new sights from Dawson Precision on my carry gun (G43). All black rear sight with a fiber optic front. I carry it in a Vedder Pocket Locker. Neat little rig and it shoots good for a small gun.

[Rex]

22. Lulz of course you like this article.

Guns! Guns!

[hack89]

25. I am enjoying the responses even more.

if I can't be on the lake fishing .....

[Rex]

27. Right this is what you wanted...

Basking in negative attention, wow that really says a lot about you.

[hack89]

30. Your personal disapproval is not really too upsetting

you are fairly predicable and your biases are well known. I just love watching synchronized knee jerking.

[Rex]

32. Yes your one and only issue is guns, we all know.

The idiot can now be charged with attempted murder, what a stupid customer.

[hack89]

36. He won't be charged and you know it

in most places besides DU, armed robbers don't get the benefit of the doubt.

[Rex]

39. Wrong he was no longer in danger, I understand if you cannot comprehend what I am saying to you.

Nice try but fail.

[hack89]

45. You can legally follow and confront criminals.

the criminal made the mistake of pointing a gun at the guy.

[Rex]

49. So says the guy that shot him.

Better hope he has a witness.

[hack89]

55. Not everyone believes violent criminals

there will be no charges.

[Rex]

57. LOL

There might be charges, like you know the future.

[hack89]

60. Lets bookmark this thread and see what happens. nt

[Rex]

62. Yes let us do that. nt

nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

91. The violent criminal is the one who fires the shots causing injury and near-death.

Don't bet the house on him not being charged for his reckless actions.

[hack89]

103. No. Pointing an AK-47 at someone is definitely a criminal act

especially while committing armed robbery.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

114. Yeah, the AK-47 guy is criminal. The idjit who provoked the gunfight & shot is a violent criminal.nt

[hack89]

121. That poor guy with the AK-47! Everyone is picking on him. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

155. Repetition of your silly line in this thread doesn't make it stronger. . . nt

[Rex]

107. Some do not see the forest for the trees.

https://www.google.com/search?q=home+invader+wins+lawsuit&oq=home+invader+wins+lawsuit&aqs=chrome..69i57.7311j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[sarisataka]

118. Do you believe criminals

should be able to sue their victims for injuries received in the process of committing their crimes?

[Rex]

129. Yeah he stole some money and ran out of the building, then the customer shot him. Mistake #1.

I'm sorry if facts are running a great gun hero thread. What injuries did the people in the waffle house receive?

[sarisataka]

137. I am seeing what is the baseline

Home invasion- criminal shot by homeowner, criminal can sue
Armed robbery- criminal short by patron, criminal can sue

Where is the line? Is injury required? That comes close to "Did you try and resist"

Rape- criminal shot by victim after assault is complete, criminal...

[Rex]

140. People get sued all the time by their attackers.

Did you think this is a just world we live in where everything has a clean and neat ending? If so, I got news for you.

[sarisataka]

142. Not at all

I often point out to people we have a legal system, not a justice system. Not that it would be better if "justice" is taken to the extreme.

My point is victims have rights as well. Criminals should not benefit at the expense of their victims. If the subject in the OP is charged (IMO not entirely out of the question) and convicted, then he should be open to suit for excessive force. I would apply the same standard to police. If his actions are deemed justified, then he should be immune to civil suit. Is that perfect, no but I would rather err on the side of victims.

I read an article several years ago about London police requiring people to remove chicken wire from shed windows. They had put the wire up because there had been a rash of tool thefts from sheds; usually entry was gained by breaking windows. The reason they had to remove the wire- it posed a hazard to the thieves. They would face criminal charges if a thief was injured by the wire.
I do not believe we have a duty to be victims.

[Rex]

146. I agree with most of what you just said.

If he had shot the perp inside the building, I don't think we would even be discussing it. My only point was he might get in trouble for shooting the guy in the parking lot. Should the perp get away with his crime? That seems to be a strawman, unless someone here wants to fess up and say yes.

[AntiBank]

94. is synchronised knee jerking an Olympic sport?

[hack89]

105. More like art, especially here. nt

[Auggie]

24. I would think the customer could be charged for stalking Cooper ...

because that's what he did. Once he left the restaurant to purposely confront the robber it was no longer self-defense. This will be interesting to see how it plays out, especially under local Texas law.

[hack89]

26. Not if he thought his wife was in danger.

no prosecutor is going to charge him for that.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

92. He can think whatever he wants. He did not have to call to the guy.

[Ash_F]

93. I live near Desoto. He'll be charged if the mood strikes the police/prosecutor.

In Texas they overcharge, they undercharge. They charge with little evidence. They fail to charge with a mountain of evidence. They charge when there is exculpatory evidence. They don't charge when there is a public confession.

