Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
samzhere
BannedPosts: 10,923 Senior Member
Tx store owner charged w. murder after shooting thief
samzhere
BannedPosts: 10,923 Senior Member
This thread could also go in the 2A/politics section, mods move if needed...
A Corpus Christie Texas convenience store owner has been arrested and charged with homicide after he shot and killed a man who was attempting to steal a 12-pack of beer from the store.
There's no indication of the level (degree) of homicide but I'd guess 2nd degree murder. There is also no mention of extenuating circumstances on either side of the issue, as this story is fairly new and no more details are available. Here's the link:
http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Texas-store-owner-arrested-after-killing-robber-4854325.php?cmpid=hpts
This is quite unusual for Texas. In Texas, it's "technically" justified defense for shooting or otherwise stopping a thief who's running away with your property "during the hours of darkness" (I don't know why the dark rule).
In other words, in Texas, you can actually use lethal force to prevent someone from stealing your stuff. It's literally in the legal code in "defense against prosecution" language. And normally, this has also applied to store owners who are preventing theft. So these murder charges are pretty uncommon here.
I say "technically justified" because it's not really self defense, as the person can actually be running away at the time.
I know that there are some people who would shoot to kill if someone were stealing a house plant or a matchstick from their property, because there have occasionally been pronouncements here along those lines, "My sacred property line, my stash, mine mine mine and you won't get any!" and so on.
I suppose I might shoot at someone who was stealing my car, but then again, I kind of doubt whether I would... for me, deadly force in self defense is just that, and if the thief had caused no harm to me or anyone else, and was just grabbing my TV set or something, I'm not sure whether that falls under the aspect of when I'd pull the trigger.
I honestly don't know.
Anyway, I occasionally read about a Texas store owner shooting a thief but this is the first time I can remember his being charged for the shoot. So I can only assume there were extenuating circumstances that led the cops to file charges.
What are your thoughts about using deadly force to prevent theft, assuming the perp is running away at the time and nobody was harmed?
A Corpus Christie Texas convenience store owner has been arrested and charged with homicide after he shot and killed a man who was attempting to steal a 12-pack of beer from the store.
There's no indication of the level (degree) of homicide but I'd guess 2nd degree murder. There is also no mention of extenuating circumstances on either side of the issue, as this story is fairly new and no more details are available. Here's the link:
http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Texas-store-owner-arrested-after-killing-robber-4854325.php?cmpid=hpts
This is quite unusual for Texas. In Texas, it's "technically" justified defense for shooting or otherwise stopping a thief who's running away with your property "during the hours of darkness" (I don't know why the dark rule).
In other words, in Texas, you can actually use lethal force to prevent someone from stealing your stuff. It's literally in the legal code in "defense against prosecution" language. And normally, this has also applied to store owners who are preventing theft. So these murder charges are pretty uncommon here.
I say "technically justified" because it's not really self defense, as the person can actually be running away at the time.
I know that there are some people who would shoot to kill if someone were stealing a house plant or a matchstick from their property, because there have occasionally been pronouncements here along those lines, "My sacred property line, my stash, mine mine mine and you won't get any!" and so on.
I suppose I might shoot at someone who was stealing my car, but then again, I kind of doubt whether I would... for me, deadly force in self defense is just that, and if the thief had caused no harm to me or anyone else, and was just grabbing my TV set or something, I'm not sure whether that falls under the aspect of when I'd pull the trigger.
I honestly don't know.
Anyway, I occasionally read about a Texas store owner shooting a thief but this is the first time I can remember his being charged for the shoot. So I can only assume there were extenuating circumstances that led the cops to file charges.
What are your thoughts about using deadly force to prevent theft, assuming the perp is running away at the time and nobody was harmed?
Replies
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Personally, I cannot imagine pulling the trigger to protect something that probably cost the store owner $6 wholesale cost. Would I use deadly force to protect property? Maybe. Depends on the circumstance. Would I do it for a 12 pack of Natty Light? NO.
