Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Groceries, a Gun and a Good Outcome Edition

“A 36-year-old man was shot and killed Tuesday night while he was attempting to rob an elderly couple outside a Northwest Dallas grocery store, police say.” I’m sorry, what was that? Two people who had just finished their grocery shopping were victimized by an armed attacker? But we thought people doing their marketing only want #GroceriesNotGuns. It’s a good thing 71-year-old Ronnie Lummus doesn’t pay attention to hoplophobic harpies and was toting a shootin’ iron. “The man knocked the woman to the ground and tried to rob her. The woman’s husband, 71-year-old Ronnie Lummus, pulled out a handgun and fired several shots at the man as he was attempting to flee in his car. The man got in his car but died before fleeing, police said.” . . .

So Dallas has one less miscreant who preys on the elderly to worry about. But as the story relates,

Lummus has not been charged with a crime. The case will be referred to a grand jury.

So the gentleman’s fate is now in the hands of the legal system. Again, shooting at a fleeing attacker is never advised. But the victims’ age and state of residence may work in Mr. Lummus’s favor. For his sake, let’s hope so.


  1. avatar Robert W. says:

    Who’s to say that the man was actually fleeing at the time of shots fired? That could have been distorted by whomever reported it. The order of events could be: Robbery in action, shots fired, suspect hit, suspect flees, suspect dies.

    I will give benefit of doubt to the Gentleman and Wife until otherwise.

    1. avatar Rabbi says:

      If the bad guy was fleeing at the time of the shooting, the “victim” is guilty of reengagement and is now the assailant.

      1. avatar Robert W. says:

        I was never talking about that. I was simply stating that the press report may not match up with the facts. The man may never have fired while the suspect was attempting to flee, it could just be reported in a way that makes it sound like he did. More facts necessary.

      2. avatar Skyler says:

        Not unless Mr. Lummus thought that his property would not be retrieved by any other means. Texas is a bit lax on that point, but I wouldn’t want to be depending on the graces of a jury to decide that.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Did the guy actually have any property? It sounds like it was the robber’s car he was fleeing in… story doesn’t seem all that clear on some important legal points.

        2. avatar ropingdown says:

          According to the news report the first thing the robber did was snatch a gold necklace from the wife’s neck. Only then did he knock her to the ground, presumably to steal her other jewelry or purse.

          Assuming the robber still had the necklace when he fled, the shooting would appear to be, at first look, legal in Texas.

      3. He shot through the window at the robber who was already in the car leaving the scene. Doesn’t look good. I can’t defend this act by a citizen if I can’t defend a cop doing the same thing. He would have to go to “the car was a weapon” defense.

        1. avatar Amok! says:

          Well done Grampa. He has the law on his side.

          How about if someone actually posts Texas law on the matter. Since no one steps up and just “Ready, Fire, Aim’s” on this one, Ill do it.

          Note below, especially the last line which I put right below this paragraph. Gramps can articulate the following based on his age and the (now dead) perps age:

          (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

          Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

          (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

          (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

          (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

          (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

          (3) he reasonably believes that:

          (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

          (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

        2. It does not say if the robber actually TOOK property from the wife…in which case the husband would still be within the reaches of ‘recovering property’ as part of preventing/ending a felony.
          Also, the man had no way of knowing if the robber was going to his car to get a firearm or other ‘additional weapon’… and he needed to be CERTAIN the threat was over, in order to attend to his stricken Wife…

          OR … he could have declared, “CITIZEN’s ARREST!! CITIZEN’s ARREST!!” and he would then have been in the act of stopping a fleeing “detainee”… (-:

        3. avatar Robert W. says:

          Where are you getting a report that he fired at the man while in the vehicle?

        4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          The original news article mentioned that the robber snatched a gold necklace from the woman and knocked her down and tried to rob her. Sounds like he got the necklace, then was going for a purse or wallet. Fleeing with that necklace puts the shooter in the clear.