There is no rhyme or reason here. Everything is down to the politics feelings and biases of whoever is in power. You can't predict anything.

[Rex]

111. Best reply yet imo.

Anything goes in Texas, I've seen people get sued for injury to home invaders and lose. We are all speculating at best.

[LisaL]

144. I don't believe for a millisecond he is going to be charged in TX.

[Rex]

28. Yep, he shot first so now he can face charges for attempted murder.

But the OP thinks he is smart. Idiot should have stayed inside and called the cops.

[hack89]

33. He won't be charged.

an armed robber pointed a gun at him. You don't have to be shot at first to claim self defense. But ignorance of self defense laws is pretty common here so I don't really hold it against you.

[Rex]

35. Wrong he was in no danger and the perp already left the store, you really don't

know much about the law do you? He followed and caused a confrontation, but don't let that fact get to you.

[hack89]

40. Except following someone is not illegal

verbally confronting them is not illegal. Pointing an AK-47 at someone is illegal.

[Rex]

43. He said she said.

This will go to court, I've seen dumber things get through the system then this.

[hack89]

50. In the real world outside of DU, armed robbers don't get the benefit of the doubt.

though it does please me to see you standing up in support at least one gun owner.

[Rex]

53. Wrong, the court will decide who is at fault.

You can pretend this is different then RL, but the court won't see it that way. Sorry.

[hack89]

58. It won't even get before a grand jury.

for one thing, we are talking about Texas. Secondly, he didn't break any laws.

[Rex]

61. LOL. Keep dreaming.

I know this just deflates your sails, tough luck right?

[hack89]

66. You disagreeing with me deflates my sails?

I am sure you are a nice guy but I really don't think that much of your disapproval or your reasoning abilities. We are two people sparring anonymously on an obscure internet forum. Surely no one invests that much emotion in what people say here?

[Rex]

68. You sure do. Why do you invest such emotion in this forum?

You made this very thread to bask in negative attention. You loved it until I brought up some facts. You don't seem to have any reasoning abilities, which is scary I hope you never are in a situation to where you have a firearm - I wouldn't trust you to do the right thing.

[bluedigger]

59. He pursued an armed person fleeing a robbery after any personal threat had passed.

That's vigilantism.

[hack89]

63. Show me the letter of the law.

not your personal view of vigilantism but the actual elements that make up the crime of vigilantism. I suspect you will be disappointed.

[Rex]

64. Shhhh...they are on their Batman high!

They all dream about being...Batman!

[melm00se]

124. texas law on self defense

http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-31.html

[Rex]

135. How is being the aggressor in this situation self defense?

Right. Not at all.

[LisaL]

127. In TX, he has a right to use deadly force to defend property.

[Hoyt]

152. Anybody's property, or his own. Plus, you can carry a confederate flag by law, but should you.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

95. Following is not illegal. He could have left it at that. Provoking a violent gunfight is illegal. nt

[procon]

86. Even if there are no criminal charges, the shooter left himself liable for civil charges.

If he dies, the robber's family has every right to pursue justice for his wrongful death. A civil lawsuit has a different burden of proof than criminal cases which prompted the parents of Ron Goldman, and Nicole Brown's father to file a civil suit against OJ Simpson that awarded them millions in compensatory and punitive damages.

The armed vigilante denied the robber was his right to a fair trial. Even guilty, he did not commit a capital crime and he would not have been subject to a death sentence.

[ManiacJoe]

34. Self defense does not require you

to be shot at first before using your own gun, in any jurisdiction.

[Rex]

37. The customer was no longer in danger and followed the perp outside and shot him.

Really? You know this little about the law?

[Statistical]

42. The customer claims he feared for his arriving wife.

It isn't all that uncommon for someone arriving on the scene to startle an violent felon and result in violence even violence not premeditated.

If that story checks out he had a reasonable right to use force. If it turns out he was lying about that then yes it changes the situation and he might be facing charges in most states. However Texas is a weird state. It is one of the few states where you can kill someone over property crimes so honestly I doubt he is getting convicted in Texas regardless.

[Rex]

46. He said she said.

Big deal he should have stayed inside, now he is liable.

[Statistical]

52. He is only liable in your mind.

No charges has been filed. No charges will be filed.

[Rex]

54. Yeah we shall see.

[Statistical]

38. Isn't a cop just an indirect deployment of a firearm.

What do you think the cop would have done differently if the robber pointed a rifle at him?

The only difference with calling the cops (which I assumed someone probably did) is the cops could have arrived after his wife did.

[Rex]

41. Again he was no longer in danger and escalated the situation.

A cop and a civilian are not one and the same.