There is probably more to the story. Both on the sides of the store owner (why he shot), and on the sides of the police (why they arrested)
(as a Texan, I find it funny that they had to include the pronunciation of Nueces)
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
Jerry
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
HOWEVER...It's a little deeper than that....it's really not about stuff...If someone is in my house uninvited with larceny (or whatever) in mind, he was bought and paid for the minute he walked in the door...
Which is why I specified that the person would be fleeing the scene, not discovered in your home. Of course a store is different since people can enter normally.
You say "bought and paid for" but I ask, what if you first saw him as he was running down the driveway with, say, your golf clubs or a belt sander?
First, when you noted it, I realize that the "after dark" phrase has now been deleted from the law. Thanks for the correction.
I also thought the Nueces explanation was funny. They never help us with "Bexar" (pronounced via Spanish as "bear") or more helpful would be "New York", pronounced "nuu yawk".
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
Likely to steal! I think he was justified period.
AKA: Former Founding Member
Amen, me too! When you steal or kill you should have given up all rights except to trial if you survive.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
The short answer is...no. We would call the Sheriff (In spite of the fact that there is no hope of them getting here in time to do anything but take a report)....Petty thievery has a way of getting "worked out" around here. Everyone knows who the "problems" are and there aren't many of them.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
I am still unsure although I fully understand the need to make a stand and prevent theft. I'm just still a bit confused on why he was charged, despite snake's admonition of that county being goofy. I somehow think that there will be other circumstances that will come out. I dunno, really. Except that we did have a case, about 2 months ago here in Houston, where exactly the same thing happened, a thief grabbed a 12-pack and was shot by the clerk, didn't die but nevertheless the clerk was not charged and the police even said it was technically a legal shoot. And being a big city, Houston is a bit more liberal leaning than most more rural Tx counties.
If you confront him, I agree. By "confronting" I suppose I mean face to face. But if he's running away, could you backshoot him, even knowing that he's stolen, say, your chainsaw or whatever (enough property to make it a felony theft)?
I'd have to think long and hard about that one, and I kind of think that this falls, at least for me, on the "Yell and threaten but don't fire" side of the line. This is assuming that nobody was assaulted and that he poses no physical threat and that in fact he's running away at the time?
I really don't think I could shoot. I'd WANT to, but probably would not.
I can't however be the jury if there's no assault or physical harm, only theft.
About 3 years ago, we had an incident right in front of my apartment (as you all know, I'm a lowly apartment dweller)... Late night, 3am and I'm watching a DVD movie, and a huge crash out in front!
I grabbed my XD (.45) and went to the door. The upstairs neighbor gal's brand new car, parked properly along the curb, had been rear ended by a junky pickup, both vehicles of course smashed up. Everyone came out to see, and my neighbor gal shrieked when she saw her car totaled. Staggering around near the pickup was this thin young Hispanic guy, head all bloody.
He'd been driving and he got back into his truck, and amazingly it started, and he reversed and pulled free from the wreckage. Then he started to drive away.
"Stop him!" the gal yelled, "Somebody stop him!" And I stood there, loaded .45 in hand, perfectly equipped to do so. It would have been a clear easy shot, too.
But I did not. I laid my pistol inside and then waited. Cops arrived in 3-4 minutes (we've got excellent 911 response in our neighborhood) and one car took off for the guy, who was headed slowly down the street. They got him stopped about 2 blocks further, naturally the guy was falling down drunk, an illegal, no license or insurance or anything legal at all.
But here was a case where I could have prevented a felon from fleeing and did not. Because the only way to prevent his leaving would be to shoot.
And that I simply could not do. No, it wasn't my property but the idea's the same -- would you shoot someone, most likely in the back, who's fleeing from a burglary assuming that the guy had not harmed anyone and is in no way presenting a physical threat to you or yours?