          We’ll need more details to know for sure, but even without the property/fleeing angle, this could be argued as being one ongoing attack, including events with the car.

          It’ll cost him money and stress, but in the end, this man will no-billed by the GJ.

      4. avatar Steve Moody says:

        The right guy died. The victim did not “reengage”. He finished the job.

        Did you notice I didn’t put quotes around victim?

      5. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        Was it at night?

        Texas law differentiates between day and night when it comes to the threshold of deadly force.

  2. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    Another example of MDA/Bloomberg/anti-gun voter’s insanity.

  3. avatar Another Robert says:

    Texas grand juries are pretty good about stuff like this. Let’s hope the pattern holds up.

    1. avatar Frank says:

      Agreed, Thank goodness the old guy doesn’t live in Connecticut or some other place where good guys are made out to be bad guys.

  4. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    I say his defense counsel should subpoena Shannon to be a witness. I think once the jury hears her ramble, the GJ will give him the keys to the city

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      And indict her, one can hope…

  5. avatar Bob Wall says:

    PleasebeaKroger…, PleasebeaKroger…, PleasebeaKroger…, PleasebeaKroger…

    1. avatar Bob Wall says:

      DAMN!!! – NotaKroger

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    Note to scvmbags everywhere: Don’t mess with an old guy. He won’t fight you, he’ll just shoot you.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:


    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Us older guys don’t have anything left to prove, nor are we going to fight for recreational entertainment.

      And we’re busy and have other things to do.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Olde and disgruntled could still teach new school tacticool a thing or two.

    3. avatar Rick says:

      The best way to become an Old Guy is to not fvck with Old Guys when you’re young.

    4. avatar BigDinVT says:

      @Ralph, Also +1

      I’ve heard – and being an old guy said – that before.

  7. avatar George M says:

    never shoot anyone in the back….

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      That’s absurd. There are times you should shoot someone in the back. Never say never. Except that time.

  8. avatar OakRiver says:

    Another senseless victim of gun violence [/sarc]

    Lets be honest, this is just another inconvenient fact for MDA, so they’ll do what they do best; ignore it and claim no one ever defends themselves with a firearm

  9. avatar Karlan says:

    Seems justified under texas law
    1) because of age of victim 65+
    2) he pushed the victim to get the property turning it from robbery to aggravated robbery.

    A snatch and grab on a young person, during the day, would not have been a justifiable shooting. However it being after dark, and the age of the victim, the grand jury almost certainly will not go to trial

    1. avatar Amok! says:

      You are totally wrong. Robbery any time of day (including aggravated), Texas allows up to and including deadly force to stop that threat.

      I am amazed at what people write on here as to what is legal and what isnt.

      Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

      (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

      (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

      (A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

      (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

  10. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Darwin wins! and I don’t believe in macro evolution LOL

    1. The reporter and evidence at the scene. The getaway vehicle had bullet holes in the window. Watch the video.

  11. avatar Paul53 says:

    Severe anti social behavior cured by a hot lead enema. Why would health care go to the grand jury? Especially in Texas!

  12. avatar joe says:

    The old fart is a murderer plain and simple. On another note, when I landed on this page it took all of 3 seconds to completely load. For the hell of it I disabled Ghostery (tracker blocker) and AdBlock Plus and reloaded the page. Holy Sheeet, after 3 plus minutes of grinding away the page finally loaded, Ghostery identified 110 trackers and there was so much ads and crap on the page it was ridiculous. Attaboy to the decision to add this blog to whatever the phuc network it is part of now. /rant

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      It ain’t “murder, plain and simple” in Texas (see above posts regarding Texas law on deadly force). The J may yet decide it is, but I would be surprised, and then getting a petit jury to convict might be another story altogether. I’m predicting a “no bill” myself.

    2. avatar Skyler says:

      Maybe you need to read the law before you declare someone guilty of murder.

    3. rubbish
      Plain and simple? Your ass hurts

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email