[Statistical]

44. Well your right conceal carry permit holders are far less likely to shoot an unarmed person.

That aside once again self defense isn't only defense of self. It is defense of self and others. His wife would qualify as an "other".

[Rex]

47. Provoking the guy was what will land him in hot water.

[LisaL]

99. Maybe you missed the fact that this happened in TX.

He isn't going to be in hot water.

[Rex]

101. I live in Texas and maybe he will be and maybe not.

The fact he wanted to play cowboy and not warn his wife first, tells me all I need to know.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

96. Cops have a MANDATE to follow & confront criminals. Wanna-be 'heroes' do NOT. . . nt

[LisaL]

119. He didn't need a mandate.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

125. Yes, only in the sense that nobody needs a mandate to commit a crime and shoot somebody.

Idiots who provoke gunfights by unnecessary confrontations and then grievously injure people are likely to get mandated prison time.

[hack89]

67. It was not illegal to follow and confront the robber.

in any case, stalking has a precise legal definition that normally includes multiple instances.

[Rex]

70. Show us the law that agrees with your assessment, you won't be able to find it.

[Auggie]

82. Good grief ... can you believe the responses here?

But, given the Texas locale (as I already said), it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

In my burb in Northern California, a guy I know is being charged for firing his Glock at someone trying to steal his truck. And that's as it should be on a residential street. Call the cops instead.

[Rex]

84. We do have a lot of wannabe cowboys here in Texas, they dream of being the hero

I guess that is the total of their day dreaming, yeah it is sad I agree.

[Hoyt]

154. At least immoral, but gunners don't care about that.

[liberalmuse]

48. I knew it was Texas.

I never want to live in an open carry, gun-worshiping state like this where idiots can get away with carrying around an AK-47 and other gun-toting idiots can mete out vigilante justice.

[Rex]

51. It is pretty crazy here, our governor is the worlds biggest fuck up and loves guns!!

I'd leave the state in a heartbeat, if I didn't have family here.

[Angel Martin]

69. Tragic

A man with an AK-47 who robbed customers at a Waffle House in Texas is on life support after being shot by a customer with a licensed handgun.

Gee, that's too bad.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

97. Yes, Violent vigilantes provoking gunfights are more than just "too bad". They are really stupid. nt

[procon]

73. Idiots with guns!

Needlessly confronting and provoking an armed robber in a public parking lot where unsuspecting people shopping and going about their business is reckless stupidity. The shooter says he was concerned for his wife's safety, but he placed her, himself, and everyone else around him, in jeopardy when he started a gunfight with the robber. If he didn't have a gun he would have thought about his own safety and made a more reasonable decision to call 911 and provide information to the police. Guns make people stupid. They think they're invincible. He's lucky the robber didn't kill him, and given recent events, charmed and blessed when the cops didn't shoot him.

[TeddyR]

74. After the Dallas shootings last week

There was at least one thread here attacking the "good guy with a gun" notion because nobody intervened to stop the shooter. Now it looks like some of those same people are in this thread attacking someone who was licensed to carry for actually intervening to stop an armed criminal.

[sarisataka]

79. See post #15

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141517959#post15

Yes he did what was criticized for not happening last week...

[Hoyt]

75. So the customer shot a man fleeing the restaurant, every cowboy's dream. George Zimmerman

would be proud. Now if I he guy was drawing down on a victim in the parking lot, that's different. But give it to the cowboy, if you want to get away with an unnecessary shooting, you gotta throw in you feared for your life (or in this case his wife's, who apparently was no where in sight).

It's one thing to shoot someone when they are likely to kill you. It's another to play cowboy because you have a gun and ran after them to take advantage of your "self-defense" training.

What I know so far, I'm not going to get excited and post it all over the Internet as proving guns are good.

[Statistical]

80. He wasn't fleeing when he was shot. He was pointing a rifle (a scary black rifle at that)

There is a big difference between shooting a fleeing suspect in the back and shooting someone who points a gun at you.

Let's imagine the civilian was a cop responding to a 911 call. If he shot the suspect fleeing in the back that would be bad. If he shot the suspect when the suspect pointed a deadly weapon at him that would be acceptable.

[Hoyt]

151. That's what the cowboy said, as he was obviously trained. George Zimmerman did the same,

"I was scared for my life and the law says I can shoot a skinny unarmed kid that I stalked, intimidated, and murdered."

Also article says the cowboy followed the robber to the parking lot. Sounds like he may have shot him in the act of fleeing. May, said cowboy, should have called 911 and left it to police.

[Rex]

85. Urban cowboys and their guns.

He wanted the thrill of shooting the criminal and he made sure it happened. Now he is liable, what an idiot.

[matt819]

78. Alternatively

He could have called his wife and told her to stay away.