I guess it depends on the brand of beer stolen.
If it was one of them 'Namby Pamby Low alcohol beers' that a 'Cheeto munchin Nancy boy' would drink...... I guess you couldn't be faulted for emptying a whole mag, reloading and doing it again.........on the basis that such an idiot needs cleaning out of the gene pool.
If however, it was a premium beer, I guess the circumstances might change......
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
at night most definitely! Thou shalt not steal, now you can go to God and talk about it.
Would I feel bad for the stupid kid, yes. Would I feel the store owner was wrong, no! I don't lie, cheat, or steal. I hold myself to those standards and think everyone else should be too. If I steal a snickers from you then you are welcome to shoot me!
AKA: Former Founding Member
Shooting someone under those circumstances can easily get you in serious trouble. The law only allows you a defense against prosecution, not carte blanche. Trevon Martin has nothing to do with it. And he was legally an adult.
I think the undertaker is going to have a harder job gearing up for an open-casket funeral if the exit wounds are on the front of the body. Oh well, he can pass the charges along to the dirt bag's family.
The long and short of it is that many places in this country have a revolving door judiciary penalty system - sell a bunch of meth, steal cars, burglarize homes, etc. . . do three weeks or so in jail. The legal system has no fangs, so if you are lucky enough to live in a place that protects THE VICTIMS of such crimes against prosecution for cleansing the gene pool, rejoice! Somebody mentioned one or another book to me at some point that contained the passage "Thou shalt not steal" - written by a bunch of goatherds, I understand. The simplicity of pastoral wisdom is not without its benefits.
I dunno. . .it seems to me that many of us have artificially inflated the value of human life in our minds to the point where we delude ourselves into seeing a huge gold bar where in fact there is nothing but a puddle of pig manure (much like many a Gunbroker auction). I find the "You can drop the hammer, but only in the absolutely, positively last extremity" mantra, and the mindset that is ingrained with it to be a bit travel-worn.
A case of beer, a Snickers, or a ten carat diamond. . . doesn't matter; if everyone enters every store with the clear understanding that you will leave with these goods only after paying in cash, credit, or blood, the world would be a far more civil place.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Ahhh someone who gets it! I love you man.
AKA: Former Founding Member
Edited to add, I think there should be a difference in this law for home vs a business.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
Pretty sure thou shall not kill is in that same book as well a vengeance is mine. Can't pick and choose the parts you like and ignore the rest.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
See my earlier comments on pig poo. Now ponder my utter indifference to the feelings of those who raised pig poo.
See also my earlier comments about motivating the criminal element - blasting the odd miscreant into giblets periodically occasionally kick-starts the brain cells of others, hopefully moving them to a state where they don't have to be blasted into giblets.
Seven BILLION of us dude. . .they're not all astronauts and curers of cancer. . .or even effective ditch-diggers.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Sure I can.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
It also says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"...does this mean it's open season on Wiccans?
Kind of on the old way of dealing with a chicken killing dog. Kill a chicken and tie it tight around the offending dog's neck. By the time the chicken has rotted off, the dog has no further love of chickens.
― Douglas Adams
I could not do that, shoot someone in the back for theft of 15cents' worth of goods. Maybe others here could do that with impunity. Not I.
And I might also end up in serious legal problems too.
Not my cuppa tea. I have assumed a pretty considerable responsibility in having a lethal weapon and I think that it's my responsibility to use or not use that weapon responsibly, and that doesn't include a "zero tolerance" attitude toward theft. We, as a society, used to cut off someone's hand for stealing a loaf of bread. Islamic extremists would still enjoy that. Again, not my cuppa tea.
Your, um, "essay" on lethal force is pretty rigid and a far too draconian for my own standards of what I think constitutes self defense. And shooting someone in the back while fleeing a petty theft doesn't rise to the occasion.
I'm not too big on burning at the stake for blasphemy, either.