He could then have called the police, taken down the license plate number, etc. Instead, he provoked the AK-47 guy and created the situation where he could shoot him.

[angrychair]

87. ^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^. NT

[Rex]

88. That was my first thought, "so why not call the wife and tell her to stay away."

No no...much better to elevate the situation and then be liable for shooting the perp! Guns make people stupid, someone else said that in this thread and here is the proof!

[LisaL]

104. Maybe he didn't have a cell phone.

Or she didn't have a cell phone.

[Rex]

109. Right, he has a firearm but not a cell phone.

We shall see what happens in civil court.

[Auggie]

115. That's immaterial

[Auggie]

89. +1

[CBGLuthier]

83. After the robbery was over he pulled a gun, called to the robber, and executed him. Bet his dick was

harder than it had been in years.

[sarisataka]

90. How hard

Was the robber's dick? He had an AK 47... or was it just very tiny?

[LisaL]

102. In TX, he is allowed to use deadly force to defend property.

[Rex]

108. He wasn't defending anything, the perp had already left the building.

[LisaL]

116. You must have missed the part of the article that says perp robbed several customers.

What do you think he left the building with?

[Rex]

122. Right and they were no longer in any danger, sadly the customer had to walk outside

and escalate the situation and now is liable. Oh well, guess it was worth it to be a 'hero'. Hope he has deep pockets.

If he would have shot the guy inside the waffle house, I can see it being justified...no way in this case.

Guns make people stupid.

[LisaL]

128. Liable for what?

Again, this is TX.

[Rex]

131. Shooting someone, do you think you just can run around and shoot someone when you feel like it?

Yes this is Texas, he might find himself in civil court...but it was worth it no doubt.

[LisaL]

133. Did he run around and shot someone when he felt like it?

You must be discussing some other case.

[Rex]

134. Uh yes he did...he walked outside and shot the guy that robbed the place. Are you taking about

another case?

[LisaL]

143. Shooting the guy who robbed the place isn't the same as running around shooting people because he

"felt like it."

[Rex]

148. But he did feel like it, he made a choice to escalate the situation into a gun fight. The customer.

If you cannot see that, then I dunno what to tell you. He might be in trouble, if that bothers you personally then that is the way it is.
Have you never heard of frivolous lawsuits? Sometimes they actually win.

[Crepuscular]

161. ...

Somebody points an AK-47 at you after just having committed armed robbery is more then enough justification to act in self defense. But your concern for the criminal is both predictable and telling.

[treestar]

98. He had left the restaurant

and had not killed anyone.

[hack89]

110. Yet. But if you can't trust an AK-47 wielding criminal, who can you trust? nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

141. We are supposed to trust the guy who provoked a gunfight and shot someone near to death? No. . . nt

[Rex]

117. Guns make people stupid.

Now he could be liable in civil court. Stupid.

[Crepuscular]

162. ...

......yet.

The fact that he had not shot anybody up until that point provides zero evidence that he may not have shot the next person he encountered, which potentially could have been the guy who shot him's wife.

[TheCowsCameHome]

106. Wouldn't it be ironic if the customer faced charges?

He lucky he wasn't shredded because of his stupid actions, assuming the robber's weapon was even loaded.

[hack89]

112. That poor innocent guy with the AK-47. Everyone is picking on him! nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

136. Just another loser that thinks AK's are fun toys.

[Rex]

138. I agree sounds like a total loser.

[LisaL]

113. In TX, this customer will face charges when pigs fly.

[TwilightZone]

158. Agreed. As I noted in another response, the concept of self-defense (and defense of property) is...

stretched further in TX than pretty much anywhere else in the country.

[tblue37]

126. Do any reporters know how to write logically?

DeSoto police were able to identify Cooper after circulating pictures of his tattoos. Cooper does not have an arrest photo yet as he is recovering in the hospital.

If he is on life support, to say he "is recovering in the hospital" is a bit of a stretch. Why not just say he remains hospitalized?

[LisaL]

132. Somebody on life support could recover.

So he could be recovering (at least in theory).

[tblue37]

139. Yes, I know. My brother did. But the language is jarring coming as it

does after the description of his being on life support after being shot several times. Such jarring contrasts are like big smudges on a window--they distract the reader from the story.

[jtuck004]

145. That will be one robber. Scattered, smothered, and covered. n/t

[Cryptoad]

150. Sounds like he "bushwhacked" him in the parking lot.

Why I dont travel to or thru TX.

[Statistical]

153. because you like robbing Wafflehouses?

[Night Watchman]

156. Oh, Gawd

I can hear the NRA now!

[GOLGO 13]

159. Sounds like a perfect response to having a ak-47 pointed at you.

Well done citizen!